I am a new poster here. Hello to all participants and readers


This is the draft version of a book on the WTC collapses:


Introduction
1: Science vs Subjective Viewpoints
2: WTC Collapses Misrepresented
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentation
....2.4: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentation
....2.5: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentation
....2.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progression
....2.7: Block Mechanics
....2.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
4: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
5: Collapses Misrepresented as a False Choice
6: Testing the Thesis for Validity
Author's Conclusions




The same table of contents is on my website, second menu down, here.


Thank you for any questions or feedback to help improve the book.

I am not qualified to judge the technical stuff regarding collapse, so I did not read that portion.

I did read Author's Conclusion and found it very well written and thought out. That 'minds of people still remain shrouded in the dust' is a very good way to describe what I've thought for quite some time now. Yes, psychological limitations are what seem to be in play for most people.

I love the references to Stanley Milgram's work.

Our 'journalists'? They are utterly corrupt, and do not practice critical thinking, never have. Sycophants, all.

Welcome Major Tom!

Tom is one of the finest researchers who has looked at the WTC collapses. Hopefully, readers will realize that the false dichotomy between the the 911 Truth and the OCT are represent a choice between two wrong explanations... a debate about nonsensical positions/explanations.

The explanation should be understandable by everyman and Tom makes an attempt to do just that. Take the time to read as much as you can.

Welcome Major Tom.

I've been a lurker at Femr2's forum for a while. Great work breaking down the observational evidence.



I dare say that your evidence void "hypothesis" about "diesel fuel fires" sans smoke (and contrary to the FDNY, ConEd and photographic evidence) "cooking the trusses" of WTC7 definitely falls into the "nonsensical positions/explanations". Even more so given that NIST has been backed into a corner over their "office fires" fantasy.

Read about it in the "NIST WTC7 misrepresentation" link in Major Tom's post.

OSS,

My hypothesis is not void of evidence... it has plenty of evidence but there are gaps. There could be false reports by Con Ed and NIST and the absence of photos of something doesn't mean it didn't exist. An hypothesis is just that. It needs to be tested. I've suggested that NIST and Con Ed *lied*... and we know that NIST HAS lied about 7 and the twins. I would not take their statements to the bank. I can't prove a lie because I don't have the observations to do so. But I am not going to accept self serving reports as fact.

I have provided work to Tom over the past 3 years and support his efforts and we are largely in agreement about the collapses of all three towers but mainly 1 & 2. I've read all his work even as it was being formulated.

A few months ago I decided to look more closely at 7 and proposed a theory which I presented here. IT IS SPECULATION based on observables and the structure. I don't have access to the floor plans. I don't have any visuals of inside the building's first 7 floors during the day... There are very few photos of even the south side which would show smoke which conceivably might be read as to the fuel source.

Two days ago... a 61 foot yacht on the hard caught fire about 250 feet from where I was working on my own boat (across an inlet). The boat was diesel powered but I have no idea of how much fuel was on board at the time... I'll see if I can find out. The boat had a shrink wrap plastic covering which the owner apparently was removing in preparation for launch. I don't know cause of the fire and if it has been determined. My observations were as follows:

There were number explosions (most small and no massive, but definitely explosions which I and others clearly heard.

There were, of course intense flames which rapidly spread over the entire boat.

There was very thick black smoke for the entire time the fire was un fought... for about 20 minutes until the fire department arrived.

The smoke changed to a dark gray when they fought the fire with water and then to a lighter gray until it was extinguished about 40 minutes later.

Tom is correctly not concerned with speculation, but with observable and a scientific approach to explain them. We are in general agreement that:

The collapse of 7 was led by a core failure (cause undetermined)
There is no evidence that can be ascribed solely to controlled demolition.
The collapse progression included the east penthouse, the west penthouse, the floor system and finally the curtain wall
The speed of collapse (2.25 secs at FF) is not an indication of controlled demolition...(structures which are CD'ed do not collapse at FF typically)
NIST and officials got the observations and explanations of towers 1,2 &7 wrong

I proposed an hypothesis which has a motive for the deception of the official investigation reports and the OCT claims about B7. It is pure speculation. I can't know the motive of those actors. My hypothesis suggests something other than CD and that disturbs you and others. However the evidence you and other provide for CD is not conclusive at all... simply speculation.

Such is life.

By the way Tom writes the following this AM where ie quotes Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso:

"
"WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed."

One may want to recognize that these appear to be the largest sets of cascading floor collapses in history before making claims like this.....

Even if they look with the skill and patience of Joe "Well Above Average' Student, they will see nothing more than misrepresentation wrapped in the appearance of "professional consensus"."

....so then, it's speculation all 'round

What "disturbs" me SanderO is that you make baseless claims yet label those who question your speculation as "koolaid" drinkers. And you keep insinuating that I'm somehow defending NIST's conclusions when in actual fact, the "office fires" crap is the only inroad to extracting more withheld evidence and/or raising awareness that we've been monumentally lied to. The very same withheld evidence that has left well intentioned individuals such as Tom and Femr2 stumped as to how all three towers fell without external factors, given the observables.

I've never pinned my colours to CD in the conventional meaning of the term. I don't pigeonhole multiple witness visual, aural and physical testimonies to explosions and I do accept that there were vehicles and other combustibles exploding (even the holy grail transformers), but you on the other hand refuse to accept even the possibility that they were manmade events.

I don't accept that "office fires" (the lack of which there is visual evidence of) brought down WTC7. You on the other hand make empty claims about "diesel fuel fires" which not only is there no visual evidence for bar black smoke seen in the last hour before WTC7 fell, or that visual evidence or ConEd contradicts, but that the FDNY lends weight to.

What I definitely don't accept is your hypocritical stance in that both NIST and AE911Truth are wrong and that you are somehow trying to find the "middle ground", when anything you've ever uttered on this forum has been in favour of the OCT (even going beyond it as per WTC7). That the conclusions and calculations of NIST are wrong from an architectural standpoint. That they were indeed "gravity driven collapses", just that NIST "got it wrong".

Did you read the link to "NIST WTC7 misrepresentation" in the OP?

I am not trying to find a middle ground. I am hoping one day to know what actually happened. We can only use a few things to make sense of the event...

1. Accurate observations - which can be used to extract data which can be analysis with math and physics and engineering
2. The design of the buildings- specs and so forth and the engineering principles for mechanics and structure
3. Physics, chemistry ... science.

No one can see the initiating event in all three towers. Observations lead us to conclude WHERE it was and that was inside and we can't see inside! We can only see POST initiation and analyze that movement. Post initiation observation... using the 3 items above leads to the conclusion that the POST initiation phase *the collapse* did not require CD.. explosives or incendiary devices and there is no evidence of them. What is deemed to be evidence... ejections are not from explosives be an attribute of a gravity driven collapse.

The collapses WERE gravity driven... the cause was structural failure. The likely place was the T trusses which support the core... as the core was the first think to noticeably *go bye bye*. We don't know the cause of the structural failure of the T trusses.

When I refer to drinking the kool aid... I am referring to people who accept the interpretation of others as to what the ejections are, or that the concrete was pulverized in mid air... or that heavy steel girders were ejected 600 feet at 70pmh or that the dust was 4-12" thick for miles around lower Manhattan... and so on. Believing this and repeating it is drinking kool aid.

I've stated that I have a theory about b7... that we can't see inside the area where I suggest the collapse was initiated. Of course a device could supply the energy that I suggest was provided by the diesel fuel.

But what is the evidence of a device? None!

Instead we are given all sorts of motives... insurance, destroying SEC records... MOTIVE is not evidence.

When people mention explosions... I agree there were explosions! I hear them a few days ago when a boat caught fire and there were explosions. Fires often cause explosions!

I offered an explanation... theory for the witness testimony. So you tell me OSS.. what do you think William Rodriguez most probably heard? And why my explanation that it was an electrical explosion caused by the plane strike is wrong or so speculative that it should not be considered?

OSS,

I see the “John” has moved to a new page.

A fellow forum member and I have put together a more comprehensive program which has data to back it up.

There were Zero fuel fires in WTC7. No one can show that there were!

I am currently reading new [original] files now.

The results, most likely will end up on my website.

elreb

Looking forward to seeing it!

I've been doing a bit myself on the fire and smoke sources.

The "John" lol.

From Major Tom' book..





I agree 100% that if you don't poke about in every nook and cranny, look for corraboration, verification and basically "put the hours in", don't bother. If you're not prepared for the headache, heartbreak and lost hours (yes, I felt your pain in the "you have to do it yourself" tirade Tom lol). Be prepared to start from scratch if need be. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

I think there are many people who look through even more than the three types of "lenses" referred to in the book (NIST/GLs, AE911Truth and OOSers(?!)) but those are the main three (vocally).

I have a question. Where does AE911T claim that "thousands of explosives" are required? Is it a direct quote or an assumption based on their claims?

For the record, I believe that the structures were weakened and "blown" or taken out at specific areas. Particularly WTC7.

Double post.

I suppose one can calculate how much explosives it would taker to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air. It clearly wasn't a single event.. and it wasn't even 100 explosions...one per floor more or less... both of those scenarios would look very different from what we observe... so perhaps it was 10 per floor? That would be in the order of 1000 explosions. Even 10 per floor would likely not look like what we see and what Chandler describes.

Basically AE911T's explosive controlled demolition theory is based on poor observations and fantasy. That's obvious to anyone who has carefully observed the destruction of the twin towers.

The tilting top and its fate are another case of the truth movement failing to see what was before the eyes and to understand the basic physics plus the distribution of and the center of mass of the top section as it came down.

OSS, consider the Chandler "race with gravity" argument.


Or the following image from the "third law' video;




What is he pointing to?

Some may call that a collapse front. To him, ANY ejection is treated as proof of a bomb.


Ny the way, thanks for the comments. The book is still being written, so the comments provide useful feedback.

From a demo point of view, it seems important to realize that some ejection patterns may be natural and some may not be natural. It is the responsibility of those making the arguments to point that out and to make an effort to attempt to distinguish between the 2 cases. For example, the ejection from the south side of WTC1 around the 88th floor level during the collapse initiation process 10 floors above is quite strange. I have never seen anyone give a coherent explanation for it. But that does not mean that the ejections indicated by yellow arrows in the image is just as strange.

Sorry for the typos, the edit feature doesn't allow me to correct it for some reason.

Or, consider the image from the Anders Borkman website shown below:




Flooring cannot hang from one side at such an angle, so why show something like that? If one allows the flooring to fall onto the intact floor below, then what will happen to the next floor? Or the one after that? Which particular floor will be able to support all mass above it? Based on what logic?


Now, if one can sustain floor collapses until the earth stops the process, then perhaps there is a tricky way to utilize this caged, confined process which makes intentional demolition much easier than previously thought within the unique layouts of these buildings.


Within the either-or false choice, this simple possibility is ignored.

Speaking only for WTC7

From what I’m learning about ‘Thermate”, it is more of a chemical reaction and not based on explosions.

I was taught to cut a tree down from the bottom.

Elreb,

Thermate is heat producing and not explosive and so you can use it, I suppose like a lance to slice through and destroy the integrity of the steel and the structure. Agreed.

Were is the evidence of core steel which shows signs of being sliced with thermate in B7?

In fact, I've seen no evidence of ANY WTC steel which is convincing evidence of explosions or thermate cutting. Most of what I see is broken cleanly at the ends (connection failure)... mangled and bent from crashing down and collisions... bent from buckling from the collapse zone. And there are some built up box sections where the webs and flanges parted... again breaking at the weakest part.

Agreed...

The government destroyed most of the evidence; however we have the pictures of Thermate use.

We are working on getting good “still” shots of test experiments, including bolt destruction to compare to the real steel. Less than one pound of Thermate will cut most bolts or rivets.

None of this will be displayed on this website.

I have no theory and I am not taking a “thick” headed approach to this.

Hi Tom



I personally think that the answer lies in how two buildings struck at different areas (one more central than the other), at different heights, can fall basically in the same fashion and at the same rate of collapse (I know I've oversimplified it - being a layman)

And yes, there are multiple anomalies with the initiation of collapse of WTC1.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....osition=155:155

The vibration seconds before the "rush" of smoke. The total non effect on the visible fires by whatever caused this same rush of smoke. And for me personally, the smoke that seems to cling to the western facade even though it's not sheltered from the wind (seems to be a balancing act between internal and external forces). All occurring above the impact zone.

I'm speculating on an explosive event within the core, the blast of which has been funneled through the elevator shafts. Possibly at a much lower location. Problem is, I don't know how this would initiate the collapse.

I'm just throwing that example of my (untrained eye) observations out there for discussion's sake.

It is a highly complex set of events. Another important feature of the WTC1 structure is that all 47 core columns had bolted connections at the exact same levels on floors 98, 95, 92, 89. This is yet another thing that both sides of the false choice forgot to tell us.

We are all left in an information vacuum and each of us is left to cope with that on our own.



Part 6 was rewritten within the last 24 hours. In it I am trying to show how Joe Average and Joe Student are the recipients of a decade of BS. The collapse progressions of the Twin Towers are misrepresented pretty much everywhere one looks, and truthers are not to blame for all the mistakes I cite within parts 5 and 6 of the book.

If you go to wikipedia right now and try to find the collapse progression mode of the Twin Towers, you will see a verifiable misrepresentation. That has nothing to do with truthers.

We are receiving incorrect information from both sides of the false dichotomy. Anyone who takes the time can verify this.
.................

Within part 6 I show that the current literature on the subject through multiple sources overlooks what appear to be the largest cascading chains of floor collapses in history, and instead describe the collapses in terms of "crushing blocks". These mistakes are not caused by truthers.

Oh My..OSS speculates! But doesn't know how the explosive would initiate the collapse. Here is where understand the structure and the mechanism/mechanics of the collapse initiation are critical.

Yet when I propose a speculation about the collapse of B7 based on the mechanism and the mechanics of that tower I am roundly criticized for speculation and not providing bullet proof evidence... despite the speculation matching the observables. Interesting OSS. Very telling.

I've maintained that there is a complete (almost) lack of discussion and therefore understanding of the key structural elements of the twin towers and how they are "knitted" together.

There is also no discussion of how structural failures cascade through a system by the truth side of this debate. Their conceptualization is that the structure was simply blown - slabs or cut apart - steel frame into neat pieces for hauling off. Of course there is no evidence of thousands of cut ends of structural steel and no evidence of exploded ends of structural steel. This special CD managed to destroy all connections of the facade panels... leave MOST of the core steel frame intact to as tall as floor 50 and some as high as 78.. yet pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air... AND eject some steel and speeds only explosions could accomplish. If you accept that as a plausible explanation I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

There is no logic, no consideration of the structure, or the physics. Judy Wood comes up with a space beam and others special paint on the steel to make it come apart at the splices... or special painted explosive ceiling tiles. Are these theories to be seriously considered?

Niels Harrit of nano thermite fame wrote in an email I received from him that he estimates that it would have taken 160 tons PER floor to destroy the concrete and the frame. That's a lot of NT paint to apply! Can these people be taken seriously? NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Harrit a retired organic chemists also states in several interviews that it was impossible for the towers to collapse at the speeds measured, misstates the collapse as accelerating down to the ground and parrots Chandler dis information about physics. YIKES!

When you take off your rose colored truther glasses and examine their claims they look like cartoons and Hollywood conceptions and pyrotechnics... with pyroclastic flows.. another mis characterization... but scary never the less.

As a layman, it seems to me that the collapses of all 3 buildings are UNNATURAL.

Indeed, that quality is what defines the whole scene at WTC for me. I consider myself to be in the Peter Jennings Club--as he so candidly noted, gosh, that looked like one of those controlled demolitions you see on TV.

Amazed,

Don't beat up on yourself. 99.9999% of the observers are in the Peter Jennings club. That club is largely informed by using analogy or comparison to make sense of the world. We all do it when we don't have the technical background or expertise... which is why courts use expert witnesses.

No collapse has ever been filmed in the act... Few have seen one... and certainly no tall building have collapsed because a collapse requires structural failure... from causes such as fire, mechanical damage, and earth quake of a intense weather event or an explosion.

As most truthers have noted, building don't collapse from fire... office fires. But in the case of the twins there were other factors to consider:

The unique design and assembly of the structural frame/system.
the damage caused by plane impacts to the structural frame
the presence of jet fuel fires

So we have no personal references of seeing building collapses - we don't know what it looked like in the past. We have no recorded videos of towers collapsing EXCEPT for CDs (is that prejudicing our thinking Mr. Jennings?). We have no examples of buildings completely collapsing from office fires (not exactly an analogy) We have only one example of a skyscraper being hit by a plane - ESB and it did not collapse - but it was a different design and a much smaller plane.

And of course we have all the images of explosions on TV and the movies plus the handful of CDs to use a references.

If you add a motive ... the inside job to start wars - false flag... it further prejudices what you think you are seeing.

And when someone comes along to tell you that you may be and likely are wrong about your observations... you shoot the messenger and label them a plant, a spy, a shill for the insiders and worse. I've been there.

Thank you Tom for your eloquent presentation and hard work.

Jesus man, calm down.

As usual, it just flies right over your head. Unlike you, any speculation by me is based on observation. Tom's book speaks of looking at the events in Manhattan through different lenses. I agree 100%, though I don't fall into any of the three main categories listed. Nor do you.

And when I talk of speculation, I mean theories that are based on a desired result. Void of evidence.

The majority of areas listed below (bar #2) are areas where an architectural degree or higher knowledge of physics aren't necessary to know that external forces were at work. At the very least, they show that Manhattan  was not a straightforward case of "accident" due to an accumulation of coincidences.

1) I can't dismiss witness testimony to explosions although I accept that there were other combustibles capable of exploding. Especially when 118 of those witnesses are qualified to differentiate between the various heat induced explosions of cars/combustibles and events they described simply as "explosions". That is, unexplained sources. Within and without the building.

2) I definitely accept that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. That the term "gravity driven collapse" has been hijacked by government loyalists as somehow equating this term with an acceptance of the OCT. Of course gravity played a major part. What I can't accept is that the initiation and the progression of collapse that ensued went unaided. The very fact that there has been no acceptable natural explanation (specifically on the initiation AFAIK) after 11 years lends credence to sabotage or outside influence. Does a negative prove a positive? No. But it does mean that there is a missing element that physics and architecture can't explain, not only to this admitted layman but among genuine qualified researchers..  Wholesale rejection of valid doubts about multiple anomalies, based on speculation or simple handwaving away of what doesn't "fit" is unacceptable.


3) I can't accept speculation that the heat levels recorded at Ground Zero were the result of "office fires" smouldering in oxygen deprived areas or that the "office fires" could even survive a collapse that pulverized the inner part of the buildings into fine powder.

4) I can't accept speculation that molten metal seen falling from the south tower and witnessed during the Ground Zero clear up post collapse were the result of "office fires". Especially when the area from where the molten metal was seen dripping happens to be at one of the main areas where initiation of collapse apparently occured.

5) I can't accept speculation that the eutectic material found among the sparse evidence shipped off can be put down to some freakish natural reaction in all of the chaos of the collapses. Especially when there is no precedent to compare to or the "gypsum"-type theory nonsense.


And no, SanderO, I, nor anybody on any forum where you've brought up your speculation on "diesel fires",transformer explosions, "cooked trusses" or where the internal collapse of wtc7 was followed by the outer shell, have entertained it.  Because your speculation is based on no proof whatsoever. Nor observational data! 

If you want to go on a tirade, bring it into the debate section? Or you can actually have a go and point out the flaws in my layman observations on what was occuring in the area above the impact just prior to collapse.

From Tom's book:



Sound familiar SanderO?

@Tom

Excellent addition regarding "average Joe". Information (vacuum) overload lol.

I'm still reading through the links. Is there one that specifically deals with collapse initiations? And do you believe that they were inevitable? Fully explained?

Cheers

OSS

Bingo...this is like 'Groundhog Day"...

I'm not going to dignify that irrelevant rant with another rebuttal.

I've been 100% respectful to Tom because he's obviously went to a lot of trouble and gone into incredible detail to back up his claims (it's a lot to go through). You on the other hand have brought nothing to the table but unfounded speculation and insults. Just look at the "bull in a China shop" lecture to the plebs that you linked to!

I've spent the last 6 weeks trawling through video and photographic footage to find evidence of these "diesel fires" because you "haven't time"! I'll be posting my findings very soon

OSS,

You have no idea of the *work* or research I have produced. I don't have a website and therefore don't publish my work... which is is a work in progress. This site does not allow uploads of PDF from my hard drive. 911FF does and I have uploaded some of my work there as well as Deep Politics.

I've also made my PDFs available to anyone who requests them via email or through a PM with an email address. I've sent my work to many people including members of this site.

Your dismissive comments aside from being insulting (something I am used to) disregards the fact that I provide susbstantive written replies to your points... which you refuse to dignify likely because you have no response. You are not a structural engineer, not a physicists and not an expert in explosives. You are intelligent person who has picked a fight with me because you don't like the SPECULATIVE theory I proposed which needs to be tested and further researched. I'm not offering proof, nor debating whether my speculation is better than your speculation.

I don't believe there is evidence in the public record which can prove what initiated the collapse of B7. If it was as I suspect a T truss failure... the T truss certainly could have been fatally damaged by explosives or cutter charges. I can't disprove it and you can prove it was either. MORE STUDY IS REQUIRED.

Aside from your (and others) vague description (speculation) that the building was CDed you have given no development (nor they) of exactly or even inexactly how this might have been done, how it was done, what sort of devices would / could have been used and so forth. You can't say this, nor the others because there is no way to know such things.

And this is why we call for further investigation.

There is no certain evidence of CD in any of the collapses. There are odd aspects to the collapse of the twins at the moment of initiation which apparently seem unlike a collapse... according to Tom... and could be the sign of explosives. I don't think anyone can go to the CD bank with that anomaly.

I have spent several years trying to explain to others that many of the things they consider to be slam dunk CD evidence are not... such as the speed of collapse or the *symmetry of collapse* or the billowing clouds or the amount of dust... or the creation of enormous heat... or the fracturing of the frame into the section lengths it was built from and so on.

There are unusual phenomena.... I can't explain them, but that doesn't mean they must be from CD.

You need to watch your manners. I am not the enemy and I am not rude, or dismissive or insulting. I hope you learn something from Tom's book... I did.

Thanks. Not explained at all, that is why we are all left to guess like we are.

Many people see the case of WTC7 as the most extreme example of a void in the historic record, but I have found that the case of WTC1 is even more extreme. The description of the WTC1 collapse initiation process is fabricated. Part 3 contains the most accurate mapping of the sequence of events observed during the WTC1 initiation process available anywhere.

There is no reason to believe me. The book is written in a way that belief is not required and is strongly discouraged.

Reproduced from part 3:



The NIST didn't detect the movement in #2 at all.

the ejection pattern in #3 was described incorrectly.

#4 was never described by the NIST.

#5 was described as an 8 degree tilt to the south that never happened.

#6 was never noticed by the NIST

#7 remains unrecognized even a decade after the collapses.


To see how the NIST describes the initiation movement of WTC1, please see section 2.3 of the book. Every NIST comment on the subject is reproduced there and every image they used within the reports to justify their descriptions are shown.

It is as if they are describing some other building.

Absolutely nothing described above requires belief in anything I say. Everything is observable and measurable.

SanderO writes:



I have found him to be quite the gentleman on my forum. Very helpful.

As long as people take the ability to verify as far as it can go and they know where verification ends and speculation begins, there is no need to have such problems.

SanderO:


Strange overpressurization patterns that go completely ignored. Movement that goes ignored.

What can be verified? We were never given an accurate collapse history. This is knowable.

If citizens want an accurate collapse history, they are forced to make one themselves. This is verifiable. The book was written to provide the tools to do that.


As for the demo question? It cannot be discussed outside the context of the most accurate mapping of collapse events possible.

I discuss the demo question in part 4, through the lens of what can be learned within parts 2 and 3.

It cannot be understood outside of the context of accurate mappings.


First map accurately, then approach the question of demolition. I do not know any other way to do it.

Major Tom,

Nine-One-One was masterminded by “Tinker Bell”.

It is common knowledge that “Pixie Dust” contains barium nitrate.

Peter Pan caused WTC7 to magically collapse!

The Wizard of Oz was a parody and so was 911.

It was a [less than] humorous, satiric and ironic imitation of what really happen.

SanderO

Oh, I'm not beating myself up regarding Peter Jennings' remarks. And it's interesting that Peter did not live long enough to learn what we the living and curious have learned in the ensuing 10 years.

Ultimately the choice becomes sort of digital--a 1 or a 0. That is, the buildings were brought down by CD, or they were not. Those are the only 2 choices in the end.

I agree with OSS--there are certain theories that I simply cannot accept. Yes, we all know that gravity works 24/7. So the statement that they were gravity driven is superfluous, yet those who advance the official story keep mentioning this as though it is profound information. You are guilty of that.

There is an almost infinite amount of circumstantial evidence that contradicts the official story, and anybody with an open mind and minimal amount of curiosity understands that, even if it is a layman's understanding.

Esoteric observations and subtle points have their place, to be sure, but in the end we are in the court of public opinion, and common sense has a role to play.

Amazed... think of the *problem* like this for example.

If there was a CD.... that is someone placed devices in the structures to destroy them... they would have had to placed them... whatever they were to INITIATE the collapses. It makes no sense that some natural phenomena caused the buildings to begin to *collapse*... and THEN after... the CD devices kicked in to *finish the job*.... or as Gage claims pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air.

I would ask.. if a natural phenomena has collapsed the top sections... why CD the whole building? So I ask my CD friends to explain how the collapse was initiated by CD devices. And were they like the traditional CDs where gravity does 90% (?) of the destructive work and still breaks the frame into the sizes it came to the site in...

If B7 falls and crushes like a CD... why not let the tops of the twins finish the job? The were collapsing down from the damaged plane impact zones (with or without CD devices to bring those tops down) Was the twin design such that it was immune to the downward forces that a 15 or 30 story mass would do? I think not... I think if you hired CDI to CD the top 15 floors of a twin tower ... you can bet he would not remain in the 93rd floor expecting no damage where he was (below the CD level).

I do not dispute that there were odd things to explain. And they must be explained.

I will also point out that no one has ever seen a skyscraper or that design collapse ... so we don't have a clue as to what it would look like and what weirdness it would produce... like heat or chemical residues and so forth. It was a first and it was repeated on that day as a second!

But simply because the building was destroyed, and it was very violent... and there were sounds of explosions and materials flying every which way... and dust ejections and lots of dust clouds and heat is NOT evidence that the building was blown to bits. It's would evidence as well of a collapse.

Thanks for the reply Tom.

In between reading through the links and watching the (excellent) videos, I've gone out of my way to try and map the alleged fires at WTC7 throughout the day. There has been so much exaggeration and manipulation of footage (cropping, etc) but even on the second draft, I can see that SanderO's speculation on "diesel fires" is way off the mark. A falsehood.

I don't see such insistence on speculation being tolerated by, nor overly attempted by SanderO at FEMR's forum. So after months of back and forth comments, SanderO is playing the victim. Or genuinely feels like one.

OSS,

I am neither playing a victim nor feel like one. I present my research and engage in technical discussions at the 911 Free Forum and have attempted on occasion in several threads on PFT to get others to see some of the technical issues and advise that many are misreading observations.

If you don't see properly... you can't understand what you are seeing and if you don't have the science and engineering background for technical observations etc... data... you likewise can't properly explain something you see... It becomes cartoon like or hollywoood like.

As for the visual evidence which might support my B7 theory I repeat for the 10th time (is it that many?)

My theory is based on the same movement observations that tom and femr2 and achimspok have reported in such fine detail. The takeaway from their movement analysis which I agree with is that the collapse of B7 was in the following sequence:

early swaying of the tower east to west for a minute before any naked eye observed motion (load redistribution in the frame)
core drops on east side
core drops on west side
floors cave in after core drops
curtain wall descends
North face (non structural curtain wall) shows inward bowing suggesting no structure behind it.

My theory then suggests that the core failure took place below floor 8... where NOBODY HAS PICS or VIDS especially of the core. Kawika posted one vid which shows... black smoke from the approximate region on the LEE side (south) for a few frames. Not conclusive but not explained either by anyone.

My theory attempts to explain the Jennings Hess explosion experience as electrical or electrical caused explosions related to power equipment on floors 4,5 6 or 7... tied to the Rodriguez experience of sub basement explosions in WYC 1 where there were transformer and electic relays and switches for the electric mains

My theory is supported by the Con Ed after report of power loss of 8 -13.8 kv feeders beginning at the moment the plane hit WTC 1... coincidence? Or did those downs/ shorts/ caused heat/ explosions and so forth.

My theory attempts to attribute the core failure to a failure of the T trusses on 6&7 which supported the core and the cantilever girders which supported the north wall columns where the inward bowing is seen when the curtain wall descends.

My theory of T truss failure is exactly what the building's structural engineer claimed caused the collapse... diesel fires destroying the T trusses.

Yes NIST denies diesel fires and Con Ed the same... We've seen little to no solid reports on what happened to the the sub station or the 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Con Ed not only sold the air rights to the PANY to build B7 over their sub station, but approved the emergency center, its fuel reservoir which was placed next to the sub station.

B7 had no basements where heavy electric power equipment is usually placed. It was instead placed above the sub station on flrs 4&5. It was another but smaller series of sub stations and above them on 6&7 were the power generators fueled by diesel supplied with lift pumps via piping which passed up through/adjacent to.. the Con Ed sub station and the building's sub station to 6&7.

Virtually ALL camera positions (fixed) were to the north because the south was the collapsed WTC. The south was also the lee side where the smoke was emerging... but little documented except for some camera positions on West Street. The Kawika link was from a roving newsman and mostly from the EAST side.

My theory is a speculation. It does not rule out explosives, but I claim there is no solid evidence of them and supplied another explanation. It is not what NIST said.. it is not office fires. it is my theory/speculation. It needs to be investigated. Saying that there are no vids or that NIST and Con Ed said something is not evidence I will accept to prove anything. The power downs are demonstrable and provable facts... the statements that they recovered diesel and there were no diesel fires are not.

NIST office fire theory gets diesel off the hook and those who were involved in putting it there - Con Ed, PANY, Giuliani, design engineers etc. None of them would self incriminate and are pleased as punch with the OCT. Note that Cantor the engineer shuffles the blame not for his engineering, but for the placement AFTER he designed the towers on the diesel tanks and the OEM center.

I can't prove my theory with the public record. Perhaps further investigation can fund such evidence.

I don't know of femr2's forum and so I don't post there. I've communicated with him and received some data from him for my analysis of the twin towers. I think his work is stellar, as is Tom's and achimspok's along with OneWhiteEye, the administrator of the 911FF. Enik has done incredible FEA and animations. These are the core of the premiere technical researchers about the collapse of the three towers. The only truther who posts at the 911FF regularly is Szamboti and his technical knowledge is laudable. He's made some major boners with his "missing Jolt" paper.

I am what I am... and it's not an infiltrator, disruptor or spy.

It is in this video one will find the true answers to the demolition of the two towers, IMHO!





Cheers

And i can't see any harm in now and then re-visiting Ryan Dawson's 6 video sequences!

Here's the first one:





Cheers

Another glimpse of that knuckle



What are we to look for?

There has only been one attempt to measure the early acceleration of a very tall building undergoing demolition.



The Demolition of 1515 Flagler Dr...




WTC7 tracing in green, this demoed building in red.

A quick look at derived acceleration suggests very near to freefall, if indeed it is not actually reached...


Point traced:

There has only been one attempt to measure the early acceleration of a very tall building undergoing demolition.



The Demolition of 1515 Flagler Dr...




WTC7 tracing in green, this demoed building in red.

A quick look at derived acceleration suggests very near to freefall, if indeed it is not actually reached...


acceleration:

You may already know this, but there is a military term "Command detonated" regarding explosives, and all it means is that the device is not triggered automatically (which is another option), but rather by a person, when the timing is perfect. For example, when the enemy is inside the target area.

It is my theory that the EOC belonging to the City of New York located in building 7 was the position from which the towers were detonated by personnel.

That would suggest that WTC 7 was also command detonated, and I have not a clue from where that might have been accomplished, but probably from another building nearby. That is just my theory, and I am NO expert in explosives or demolition, not by a long shot.

The reason to CD the entire building might have been as mundane as simply making the cleanup that much quicker and easy. Why CD only part of a building, no matter how that process might have initiated?

Clearly the airplanes were just for show and shock and awe.

As Jowenko has commented, this was a professional job on all 3 buildings.

Nobody has ever seen a skyscraper of that design collapse? Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Indeed, as Peter Jennings commented, the entire world did see that happen, on TV. It may have been the first time, and probably was, but we saw it.

That we are in the proverbial "uncharted territory" seems to be quite right, especiallly for those like yourself who are in the engineering and construction profession.

For us common folks, it seems pretty damn obvious that we all witnessed that design collapse, WITH ASSISTANCE AND BY DESIGN.

Amazed,

It appears that WTC7 was scheduled to be hit by plane #3 by 9:15 am per an “SS” agent but something went wrong.

It appears that this became the imaginary Shanksville plane or plan B. [Plan BS]

Keep in mind…”I have no theory”.

Hi Major,

i wouldn't recommend you staring yourself blind looking at that knuckle, but instead

rather compare the two different core structures - the first seen from 0:17 - 0:34, and

the second seen from 0:45 - 0:58, - and then notice the 'amazing' similarity between

the two, as well as noticing how they both disintegrate in like manner!


Some people maintain that when the spires start collapsing, it is simply just a part of

the rising dust cloud which surrounds the spires, making it 'appear' as if the spires

turn into dust.

Other people maintain that the spires actually do turn into dust - and so do i.


Please, take another look, and let me know how you perceive it to be!

Cheers

The spire columns came down from Euler buckling.

Tom... what say you?

I have heard that before, and of course as far as 'planning' goes, anything is possible.

As a pilot, I have trouble with that sort of plan being very successful, MAINLY because hitting WTC7 with a Boeing would have been most difficult because the height of the building was insufficient for a successful strike. It was a 47 story building surrounded by many higher buildings. The towers, of course were quite easy because of their 110 floors towering above all the other buildings. Relatively easy.

And I'm not familiar with the SS agent you refer to? That is, what evidence is there that 7 was supposed to have been struck with an airplane?

Several points

No one said anything about a Boeing or it being flown by a human. You must be one hell of a pilot; if flying a 767 point blank into WTC1 was easy.

(9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Emergency Responders Receive [False] Report of a Third Plane Approaching New York

Richard Rotanz, the deputy director of the New York Office of Emergency Management (OEM), who is reportedly in the OEM command center on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7.

A Secret Service agent in WTC 7 [reportedly] told him there were [unconfirmed] reports of other planes in the air.

Emergency medical technician Richard Zarrillo is currently in WTC 7, and is informed by an OEM rep there of the [alleged] third plane inbound for New York.

While the rest of Building 7 was evacuated earlier on (9:03 am) September 11, 2001 the threat reportedly leads to the evacuation of the OEM command center.

I always find the best starting point for 9/11 is to assume that absolutely everything was planned. The evidence backs this up - the plan for the 4th plane was always for it to appear to crash exactly where it did - no heroic passengers required. Likewise at the Pentagon and likewise in NYC. It was also planned that there would be various other stories floating around to keep confusion high, such as reports of a 3rd plane approaching.

I have always been a team player.

He is still welcome to be on our side.