Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wtc 7 And Sandero
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Debate
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
onesliceshort
I've seen a lot of threads on the towers being discussed by SanderO on this forum. Lately WTC7 has been discussed. I'm not attacking this person, just his arguments.

First, what exactly did the NIST Report claim regarding WTC7? This is crucial as the NIST Report is the official report on what did and didn't happen to this building. End of story.

Any theorizing or speculation which isn't addressed in what the NIST Report contains is irrelevant.
Any speculation which may exaggerated claims made in the NIST Report is actually a defense of this arrogant rag.

Any other approach to this report is no different to the Stutt/Legge approach to the Pentagon. None of what they claim (apart from being proven erroneous on many levels) has ever benn verified nor is it part of the official narrative. It is irrelevant.

Let's see what the NIST FAQ page claims in light of many questions raised by the report and compare what SanderO claims.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication...m?pub_id=861610

SanderO claims that fire was a factor. NIST says

QUOTE
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


QUOTE
Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.


These two videos address NIST's exaggeration and dishonesty regarding these claims (among others)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4dU_p9UTTs...be_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY...be_gdata_player

From NIST again, differentiating between the collapses of the towers and WTC7 (again emphasizing that fire was the cause of collapse.

QUOTE
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.


QUOTE
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.


Getting the hint yet?

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08 21 08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWTDTZJ_gto...be_gdata_player

SanderO claims that "fuel oil systems" contributed (exaggeratedly) to the heat and fires in the building...

NIST says..

QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


SanderO claims that "structural damage" was a factor along with the fires...

NIST says...

QUOTE
Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.


QUOTE
Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


SanderO claims that the WTC7 substations explained the explosions heard, explained the damage seen by Barry Jennings and Hess and may also have contributed (immensely) to the fires and also the explosion filmed in the lower floors just before collapse.

NIST says...

QUOTE
Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-also did not play a significant role in the collapse.


Got it?

Relevant videos:

WTC7 on 9/11 - Strange Occurrence Within the Last 20 Minutes - 03:20 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIIqKybSZE...be_gdata_player

Explosion heard just before collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ftINnhT0Y...be_gdata_player


NIST explanation of Jennings/Hess accounts:

QUOTE
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.


In other words, they're liars.

Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q...be_gdata_player

Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64...be_gdata_player

Explosion witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg...be_gdata_player

Finally, there is no physical proof that heat caused the collapse nor were any steel samples checked for explosive/exotic explosive residue.

QUOTE
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.


So the question is SanderO, if NIST has been reduced to claiming that office fires were responsible for bringing down WTC7, why would you be making exaggerated claims that actually reinforce the report in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt OCT Mark 2 approach to the Pentagon?

If your arguments and speculation are nowhere to be seen in this report they are irrelevant.
SanderO
One,

I agree with the critics of the NIST explanation that the cause was column 79 on the 12th floor. My suspicion is that the cause was on the 6th and 7th floors where the mech floors were located.. Several of the core columns of the 70 stores above from 7 were supported on transfer trusses. The Con Ed sub station was below on the lower 5 floors.

If there was a CD it was likely on floors 6 and 7.

There is testimony that Silverstein said *pull it*. The implication is that the tower was rigged to taken down with explosives and he concurred with the decision. If this is true, when was it rigged? Why was it rigged? I don't have any answers, but I have proposed some things to think about.

The sub station might have had explosions from a high voltage spike from the tower 1 which was downstream. This would to be associated with the plane strike or some other electrical problem which caused the sub station in 7 to fail and release explosive gas and ignite fires from the fuel being pumped up from the basement to the gen sets on fors 6 and 7.

Something exploded below 8 before / as Jennings and Hess climbed down the stairs. They were doing so because the elevators has no electricity I presume and they took the emergency stairs. The explosions could also be from placed charges. Regardless, I suspect there was a well ventilated fire burning in the mech floors all day. It would not be seen as the mech area was windowless... fed by huge air grilles on the north side above the loading dock.

At 5:20 the tower began to sway a bit and then the east penthouse dropped right through the entire building... followed by the weat penthouse and the entire curtain wail. The collapse of the East and West penthouse was likely the tell tale sign that the core had collapse probably from the failure of the transfer trusses and the cantilever girders under the north row of core columns.

The core collapsed and pulled the floors inward separating them from the curtain wall which collapse as one skin from the 8th floor upward down to the ground where it then began to crush and meet resistance and the acceleration stopped.

I don't think all 81 columns were destroyed at once over 8 floors at the base of the tower as AE911T seems to claim must have happened. I do think the 6th and 7th floor *failed* and the core above it came down.

I believe what we are seeing collapse is basically only the curtain wall. The floor collapse had preceded the curtain wall by a fraction of a second as they were supported on girders framed into the core. The building was gutted or hollowed out by the collapsing core and we saw the shell come down.

So I think it's conceivable that diesel fires burning all day could have led to the transfer truss failure and then to the core above it to collapse down. I don't know if there is enough heat in the diesel fuel to do this, but I suspect that the location was the mech floor. I am not convinced that this is possible but it is worthy of consideration.

How would YOU take the tower down?

Why does any theory have to accept the NIST fairy tale? I reject that office fires could cause the tower to come down. it makes no sense. It may be possible that diesel fires burning all day might weaken the steel of the transfer trusses. What happened to the diesel fuel?
onesliceshort
QUOTE (SanderO)
The sub station might have had explosions from a high voltage spike from the tower 1 which was downstream. This would to be associated with the plane strike or some other electrical problem which caused the sub station in 7 to fail and release explosive gas and ignite fires from the fuel being pumped up from the basement to the gen sets on fors 6 and 7.


Irrelevant speculation void of evidence and already rejected by the official narrative outlined in the OP.

Why do you want to create an OCT "subplot" when NIST has been backed into a corner claiming that "office fires" brought WTC7 down?

QUOTE (SanderO)
Something exploded below 8 before / as Jennings and Hess climbed down the stairs. They were doing so because the elevators has no electricity I presume and they took the emergency stairs. The explosions could also be from placed charges. Regardless, I suspect there was a well ventilated fire burning in the mech floors all day. It would not be seen as the mech area was windowless... fed by huge air grilles on the north side above the loading dock.


Again, speculation void of evidence.

NIST rejected their testimony claiming that they wouldn't have survived (ie, they are liars) and they also made the claim that "the sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building" while ignoring the multiple witnessed and recorded explosions throughout the day and not investigating exotic accelerants.

You're just creating an OCT subplot which is irrelevant if it's not contained in the official narrative on WTC7.


QUOTE (SanderO)
So I think it's conceivable that diesel fires burning all day could have led to the transfer truss failure and then to the core above it to collapse down. I don't know if there is enough heat in the diesel fuel to do this, but I suspect that the location was the mech floor. I am not convinced that this is possible but it is worthy of consideration.


Did you read my post??

Irrelevant speculation.

NIST claims

QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.


Why would you want to create an OCT subplot about "deisel fires" when NIST has been backed into a corner by claiming that "office fires" brought WTC7 down?

QUOTE (SanderO)
Why does any theory have to accept the NIST fairy tale? I reject that office fires could cause the tower to come down. it makes no sense. It may be possible that diesel fires burning all day might weaken the steel of the transfer trusses. What happened to the diesel fuel?


Who said that I accepted the "NIST fairy tale"?

A "fairy tale" that claims that "office fires" brought down WTC7?

A "fairy tale" that you want to "beef up" by increasing the heat source? The alleged structural damage?
Denying testimonies of explosions? 

As I said, an OCT subplot in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt approach to the Pentagon. Irrelevant if it's not claimed or verified by the people we are trying to investigate.

Why not concentrate on the OCT claims being addressed in the links I gave?
onesliceshort
Where was Larry Silverstein on 9/11?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScGZCqEyGM...be_gdata_player

And just to expand on Larry Silverstein. The "pull it" statement is such a circular argument that it's simply not worth it but to simply accept the government loyalist argument that "it" referred to a "firefighting contingent/operation" is grammatically illogical.

More importantly, it's allegedly a lie depending on which of the following characters is telling the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/...ero-sept-shame/

QUOTE
Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.


While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.


QUOTE
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). 
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
OSS - his decision was based on two other events that had never happened before but they weren't the only previous high rise steel structures to have caught fire. His decision was precautionary because weird shit was happening.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
OSS - A factor which NIST denied had any outcome on the collapse.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 
OSS - did he know this on 9/11?
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
OSS - no mention of fuel oil fires - office fires

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
.


He was one of the commanders who told the firefighters on the ground not to mention the explosions?

In his interview with WeAreChange:

QUOTE
I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it. - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander on 9/11)


Then of course we know that the media was informed of the collapse/imminent collapse of WTC7 not "3 hours" before the collapse but minutes.

BBC World News Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx4p9pUREZ8...be_gdata_player


CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0...be_gdata_player


WTC 7 Prior Knowledge - Firefighters Said 'Imminent Collapse' ... It Has Happened WCBS Live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5bqMn0aq64...be_gdata_player


My solution? Subpoena all of these people. See who's the last one standing.

Who informed the media and how was their prediction so accurate?
Who was the reporter allegedly talking to about Silverstein?
Who, if anybody, was Silverstein talking to?
mrmitosis
"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
"

Very interesting, Slice. I never knew anything about Shapiro, or the above quote, prior to reading your post.

In my opinion - it's a hunch more than anything - Silverstein's comment (to "pull it") was planned, calculated, and deliberately ambiguous. It was framed in such a way that it would attract attention from 9/11 Truth only to be debunked at a later stage. Similar to Rumsfeld and Bush's slips of the tongue regarding missiles hitting the Pentagon and explosives taking down the Twin Towers.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. There's no wriggling out of it for Silverstein. Aside from all the other evidence that implicates him in this plot, his remarks just make him look even more like Gonzo.
SanderO
Larry could ask his insurance company for a reading on a CD but there are no controlled demolitions permitted in the NYC and the insurance company would know that... and Silverstein should have known it as well.

There is so much fog here. I imagine that Silverstein was advised that the building was a write off because of the extensive fire. Who know how they could tell that the foundations were damaged. I think that sort of assessment was NOT made on 9/11. I don't know bow that would have been done under the circumstances.

On the other hand if the sub station was severely damaged as I suspect, and there were extensive fires and damage to the mech floors above the substation AND the key structural elements supporting the columns for the office floors above... even if the fires extinguished themselves... that would have been one scary building to try to rehab or take down. Maybe they did think that after 1 and 2 came down from what they believed to be fires AFTER surviving the plane impacts that 7 could likewise collapse.

It certainly hasn't been proven that office fires could destroy the twin towers and the case for office fires and 7 is even thinner.

I'm thinking NIST was covering up something about thew damage on the mech floors. Why? I think they wanted to pin it on fires and not discuss the whacked out design decision to build atop the sub station which could make the PANYNY and the engineers liable for a E&O lawsuit big time. So they came up with typical pesky office fires on a typical floor which was pure hooey.

I think that in both thw twins and 7 there was some liability on the part of the designers for their unorthodox structural design. Everyone seemed to be covering for the profession including the ASCE.. AIA and so forth..because they all had promoted how brilliant the design was... and they'd all have goo on their faces and that wouldn't look to good. So it was blame it on fires and sweep it under the rug.

Now this doesn't matter if it was a few bombs (I think it wouldn't take many) or totally out of control very hot fires... the structure were mucho vulnerable to collapsing like a house of cards ONCE conditions were met. That HAD to be hidden from the public.

Just sayin'
onesliceshort
QUOTE (mrmitosis)
In my opinion - it's a hunch more than anything - Silverstein's comment (to "pull it") was planned, calculated, and deliberately ambiguous. It was framed in such a way that it would attract attention from 9/11 Truth only to be debunked at a later stage. Similar to Rumsfeld and Bush's slips of the tongue regarding missiles hitting the Pentagon and explosives taking down the Twin Towers.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. There's no wriggling out of it for Silverstein. Aside from all the other evidence that implicates him in this plot, his remarks just make him look even more like Gonzo.


Yeah, I think there are a lot of smoke and mirrors involved in this scenario. But, there's something suspect about this journalist (who is a fervent Bushite) openly making this claim. And the whore media turning a blind eye to it.

All I know is that the foreknowledge of its collapse has never been satisfactorily explained. And that he lied.

LMAO @ "gonzo" biggrin.gif
hdog
Well put oneslice. Only the NIST reports matter.
onesliceshort
SanderO, I actually agree that NIST's acquiescence to the OCT may have been bought on this premise (for the ambitious underlings, brown noses and the rest who worked backwards towards a desired conclusion) but they've claimed that office fires alone brought down the structure.

They didn't use any steel samples, didn't investigate the use of exotic accelerants, lied about the shear studs, exaggerated temperatures, denied witnesses who were inside the building and out, lied about audible and visual explosions, etc.

They released a 10,000 page report and gave 3 weeks for a response. Their report contains scores of names but those people were only involved in studying subsegments.

WTC7 needs to be kept simple. Office fires. End of story. If you or others want to dissect every nut and bolt and "crack the case", you're wasting your time. I don't think we will last another ten years. So why try to complicate matters when the argument is very simple. Could office fires bring down this structure?

Not trying to bust your balls but "fuel fires", "structural damage" and the "substation" are irrelevant.
It's just like those, like Stutt and Legge, who claim there are "extra seconds" on the FDR of "Flight 77". An unverified OCT friendly subplot. Irrelevant.
Or those, like Sarns and apparently Gage who was "influenced" by him, who believe in "NOC impact". Irrelevant.
onesliceshort
QUOTE (hdog @ Mar 7 2012, 04:08 AM) *
Well put oneslice. Only the NIST reports matter.


Thanks hdog.

It' bizarre envisaging somebody marching up to NIST and demanding answers as to how office fires could bring down WTC7......"but don't forget the fuel oil fires, structural damage, possible substation explosions from transformers..and uh...never mind.."
mrmitosis
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 6 2012, 09:54 PM) *
LMAO @ "gonzo" biggrin.gif


Is it politically incorrect to point out that Silverstein is as ugly as the sins he is guilty of? happy.gif

Notice how Shapiro goes out of his way to rehearse a narrative in which controlled demolition was CONSIDERED, and then - in the next breath - explains that he personally never heard or witnessed any indication whatsoever that CD actually HAPPENED. In between, he manages to outline the MERITS of this hypothetical controlled demolition, and how it could have saved lives along with other garbage. In the meantime, he omits to explain just HOW a building could be rigged for destruction within 7 or 8 hours of the initial plane strikes, even though (presumably) he regards this as REALISTIC and ACHIEVABLE under the time constraints...otherwise, why would Silverstein be discussing this type of plan with his insurance company and/or the New York authorities?

So, Shapiro congratulates Silverstein for THINKING ABOUT the practically impossible task of rigging the building for destruction, GLOSSES OVER the fact that the lease owner psychically ANTICIPATED that the building would fall in the manner of a CD anyway, and then BERATES any 9/11 Truther who might consider this set of circumstances as rather strange.

Poor Shapiro - such a confused individual!
mrmitosis
Double-up-agous.
onesliceshort
Shapiro also claims that the WTC7 collapse was "quiet".

QUOTE
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.


Even if you ignore the multiple explosion witnesses just as/before the structure collapsed..

Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8...be_gdata_player

...you still have Shapiro actually trying to say that tons of steel falling to the ground was "quiet".

There's also the matter of discussions on record in the area of "covert demolition" being discussed at the 2001 symposium of the American Chemical Society.

QUOTE
At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

...

The feature of "impulse management" may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.
In other words these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops of conventional demolitions.


Speculation I know, but the technology was there.


SanderO
That would on the order of 200,000 tons falling to the ground quietly? ha???
KP50
Thanks to OSS for pinning down SanderO on his relentless evidence-free speculation. It needed doing.
hdog
QUOTE (KP50 @ Mar 19 2012, 08:55 AM) *
Thanks to OSS for pinning down SanderO on his relentless evidence-free speculation. It needed doing.


What happened when the calculations of the FDR didn't support a pull-up at the Pentagon? The government loyalists came up with their own flight paths. Similar thing with SanderO.
elreb
QUOTE (KP50 @ Mar 18 2012, 09:55 PM) *
Thanks to OSS for pinning down SanderO on his relentless evidence-free speculation. It needed doing.

On the most respectful of terms…"OSS" is right
SanderO
OSS,

Are you supporting NIST's report and claims about WTC 7?

I do not find the column 79 failure they describe as plausible .. caused by failure of shear studs and the thermal expansion of a girder which walked off the beam seat leaving the column unbraced. Ha?? Rubbish I say.

Heat DOES weaken steel.

The theory about the collapse of bldg 7 is speculation. But it is based on features of the design and the observations of the actually collapse.

1. The core from flr 8 was supported by 3 transfer trusses which were on floors 6 & 7
2. The row of columns at the north facade were supported by cantilever girders, again on floor 6.
3. The core columns above floor and the row of columns inside the north facade did not have a direct axial load path to the foundations because the Con Edison sub station was *in the way*
4. WTC 7 was NOT in the least bit a conventional high rise frame. That is a false statement by NIST. It was similar in a sense to the twin towers in that it had long span column free floors... though they were not supported by light weight trusses. a *conventional* high rise frame has a grid of columns usually about 25'x25'
5. Heat will affect the strength of steel making it weaker, which is why steel has fire protection applied to it... to provide a period of time to fight the fires and for occupants to escape.
6. The con ed sub station at the bottom of WTC 7 went off line at 8:46 am the precise moment of the plane strike in tower 1. Here is the Con Ed Report:

"UNCLASSIFIED
Commission Sensitive
There were two substations in WTC 7 building, serving the twin towers, and one
substation by the South Street Seaport. A total of eight 13 kW feeders were located at the
WTC.

Timeline on 911112001:
08:46 a.m. Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
09:02 a.m. Two additional WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW went off
09:52 a.m. Four additional open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
10:28 a.m. Status: '
Cortlandt 8 of 15 feeders were off
Battery Park City 6 of 8 feeders were off
Bowling Green 6 of 16 feeders were off
Park Place 1 of 12 feeders were off

Con Ed can lose any 2 feeders, and not lose a network grid. It is very expensive to make this investment and have such a robust system. The NYSE was located in the Bowling Green network. Since all 8 feeders were lost prior to WTC South tower falling, it was possible the lights had gone out before. However, the Port Authority controlled the
equipment in the towers and Con Ed did not know exactly what happened inside the towers. They did have maps of the towers and were prepared to help the Port Authority in the event they were needed."

When the sub station went down, it was likely due to high voltage spikes which cause explosions in the transformers

Exploding sub station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDCS8xeobg
Transformer explosions
"Transformer and oil-filled high voltage equipment may give rise to very strong explosions. A severe electrical fault inside the transformer may well generate pressure that the transformer casing cannot withstand, such that it ruptures. Due to the high temperature and energy released from the arc, the insulating oil will decompose and highly explosive gas mixtures will result (mainly Hydrogen and Acetylene). Upon transformer rupture, gas and oil mist will be ejected to the surrounding area, mix with air and a secondary explosion may occur. If transformers are located indoors or in subterranean stations the pressure loads can amount to more than a bar overpressure. In subterranean stations pressure waves may propagate through tunnels and corridors without weakening and pressure loads can become substantial in areas located far away from the actual explosion."

7. The mech floors above the sub station contained the aforementioned transfer trusses, cantilever girders as well as emergency generators powered by diesel from day tanks on those floors replenished from the 20,000 gallon tanks in the basement. No diesel was recovered from the 20,000 gallon tank. it leaked or burned and likely burned as it was pumped up to floors 6 & 7 where is possibly spilled and was burning as a result of the fires from the transformer explosions below in the sub station. The fires on floors 6 & 7 burned for 7 hrs... way more than the typical 2 hrs fire rating of sprayed on fire protection even if it wasn't dislodged.

8. Barry Jennings went up to the EMC on for 23 to find it empty. He and Hess then decided to abandon it as it was unmanned and they assumed that there had been a decision to leave it. The power was off as of 8:46 am. They then decided to leave but the elevators were not working and took the stairs. When they reached just above floor 8 they witnessed explosions below them. The emergency stairs were located within the core. These were likely explosions from the Con Ed substation or on the mech floors 6 & 7 just below their location. This was BEFORE tower 1 collapsed at about 10:15.

9. Whatever fires there were, were un fought all day, as the water mains were destroyed at 8:46 and the sprinkler system could not pump water up into the building's pressurized system.

10. The east penthouse was the first visible sign (to the naked eye) that the tower was coming down. It can be seen to descend right down through the entire visible part of the tower (east part of the core) by the pressure pulse observed in the windows right down the tower.

11. The FDNY and the DOB most likely advised evacuation as they were aware of the fires on floors 6 and 7 which were well supplied by massive air intake grilles on the north side... burning all day cooking the transfer trusses and girders. When a building is likely to collapse they evacuate the area. They did. The tower collapsed. Good call.

10. Immediately after the east penthouse disappears, the West penthouse dropped through the building. It was above the West side of the core.

11. Before the facade descended there is evidence that the core was no longer there (9 and 10 above).

12. Observations of the curtain wall's descent.. the famous 100 feet (8 stories) at free fall show an pronounced inward bowing of the north facade (curtain wall). This was not a dipping of the center.. or the center of the curtain wall collapsing ahead of the east and west sides as that would have caused the window frames to distort and shatter the glass. The glass does not break and so the facade was bowing inward at the frame to frame connections. Inward bowing is only possible if there was noting behind the center of the facade. And it is therefore likely that the collapsing core had pulled the perimeter columns inward along with the spandrel beams and broke the relatively weak bolts and clips which held the light weight curtain wall to the frame.

13. It likely that what we see coming down (at FF for 100') was JUST the curtain wall. It likely that the curtain wall below floor 8 along with the structure below floor 8 had collapsed into the largely open Con Ed sub station... when the transfer trusses gave way and the core above dropped right on the sub station and to the ground. The curtain wall then dropped with no resistance for 100 feet... 8 stories at FF until it hit the ground and decelerated.

The above is a speculative theory.

What is the significance of this and why did NIST not come up with this explanation (assuming it was true)? I suspect it was because the design was *insane*... innovative... and in retrospect vulnerable to a global collapse if the sub station exploded... from any cause. Therefore this theory would open up the developers, the engineers, architects and builders and the DOB to a negligence lawsuit (similar for the design of the twins). High rise buildings are not supposed to collapse like a house of cards and with Bldg 7 all the money was on the integrity of the 3 transfer trusses and the 8 cantilever girders. That's kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket. It wasn't a column failure, or shear studs... it was a failure of those transfer trusses and girders. And there was nothing *typical* about them in any high rise building. In fact, this was equivalent to building a 40 story high rise on a bridge span.

NIST engaged in a cover up of the facts about the design and the likely cause of collapse to protect the designers and engineers and to bolster the fire caused by the hijacked plane damage of tower 1. The fire damage from the collapse of tower 1's falling debris had nothing to do with the collapse of building 7. The voltage spike caused by the plane strike did. But that would expose the hair brained design of the WTC.

William Rodriguez experience an explosion an instant before the plane strike below him in the sub basement of tower 1. This was also caused by the plane and the voltage spike travels at the speed of light and the sound from the plane impact took slightly over 1 second to reach him as it travels at 1180 ft/sec through air. He heard the plane a second after it struck... but the explosion at the moment of impact! There were 8 sub stations in each tower... including in the sub basement.

Plans of WTC 7 can be seen here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fema_report.html

This theory matched the observations and the structural information. If you find a problem with it. Please identify it.
Tamborine man
The 'non-fakery people' will of course claim this video to be "real".

The 'fakery people' will claim that this video could possibly be "real"

or possibly be "unreal" - until more corroboration comes to light.


In the meantime, i'll sit smugly on the fence on this one, recalling

these wise words:

'A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.

No - not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively sitting there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.'





Cheers
SanderO
When a steel structure comes down, you have to destroy the steel... cut it, melt it (weaken it) destroy the connections of the frame members so that the frame loses integrity... undo (if possible...the connections)... or explode enough of the structure so the remaining structure does not have the sufficient strength to support the entire building or structure.

AE911T asserts that all 81 columns had to be destroyed over 8 floors instantaneously to account for the observation of the 2.25 second 100 feet free descent of the building seen on the videos. While this could cause a similar observable... it hardly makes sense. Such demolition would be so loud... 81 columns x 4 (the columns were 2 stories each = 324 explosions all at once. Be real... this was not observed. 324 silent cutter charges all completing their cuts at precisely the same instant without any movement as they sut the cross sections of the columns smaller and smaller.... weakening them? I don't think so.

How did they cut explode the 57 perimeter columns just inside the glass line without severely damaging the curtain wall?

Most likely the collapse involved some sort of progression of weakening of the structure (axial support) which eroded the FOS to below one. As long as the aggregate FOS remain above 1 the structure had enough yield strength to support itself and the loads on the floors. The process of FOS erosion could involved any number of factors or any combination of them.

In the case of the twin towers there was some level of destruction of the axial load path (columns) from the plane impacts. Not so for bldg 7 which was not struck by a plane and falling tower 1 debris did not appear to destroy any columns .

Bldg 7's demise was at 5:20 pm almost 8 hrs after the WTC event began.

AE911T considers the event a collapse... one caused by explosion demolition, but a collapse never the less. Unlike the twin towers they do NOT claim its 45,000 tons of concrete slab floors were exploded in mid air. But they also don't explain how a collapse would cause all the concrete to be ground to grit sized *dust* (it wasn't really dust size particles and bits) If the 81 steel columns were *taken out* simultaneously at 5:20 over 4 floors... the collapse that ensued created the debris signature seen... a pile of steel beams and columns from the collapsed frame and the crushed contents... but few to no slab sections recognizable as such. When such huge buildings collapse the slabs and contents apparently are crushed up to fine sized particulates.

AE911T also bases their frame demolition claim on the illogical statement that the evidence of such is not there because it was all removed. How convenient!... You can't see evidence of the crime because the criminals removed it. But trust me.. it was there. That's hardly better than belief in the tooth fairy.

OSS tries to equate my theory of heat weakening with the heat from the office contents fires seen ranging around the OFFICE floors well above the sub station and the mech floors on 6 & 7. NIST completely side steps this area for some unstated reason... which I believe was because they were actively covering up one of the potential (and in my opinion likely) causes of the collapse - 7 hour diesel fires on the mech floors cooking the transfer trusses and the cantilever girder, which undermined the entire core at the level of floor 8.

There is no dispute that heated steel has a lower yield strength than room temp steel. Therefore the question is was there sufficient heating of some key structural elements to cause a progressive failure? A truss is the first place to look. If one truss *panel* fails... for whatever reason... the entire truss will fail very rapidly as loads are redistributed to remaining truss panels which are overwhelmed. If the 3 trusses let go, a very rapid progression of failures will occur and the core above will have no axial support.

The fuel load appears to have been not office contents, but 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel pumped up to floor 6&7 where these trusses were located. I am asserting that one consider that this fuel burned for 7+ hours slowly eroding the yield strength of the steel of the transfer truss panels to the point of failure. It seems plausible to me that this would be sufficient heat to do the job. It even could have been done intentionally... perhaps... one explosion to create a breech in the fuel system... ignite the fuel pouring continuously onto the floor and wait... I suspect it was not and was a result of explosions in the sub station below. And this goes to what I believe NIST was doing with their idiotic report... covering up for the flawed design... building a tower on a huge substation and supporting it on 3 transfer trusses. Yes it was likely fire that caused this tower to come down. But it was like no other high rise steel frame... And the fires were precisely in the vulnerable region. A walked off beam would not collapse the entire tower, but a failed transfer truss would.

It might be argued that the sub station explosions alone did not take the trusses out. This is true. It took the 20,000 gallons of fuel which was pumped up there emergency power to burn for 7 hours. That was a Guiliani decision associated with his (and his advisers) insistence that the EMC center be in that building. That may have been the stray that broke the camel's back. You didn't see that decision come under scrutiny after the collapse? Hell no... it was office fires!

This theory makes the NIST report and the OCT a cover up...but not the same one as many are asserting it to be. It does however go back to the plane strikes of tower 1 as being the first of several dominos to fall. The sub station may have been a predicted outcome of a plane strike by those who flew the plane into tower 1. I would find it hard to believe. it's predictable in hindsight or what a forensic analysis is about.

The collapse of the WTC exposed the hubris, greed and insane decisions associated with those designs... in my opinion reveals incompetence and negligence of PANY, the engineers and builders of the project and the architects and the DOB which allowed those ticking time bombs to be built and inhabited by people... who trusted officials and professionals to perform due diligence and care with respect to life safety issues in buildings.

"A building code, or building control, is a set of rules that specify the minimum acceptable level of safety for constructed objects such as buildings and nonbuilding structures. The main purpose of building codes are to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures..."

Who failed to protect the public with those designs?
kawika
QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 14 2012, 03:53 AM) *
The 'non-fakery people' will of course claim this video to be "real".

The 'fakery people' will claim that this video could possibly be "real"

or possibly be "unreal" - until more corroboration comes to light.


In the meantime, i'll sit smugly on the fence on this one, recalling

these wise words:

'A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.

No - not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively sitting there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.'





Cheers


Penthouse is on the west side. Reversed video, flashes added. Total rrrrrrrrrrrubbish.

A very poor attempt to generate hits at YouTube.
paranoia
the original poster of the original version of that video is a user here at this forum, check here for discussion about the clip:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21634

unfortunately he never adequately explained where the video came from or how he got it, so its authenticity and its exact intent remain a mystery. and as kawika has pointed out, the video itself contains inconsistencies that make it suspect, so its clear that at the very least the video/audio was manipulated and or doctored.
SanderO
OSS...

You can read up on the analysis of the collapse of WT 7 here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/science-...-15.html#p18853
kawika
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

Con-ED

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.
23investigator
QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 17 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

Con-ED

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.


Dear 'kawika'.

Thankyou for your post,

It certainly puts a sense of proportion on the situation, the superb 'human effort', to rectify it.
There would have been many courageous acts performed in that achievment.

As you have expressed it does seem from the report that power was maintained upto 'building 7', until it was elected to disconnect it.

Robert S
23investigator
QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 17 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

Con-ED

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.


Dear 'kawika'.

Thankyou for your post,

It certainly puts a sense of proportion on the situation, the superb 'human effort', to rectify it.
There would have been many courageous acts performed in that achievment.

As you have expressed, it does seem from the report that power was maintained upto 'building 7', until it was elected to disconnect it.

Robert S
SanderO
Not exactly.

Con Ed was not responsible for power to Bldg. The report is silent on why the 13kv feeders went down but Con Ed does have the ability to re route power feeds with up to 2 sub stations down.

There were reported explosions at the lobby level right after the first plane struck. The lobby was 6 stories high and just south of the sub station. If those reports are accurate... the cause of those explosions has to be established.

Further the entire sub station didn't have to fail or explode to do serious damage as happened in the explosions in the sub basement sub stations of tower 1 in 1992.

I wouldn't put it past Con Edison to not report accurately what happened inside that sub station... especially if their equipment contributed to the collapse of the tower... you don't expect them to come out and take responsibility for that... especially when the official explanation (which was pure hooey) was that fires above flr 13 at column 79 did it.

What sort of evidence is there that THAT sub station was not damaged and did not have some equipment explode after the plane strike but before tower 1's collapse and was kicking out it's normal amount of electricity to the grid?

Ay one point in the report it states that at 10:40 am the only location in lower Manhattan without power was the WTC complex... but in another paragraph they state that they shut the power to WTC 7 at 4:15. They state they have no control of the power within the complex and had no knowledge of what was going on. The report is obviously meant to say as little as possible ... and was mostly about the restoration of power not the loss of the sub station on 9/11.

Even the Con Edison report cited shows that the were several 13KV feeders were going down that morning... beginning at 8:46. Why were they gong down?

You tell me...
kawika
QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 14 2012, 11:10 PM) *
There were reported explosions at the lobby level right after the first plane struck. The lobby was 6 stories high and just south of the sub station. If those reports are accurate... the cause of those explosions has to be established.


Please show us the testimony about WTC7 lobby explosions. I have never heard of this after reading many first responder accounts after arriving at WTC7.


QUOTE
What sort of evidence is there that THAT sub station was not damaged and did not have some equipment explode after the plane strike but before tower 1's collapse and was kicking out it's normal amount of electricity to the grid?


There are no photos of fires in the substation. Given that there were many videos and photos taken around the north side of the station, you would expect to see evidence of a fire if one had occurred.

QUOTE
Ay one point in the report it states that at 10:40 am the only location in lower Manhattan without power was the WTC complex... but in another paragraph they state that they shut the power to WTC 7 at 4:15. They state they have no control of the power within the complex and had no knowledge of what was going on.


WTC7 was not within the complex. It was a separate system from WTC7, that is why WTC7 was on all day and could be shut down independently at 4:15.

QUOTE
Even the Con Edison report cited shows that the were several 13KV feeders were going down that morning... beginning at 8:46. Why were they gong down?


How about they were being attacked before or just as the planes were striking the towers, like William Rodriguez testified? But this thread is about WTC7 substation transformers, not about the transformers at WTC1 and 2.

You have theorized that the demise of WTC7 was due to some activity in the WTC7 substation. Please stay focused upon that.
SanderO
There are absence of photos of the sub station means nothing. There are many things at the site which have no photos that day. People were not going around the site with the cameras taking pics of everything. No photos of any of the mech floors of the twin twin towers... no photos of the sub basement refrigeration plant. And so on. No photos doesn't mean X didn't take place.


kawika... your theory is that someone set off bombs to take the various feeders off line just as the plane struck? And what would be the purpose of that?

WTC 7 was certainly part of the complex.

Jennings and the FDNY I believe stated there were sounds of explosions in the bottom of WTC 7 early in the morning.

I offered an explanation as to what Rodriguez heard. I can't know for sure, but it makes sense and needs to be considered and looked into perhaps.

1. He was in one of the sub basements when the plane struck. He couldn't see it but if he heard it as he claims, it would have taken 1. 3 seconds for the sound of the plane strike to reach him.

2. He claims to have heard a large explosion just before he heard the plane strike coming from below him in sub basement which house transformers for the electrical system... the same system that had exploded in 1992.

3. Transformers can and do explode from voltage spikes and electricity travels at speed of light and so a voltage spike caused by the plane severing main electric risers to the sub station on the 108th flr would cause a short, a voltage spike with could explode equipment in the sub basement at the instant of the plane strike. It also exploded transformers on flr 108 at the moment of the plane strike. Look at the video.

4. the sub station in bldg 7 supplies power to the sub station in tower 1 and 2 and the rest of the complex and other areas in downtown Manhattan. There are several transformers in it. Con Edison has the ability to re route power if sub stations go offline... up to 2 of them.

5. The fact that they were supplying power TO the sub station for re routing does not mean that the sub station was OK. In fact, it likely means that it wasn't. And at 4:15 when the FDNY had concluded that the building was a goner they cut the power going in

6. Jennings and Hess claimed that when the reached floor 6 /7 they experienced a massive explosion below them... which could only be IN THE Con Edison sub station. This was BEFORE tower 1 fell. This means that explosives were planted inside the sub station or that the sub station was experiencing explosions from voltage spikes and shorts.

7. Regardless of the cause of those pre tower 1 collapse... they caused massive damage and certainly could have stated fires on floors 6 & & where there were diesel day tanks. If the blast was as powerful as Hess claimed... this is a distinct possibility. CD buffs will claim these were from placed explosives. I am suggesting the explosions were from equipment failures and caused by voltage spikes which came from tower 1. Kawika do you understand how electricity works?

8. I have provided examples of exploding transformers. There were 2 in tower 1's sub basement in 92. These transformers are oil cooled, but the oil is flammable and explosive. It's certainly likely that it did explode.

9. No you couldn't see the fires or the equipment within the sub station because there were no windows! In fact, have you seen any photos of that sub station?

I offered a coherent theory consistent with observations of the collapse of the tower and the witness reports... and the Con Edison report of lost feeders that morning beginning at 8:46. Even AE911T claims the tower collapsed. The difference is I have identified where the collapse was initiated and what was a possible and I believe likely cause.

Of course AE911T (Gage) goes on about 81 columns being destroyed simultaneously over 8 floors to explain the free fall observation of 100 feet.

I offer the more plausible explanation supported by the evidence of movement of the tower for 60 seconds BEFORE any collapse of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders failing and then then core dropping right through the building. The East penhouse sat 41 stories above and was supported by one of those transfer trusses. LOOK AT THE PLANS. The East penthouse came down before the facade/curtain wall did. it can be seen to descend all the way down through the building before the facade/curtain wall begins to descend. Then the West penthouse which was over the other 2 transfer trusses descends. THEN the facade curtain wall comes down.

The was a massive ejections of smoke from the NW corner of the mech at 6&7 floors just before descent

The north facade/curtain wall shows pronounced inward bowing as it is descending. This can ONLY mean that the curtain wall had nothing behind it to hold it in a fixed plane. The floors and spandrels and structure behind the facade/curtain wall was gone by the time you see it descending.

The north facade/curtain wall was supported a row of columns and spandrel beams bearing on the cantilever girders in floors 6&7 41 floors below. A good hypothesis of the inward bowing is that those columns and spandrels were gone by the time that the north facade / curtain wall is dropping.

The clocked free fall descent was over a period of about 100' or 8 stories. This is the elevation of the top of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders which were within floors 6&7 mech floors. There were few columns below because the sub station was 5 stories tall. If the transfer trusses and the cantilever trusses failed it would leave an 8 story high unsupported core.

If the structure on 7&7 failed and collapsed down through the sub station... it would certainly could pull the perimeter columns and spandrels inward separating it from the facade/curtain wall. Why?

The facade curtain wall was attached to and rested on angle clips bolted to the spandrels which spanned from perimeter column to perimeter column. The spandrel to column connection was obviously much stronger than the facade /curtain wall to spandrel connections. Curtain walls are named appropriately. They are light weight and non structural and literally "hang" off the framed providing a weather barrier. It's conceivable that the facade /curtain wall connections failed at floors 6&7 as the structure on those floors plunged down through the sub station. In so doing the structure took with it the facade/curtain wall up to floor 8 with it at it collapsed inward... leaving nothing below the facade/curtain wall from floor 8 up... no resistance to slow it's fall.

It's possible that some of the columns on the east and west and perhaps the south perimeter and the spandrels were still connected to the facade curtain wall... but that only the north row went down with the core because of the cantilever girders having failed on floors 6&7. If this was the case it would leave the facade/curtain wall unsupported on the north side and it would be able to bow inward as seen.

Whatever the cause of the collapse... the explanation must match the observables. CD is not an observation. CD is a means to cause a collapse by failing key structural members and then the rest of the structure drops driven by gravity after a progression of failures consumes all the safety factor or reserve strength of the structure and no alternate load paths exist for load redistribution to the foundations. The theory of the failure of the key structural elements - transfer trusses and cantilever girders on the mech floors 6&7 is entire consistent which such a collapse and the observables on that day.

What's your theory?
kawika
QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 15 2012, 06:54 AM) *
There are absence of photos of the sub station means nothing. There are many things at the site which have no photos that day. People were not going around the site with the cameras taking pics of everything.


I disagree. There are many photos of the substation and none show evidence of fire there. People were going around taking pictures of everything. Here are the names of people who took photos/videos of the north face of WTC7: George Miller, Vince Dementri, Shawn Hutchinson, Erik Freeland, Shepard Sherbell, NYPD, NYFD, Terry Schmidt and others still unidentified.


QUOTE
kawika... your theory is that someone set off bombs to take the various feeders off line just as the plane struck? And what would be the purpose of that?


Off subject, we are talking about WTC7. But to put forth a theory, how about to disable elevators and other electrical infrastructure? I am not saying transformers were affected, you did.

QUOTE
WTC 7 was certainly part of the complex.


I disagree. WTC7 was built in 1985, 14 years after the towers. It was outside the bathtub. It was privately developed/owned by Silverstein. There is no evidence that WTC7 was affected by the power outages at the towers.

QUOTE
Jennings and the FDNY I believe stated there were sounds of explosions in the bottom of WTC 7 early in the morning.


Yes, he did testify about experiencing an explosive event on the sixth floor landing, which means it may have come from below on the 5th floor. This is all we know at this time. Help us discover the rest of the story. Again, what does this have to do with a transformer explosion at the WTC7 substation, that you have so far not shown any evidence of?

QUOTE
I offered an explanation as to what Rodriguez heard. I can't know for sure, but it makes sense and needs to be considered and looked into perhaps.

1. He was in one of the sub basements when the plane struck. He couldn't see it but if he heard it as he claims, it would have taken 1. 3 seconds for the sound of the plane strike to reach him.

2. He claims to have heard a large explosion just before he heard the plane strike coming from below him in sub basement which house transformers for the electrical system... the same system that had exploded in 1992.


Are there transformers in the basement of the towers? I don't know. Again, off the WTC7 substation topic. If there are, show us some plans or something to make your case. But you should start another thread, for Towers Transformer discussion.



QUOTE
3. Transformers can and do explode from voltage spikes and electricity travels at speed of light and so a voltage spike caused by the plane severing main electric risers to the sub station on the 108th flr would cause a short, a voltage spike with could explode equipment in the sub basement at the instant of the plane strike. It also exploded transformers on flr 108 at the moment of the plane strike. Look at the video.


Regarding severed feeders in the core, Richard Huemann says otherwise. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE



QUOTE
4. the sub station in bldg 7 supplies power to the sub station in tower 1 and 2 and the rest of the complex and other areas in downtown Manhattan. There are several transformers in it. Con Edison has the ability to re route power if sub stations go offline... up to 2 of them.

5. The fact that they were supplying power TO the sub station for re routing does not mean that the sub station was OK. In fact, it likely means that it wasn't. And at 4:15 when the FDNY had concluded that the building was a goner they cut the power going in


How does it likely mean it was not OK? Show us some evidence of a fire or explosion in the WTC7 substation.

QUOTE
6. Jennings and Hess claimed that when the reached floor 6 /7 they experienced a massive explosion below them... which could only be IN THE Con Edison sub station. This was BEFORE tower 1 fell. This means that explosives were planted inside the sub station or that the sub station was experiencing explosions from voltage spikes and shorts.


The explosion Jennings experienced could have come from the mechanical room on floor #5. The substation was floors one through three. One more time, show us some evidence that there was any abnormality at the substation.

QUOTE
7. Regardless of the cause of those pre tower 1 collapse... they caused massive damage and certainly could have stated fires on floors 6 & & where there were diesel day tanks. If the blast was as powerful as Hess claimed... this is a distinct possibility.


The diesel tanks have already been discounted by NIST. How do diesel tanks relate to transformer explosions? Jennings himself discounts the diesel tanks for what he experienced. The FDNY said there is no evidence of dark smoke indicating a diesel fire. SanderO, get back on the subject.


QUOTE
CD buffs will claim these were from placed explosives. I am suggesting the explosions were from equipment failures and caused by voltage spikes which came from tower 1. Kawika do you understand how electricity works?


I do not know how high voltage transformers work, but I would guess they have this problem of exploding transformers pretty well worked out by now. I do have eyes and I do not see any evidence of fire, smoke or explosion from the substation.

QUOTE
There were few columns below because the sub station was 5 stories tall.


The substation was three stories tall. The third floor lobby of WTC7 was on top of the substation. That is where the escalators rose to.
SanderO
SanderO
SanderO
kawika
What happened? Post 32, 33, 34, vacant.

Please show us some evidence to back up bare assertions.
SanderO
I have no idea...

My theory... a theory is based on observables and bits and pieces I know about the structure. and some witness testimony.

I can't see inside the mech floors nor the sub station so I can't prove what was going on there... nor can anyone else without evidence... such as photos taken during the day of 9/11.

If photos of an intact sub station on 9/11 exist... be my guest... post them

I believe that NIST has made errors and more like deceived us with bogus *work*. I think what they produced in the end for both towers amount to a *deception" or a cover up... and likely not incompetence as they have many qualified engineers and scientist who could do the work that I have done 100 times better and the same applies for the work of those at the 911 Free Forums. That they didn't get it right AND that with b7 they took so long (to get it wrong) AND it doesn't resemble the collapse (their FEA animation is a joke!) leads me to believe that they intended to hide the real explanation. Some will say it was because they real deal was CD.

I am theorizing that they were hiding the stupid design and the decisions to build a tower of the sub station with all the fuel stored on site.

I don't think Con Ed wants to take any responsibility for the equipment blowing can causing the fires (to the diesel fuel) which cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't think Guiliani et al (Hauer) who pushed for the EMC to be there with the back up generators and the fuel stored on site wants to be responsible for that decision

I don't the think the NYC planning and zoning board, and the DOB want to be held responsible for approving the construction of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't the think the PANYNY (developers and orginal owners) want to be held responsible for developing an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't the think the Emery Roth & Sons (architects I believe) and probably the same engineers, John Skilling and Les Robertson want to be held responsible for design the structure of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I think a lot of people did not want these decisions scrutinized and have to explain their decisions.... and what I believe amounts to negligence.

So blame it on office fires and the falling tower caused the the plane hijackers... or give all the aforementioned a pass and blame it on some bombs... and hang on to the MIHOP theories and let the creeps off the creeps mentioned off the hook.
SanderO
QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 22 2012, 10:20 PM) *
What happened? Post 32, 33, 34, vacant.

Please show us some evidence to back up bare assertions.


I am not going to go into an online back and forth debate sniping quotes and so forth. I put forth a thesis and it's as coherent at the CD ones which have less "evidence". Take it or leave it.

My interest in 9/11 is to get a new investigation. I can't do it from my desk top computer... And I have no interest in that. I can see mistakes made by others and point them out... on various forums. I am not infallible and only an architect... with only so much time and limited technical experience.

I provided my reasoning... that's about as much as you'll get. If you don't feel it's worthy of pursuit or interest... ignore it and like many others label me an dis info agent or a NIST shill. I don't care because neither of these labels is true.

Have a nice day.
kawika
QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 21 2012, 05:21 PM) *
I have no idea...

My theory... a theory is based on observables and bits and pieces I know about the structure. and some witness testimony.

I can't see inside the mech floors nor the sub station so I can't prove what was going on there... nor can anyone else without evidence... such as photos taken during the day of 9/11.

If photos of an intact sub station on 9/11 exist... be my guest... post them


Late day video of the substation showing no indication of transformer fires:

Dementri WTC7

@ mark 2:48, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage
@ mark 3:23, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage
@ mark 4:02, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage

Conclusion: No substation transformer explosions at WTC7


QUOTE
I am theorizing that they were hiding the stupid design and the decisions to build a tower of the sub station with all the fuel stored on site.


Must not be a valid argument, cuz they built the new WTC7 right over the new Con-Ed substation. See photos about 3/4 of the way down:

Con-Ed substation 2007


QUOTE
I don't think Con Ed wants to take any responsibility for the equipment blowing can causing the fires (to the diesel fuel) which cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.


Pretty risky strategy-- Con-Ed is still suing for damages to its substation.

QUOTE
I don't think Guiliani et al (Hauer) who pushed for the EMC to be there with the back up generators and the fuel stored on site wants to be responsible for that decision


Originally the collapse was blamed upon the Salomon diesel tanks. Had nothing to do with Silverstein's 24,000 gallons, which fueled the OEM emergency generators (19K was recovered).

Who owned the two, 6K tanks Salomon operated? You'll be surprised to find out exactly who this was. Hint: Not Silverstein.

Again, there is no evidence any diesel was involved.


QUOTE
I don't the think the Emery Roth & Sons (architects I believe) and probably the same engineers, John Skilling and Les Robertson want to be held responsible for design the structure of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.


Irwin Cantor was the structural engineer. You need to do a lot more research if you are going to solve the mystery of WTC7.

Conclusion: CD looks like the only thing that could do what we witnessed: ~7 seconds collapse, 2.2 seconds of free fall, straight down, symmetrically; badly eroded steel. Fire cannot accomplish all of these.
SanderO
Thank you for posting this video.

If you study it you can see exactly what is burning extensively... floors 6 & 7 and observe the thick black smoke pouring out of the south windows... probably diesel smoke or transformer oil which burns black. You see this at several times in that video...

I did not see the sub station but I did set some pretty good evidence that the 6&7th floor structure was being cooked by very extensive fires throughout the entire floor.

That footage does nothing to *debunk* my theory... it supports it.

The sub station was well inside the location of the north grillageand well below it. An explosion needn't have blown up the entire floors 6&7. it only had to destroy the transformers..perhap damage the slab above and allow hot gas to escape up to floor 6 where it could ignite the diesel.

The transformer explosions did not destroy the structure but they were the beginning of the extensive diesel fires on the floors above. I don't think you understood what i was proposing by exploding sub station transformers. And it needn't have been all of them.

Con Ed suing... it's a hoot... they are trying to collect up the line. It would be great if this actually got into a court and there were all the lawyers for the parties I mentioned all pointing the finger to the other saying... they did it not us. hahahhahahaha The US government didn't give con ed any money.... only victims like people... I'll be at that trial if there is open court.

You don't know when and how the steel was eroded. You assume that the eroded steel is what caused the collapse...

I'd like to see the steel from the transfer trusses and cantilever girders. That's where you'll find BUCKLED steel... not eroded steel.

You don't know how much heat was generated by the destruction of the 41 stories of concrete slabs and the what sort of exothermic reactions could have taken place with all the ground up iron, aluminum, sulfur, water and lot's of heat...that sounds like a formula for thermite (not nano thermite) itself. Why not?

Irwin Cantor... Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers... fine same deal... equally incompetent and liable.

and lookie what I found on google:

"But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse....

He (Cantor) said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. ''It ended up with tenants who had diesels,'' Mr. Cantor said. ''I know none of that was planned at the beginning.''

Oh my the transfer trusses... who could have guessed...?

Interesting that the engineer's theory was dismissed by NIST and you and others... but the diesel tanks were an after thought he had nothing to do with so... don't blame him. Mr. Cantor was painfully candid in that remark.
SanderO
Kawika... your research made my day... the video and then Cantor who actually was speaking the truth...

What does it take to get you guys to open your eyes and see a bit objectively.

Can't you see the massive floor wide fires on 6&7? What time of day was that? Pretty soon after tower 1 had collapsed and the mech floors are roaring hot... probably before noon.

What is your theory for those fires on 6&7?

You don't think the same mistake can be repeated? It can be hubris and even an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the blunder. A sub station is hard to get planning approval for in NYC.... so it was a grandfathered use... And by doing it all over it again and assuming that lightning can't strike twice.... why not?

Bad logic my friend...

You can bet there are no transfer trusses over it...
onesliceshort
QUOTE (hdog @ Apr 15 2012, 07:46 PM) *
What happened when the calculations of the FDR didn't support a pull-up at the Pentagon? The government loyalists came up with their own flight paths. Similar thing with SanderO.


Bingo.

Can't believe this thread is being stirred up again...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804012

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804024

And Elreb, you're really grating on me. If you have any accusations or proof of what you're insinuating about me just because I use a "nick", like the majority of people on this or any other forum, post it.

Or shut the fuck up.
SanderO
Government loyalist? How'dya come up with that one?

I have roundly and soundly and unequivocally criticized the conclusion of NIST and FEMA and the 911 Commission Report. I have gone so far as to call their work a cover up of what actually happened.

It's just that I don't support explosive controlled demolition as the explanation for the destruction... certainly not the collapse phase. I've said many times that the explainable by physics, science, and engineering collapse phase COULD have been kicked off by engineered devices... incendiaries or bombs... but I don't see the evidence for these causes.

In all three cases my research and best guess is that there was a progressive (over time) weakening caused by several factors which acted synergistically to drop the FOS of the core columns in the twins and the transfer truss panels of chords in B7 to below 1 at which point the structure was completely incapable of supporting the load of the floors/structure above which came rapidly down..

The twins saw the floors in the below the plane strike zone overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of tons of materials from the floors above crashing down up them and busted apart and did so progressively to till all the floors were destroyed... then the core without bracing buckled from its own weight... The facade peeled off also with no bracing. Nothing theoretical about this.

B7 saw the core plunge down through floors 6&7 where the transfer trusses were... pulling with it the outside the core floor girders, beams and slabs and leaving the curtain wall with no support and it then plunged 8 floors at FF til it hit the ground.

Kawika posted a new video taken of B7 and you can see early on in the day extensive diesel fueled fires all around the south and east side of flrs 6&7. These were the fires that cooked the t trusses. Even the engineer Irwin Cantor, I learned yesterday believes the extensive diesel fueled fires weakened the t trusses and let to the collapse (as I have described it). THIS IS NOT WHAT NIST SAID.

But since it's not a CD thesis... I am labeled a government loyalist.

Lovely. OSS... No hard feelings... Truthers are a bit paranoid at times...
onesliceshort
QUOTE
Government loyalist? How'dya come up with that one?


I hadn't read it with that in mind SanderO. I took it in reference to the campaign of disinformation against Pilotsfor911Truth and the NOC witnesses.

I think I'm the only one to have stepped back from calling you an "agent" (IIRC).

All I've said about WTC7 is that NIST have been reduced to claiming "fires and fires alone" brought down the building. That should be the point of attack and I don't see how giving them a way out a la Frank Legge and his irrelevant OCT subplot is going to help. End of story.

Edit: have to laugh though at the "truther" label in derogatory terms rolleyes.gif
kawika
QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 22 2012, 01:28 AM) *
Kawika... your research made my day... the video and then Cantor who actually was speaking the truth...

What does it take to get you guys to open your eyes and see a bit objectively.

Can't you see the massive floor wide fires on 6&7? What time of day was that? Pretty soon after tower 1 had collapsed and the mech floors are roaring hot... probably before noon.

What is your theory for those fires on 6&7?


Try again.

WTC7 video

@ mark 3:11 you can see the fires. There is no fire on 7. It is long since burnt out. There is fire on #8 moving along, according to NIST, at about every 15 minutes, looking for fresh fuel. There is no fire on 9,10, or 11. Some fire on 12 and pretty good on 13.

NIST says fire on floor 12 (framing for 13) was the start of the progressive collapse. Yea, Right! In an area where fire had burnt out more than an hour before.

These images were captured between 4 and 4:45 PM.

LOOK CLOSELY-- the thin window frames and ceiling grids are still intact. Gypsum walls with flimsy steel studs still standing. Are you trying to tell me this fire was hot enough and long-lasting enough to compromise heavy steel columns, beams and girders?--That had 2 hour fireproofing on them? Come on already, will ya?

Are you trying to tell me that the trusses, made of even heavier steel, probably 5 or 6 inches thick was compromised by furnishings? Or diesel-- which is nothing but a hydrocarbon?

In another post you claim to see black smoke from the south face. You can't see the south anywhere in this video. You are seeing the east face and that is standard office fires. There is no diesel on these floors.

Instead of making bare assertions, how about you help us get the fire load calculations and the drawings showing the furnishings for these floors?

You claim to be an architect in NYC but will you have the courage to start challenging the agencies that have the drawings? I'm chewing on these bureaucrats every day trying to dig up new information.
SanderO
You can't see but 10 feet into the building which is as wide as a football field. Yes I am saying that in the central area where the t trusses were located. the mech areas ... the diesel tanks etc... YES I am saying that the fires were much hotter.

BUT I am assuming because no one can see inside. And I happen to agree with the structural engineer on this... the diesel cooked the trusses and there's at least some visual evidence in some of that vid of extensive oil fuel fires... the very black smoke.

Your reading of the evidence is not convincing me.

I claim to be an architect? What sort of rubbish is that? I am an architect and I worked for Emery Roth and Sons in 1970 the architects of the WTC. I know Richard Roth.

I am not a fire science engineer but I did attend a seminar conference at the Christian Regenhard Center this past year where various experts critiqued NIST's fire investigation and have been communicating with a former (fired) NIST investigator James Quintierre, who is a professor of Fire science or something similar.

I am doing what I can do find out what happened... and I am presenting my findings and research and not parroting AE911T... which clearly has made numerous mistakes.

OSS:

The theory of collapse of B7 that I have proposed does not give any cover to NIST. I do not for a minute believe that office fires around column 79 or any column could lead to the collapse of B7 or the twins.
onesliceshort
QUOTE
The theory of collapse of B7 that I have proposed does not give any cover to NIST. I do not for a minute believe that office fires around column 79 or any column could lead to the collapse of B7 or the twins.


But you want to add diesel fires to the mix?

QUOTE
You can't see but 10 feet into the building which is as wide as a football field. Yes I am saying that in the central area where the t trusses were located. the mech areas ... the diesel tanks etc... YES I am saying that the fires were much hotter.

BUT I am assuming because no one can see inside. And I happen to agree with the structural engineer on this... the diesel cooked the trusses and there's at least some visual evidence in some of that vid of extensive oil fuel fires... the very black smoke.


If you don't believe office fires could bring down the building, and that NIST is talking out of its rear end, why not go down that road instead of throwing them a rope?
SanderO
OSS,

There's an awful big difference between the fuel load of a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel at approximately the same location for perhaps 7 or 8 hrs and that of "office contents" which would burn up in half an hr.

Yes heat does weaken steel. If there is enough heat... the steel DOES lose some of its strength.'

NIST was pushing sag in in the twins' trusses... and expansion of a girder which ... walked off a beam seat.

With B7 my theory is the failure of a truss panel or chord. If you fail one of them the whole truss is a goner. And the T trusses supported the core. And the 2 story T trusses were effectively a bridge over the 6 floors of the Con Ed substation.. up to floor 8. There was only the T trusses between the bottom of the core.. and the ground.. so if the T trusses went the core could drop 8 floors... 100' the same 100 feet of the free fall collapse. Coincidence? I'd say it's a damn good place to look for the "no resistance for 8 floors or 100 feet".

Are you interested in understanding what happened or are you convinced you know what happened already?

elreb
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 24 2012, 05:34 AM) *
Or shut the fuck up.

I concede to OSS...he is correct
onesliceshort
QUOTE
There's an awful big difference between the fuel load of a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel at approximately the same location for perhaps 7 or 8 hrs and that of "office contents" which would burn up in half an hr.


SanderO, which part of this sentence don't you understand?

"If you don't believe office fires could bring down the building, and that NIST is talking out of its rear end, why not go down that road instead of throwing them a rope?"

It's no different than NIST solely concentrating on the initiation of collapse of the towers and the worldwideweb Colombos filling in the blanks. If NIST didn't say it, it's irrelevant.

Or if the NTSB supplies black box data that's "missing some seconds" and some old fart and his "friend" claim they've "solved it", it's also irrelevant. It means nothing.

Or if some keyboard commandos claim "NOC impact" or feel peeved that nobody's buying their evidence void A3Skywarrior/missile story to the detriment of real evidence, it's irrelevant.

Or if some NPTers are determined to use valid evidence accumulated at all 3 locations and throw it in the shitter because of pure ego and stubbornness, that the perps let hundreds in on the plan (we know how much the perps just love that their neck is on the line with all of those loose ends) - it's irrelevant.

Pure unfounded speculation that may buy the perps another few years of good people chasing their own dicks and writing debunk after debunk for a bunch of people who won't consider it unless it's on a 10 minute maximum Youtube video doesn't really appeal to me at the moment SanderO, so no, I don't want to hear it.

Cheers
SanderO
CD is pure speculation... as far as I am concerned and I think it is a huge diversion. I don't know what your point is. I think we have now some decent understanding of the collapses of the twins and B7 and the mechanisms are not what NIST claims.... and they are not what the truth movement claimns. I don't see that helping NIST or a diversion. But heck you can think whatever you want.

I am basically an arch chair researcher... I am not conducting experiments in a lab. I am not interviewing witnesses or those who were involved in what I feel were the decisions which led to the collapse...though I have written to Leslie Robertson and tried to speak with him

911FF (Tom, femr2, achimspok, OWE) and others have assembled the most data and in depth analysis of the motion of the collapses from the visual record. I don't see anything like that at AE911T or elsewhere. I don't consider their work a diversion.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2022 Invision Power Services, Inc.