Does JetFuel burns hotter then gasoline ?

If so then there is left little doubt if JetFuel brought down the WTC. Also, there was gasoline in WTC7.


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070429/capt.59902bc2d797448aa3787f35c6c4c3ee.highway_coll apse_caoak106.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/highway_collapse

I think jet fuel does burn hotter than gasoline. Also, the WTC was made of different, lighter material than the MacArthur Maze. Not too far away from that same point in the freeway some years ago a tanker truck just exploded and took out 6 people in an instant. There was something wrong with the truck and the day was unimaginably hot, so they figure the fumes just ignited. You could see the scorch marks for almost a year afterwards, but in that incident, no part of the freeway melted.

Judging by the footage I saw and my own personal knowledge of that part of the freeway, I believe the driver took the turn too fast and flipped it. These guys have a tendency to treat those beasts like they're sports cars, and the MacArthur Maze is their own personal race track. That, and some of these guys are hit with such tight delivery schedules as to make unsafe driving practices a job requirement.

I think jet fuel does burn hotter than gasoline. Also, the WTC was made of different, lighter material than the MacArthur Maze.
the WTC 1 and 2 was also a different type of construction than, say, the empire state building. the inner cores provided all of the support for the load while the outer shell prevented twisting.

the WTC 1 and 2 was also a different type of construction than, say, the empire state building. the inner cores provided all of the support for the load while the outer shell prevented twisting.

I was under the impression that the core steel supports for the WTCs DID burn/melt, and that's what caused their collapse.

But do u think Bridges have a better build (thickness/metal) compared to tall buildings ?

I had seen a footage where a solider who lost his cool took a big military tank, and started flattening many blocks of houses, cars became flat as it hit/passed over them, and when he hit a small bridge , nothing happened to it, the bridge didnt even shake.

I was under the impression that the core steel supports for the WTCs DID burn/melt, and that's what caused their collapse.
some were severed by the plane, some were distorted, some melted.

But do u think Bridges have a better build (thickness/metal) compared to tall buildings ?

I had seen a footage where a solider who lost his cool took a big military tank, and started flattening many blocks of houses, cars became flat as it hit/passed over them, and when he hit a small bridge , nothing happened to it, the bridge didnt even shake.
bridges in the US are built with a safety factor of about 5.
they determined the maximum load the bridge must support, then multiply that by 5. then they use that figure to design the bridge.

some were severed by the plane, some were distorted, some melted.

I understand that but I thought that the actual melting of the support beams was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' by causing the failure of the structual integrity that caused it to collapse. I could be wrong but the twising and distorting of the beams themselves up that high would not have necessarily caused the buildings to collapse.

I understand that but I thought that the actual melting of the support beams was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' by causing the failure of the structual integrity that caused it to collapse.
steel doesn't need to melt to lose its strength.
i seen a guy take a piece of steel 4 feet long by 2 inches wide by 1/2 inch thick, heat it in the middle till it was red, then bend it double with his bare hands.
I could be wrong but the twising and distorting of the beams themselves up that high would not have necessarily caused the buildings to collapse.
there were other factors that contributed to the collapse.
for example each floor was about an acre in size and each one was covered in 4 inches of concrete. all of this weight was supportred by the interior columns and to a lesser extent the outer shell.
if you watch the collapse you can see where the top topples over slightly before the entire tower collapses.

I understand that but I thought that the actual melting of the support beams was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' by causing the failure of the structual integrity that caused it to collapse. I could be wrong but the twising and distorting of the beams themselves up that high would not have necessarily caused the buildings to collapse.

Not quite correct. First off, it's not necessary to actually melt the steel, merely soften it. And there was more than enough mass above the point of impact/fire to push it down from above. Once that began, it was much like folding an accordion.

And heat-wise, a vertical structure is very different than a fire burning under a section of bridge. Due to all the rising chambers (elevator shafts, utility risers), a chimney effect is instantly created which intensifies the heat considerably. It's much like comparing a fire on a flat surface to a blast furnace.

When the upper floor fell on the lower, the falling mass must have gained momentum and the structure was not built to take the impact of entire (i dont know, may be 20 floors) top floors. So each floor while collapsing was taking huge hammering by the weight coming down on them.

Hope someone makes my point clearer.

Singularity any falling object gains momentum, and energy as it falls, no floor is designed to absorb the weight of the mass above it, once that mass starts to gain momentum, the 20 floors above the damaged area once they began to move gained momentum and energy, and every floor that collapsed under the top stories, added to the mass and momentum, and speed of the collapse.

I will say this much. It's a good thing that they came straight down instead of toppling to the side. Can you imagine the carnage from that?

I will say this much. It's a good thing that they came straight down instead of toppling to the side. Can you imagine the carnage from that?
That was the plan back in '93 or whatever. The Islamofascists set off explosives in the basement of one tower hoping it would fall onto the other.

I will say this much. It's a good thing that they came straight down instead of toppling to the side. Can you imagine the carnage from that?
Yeah, thank God for controlled demolitions. Can you imagine the carnage from a falling building without squibs? Oh wait, that's kind of what you just asked.

pragmathen,

Look at the construction of the Towers, if they had gone down any way else than they did you might have a point, but the way the towers were constructed the collapse would be down the centeral support structure, that was were the load bearing strength was, not the walls, or outer structure.
Basically it was a impaling, right up the ass.

But even with an impaling, up the ass no less, there's usually an, you know, object that was used for the impaling? Everything sunk to its footprint. The central core was completely disintegrated due to ... exceptionally hot flames ... 40 floors up? Yeah, looks like we collectively got something up the ass on that morning.

Does JetFuel burns hotter then gasoline ?

If so then there is left little doubt if JetFuel brought down the WTC. Also, there was gasoline in WTC7.


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070429/capt.59902bc2d797448aa3787f35c6c4c3ee.highway_coll apse_caoak106.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/highway_collapse

Here is a neat tidbit I picked up on another forum. It's a bit long but well worth the read:

1) Why The World Trade Towers "Must come down!"

WHY? A BRIEF TECHNICAL SUMMARY:

The structural integrity of the massive World Trade Center Towers was contingent upon the combined-value of *both* the internal, perimeter STEEL columns and the adjoining ALUMINIUM fascia-panels.

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled by the engineers and delivered to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."

Through the continual effects of wind-sheer and [flex-fatigue] this process had eroded the bolt-holds at roughly floors #7 through #25, that fulcrum-point where the lateral pressures were inherently sustained. Photographs, taken after the disaster, reveal that it was only those lowest exterior column sectional groupings which do not appear to have shown severe de-coupling of the joinery, therein. This is evidenced by the bright 'shiny,' cage-like forms that served to contain the bulk of the physical contents among a burning rubble.

Physical evidence verifies that an incendiary 'explosive' material, such as 'thermate,' had come into contact with numerous Steel structural members throughout the entire structures. This has now been verified by independent research scientists from actual samples that had been collected from the site. Witnessed by their locations within the burning pyre, these supporting columns had fallen from the upper-most portions of the two building core-sections.

*My views concerning the chronic construction "flaws" in the World Trade Towers, follows at the end of this document, in section IV. I do not wish to assign 'blame,' nor do I feel the need for me to address these physical matters with any degree of scientific analysis. Sadly enough, the end result of simple human error has now brought the entire world to a state of heightened alarm, to say the very least. I strongly encourage you to cross-reference these issues, as recorded in countless independent and government source documents pertaining to the critical stress-dynamics, and galvanic properties inherent in aluminium alloys.

I also witnessed numerous, "highly suspicious" activities that took place at WTC, building #7, shortly after the structure was erected, and thus concurrent to the events that I have described. Mr. Silverstein was involved from the onset! *Virtually no information concerning the floor-plans, or the construction-phase* has been collected for anyone to do any real investigation into Building #7.

I realize this is a leading statement, but I will challenge any NYC architect to accept the chance to disprove it. After -all, I am the ONLY current spokesperson for the original architects, once officially recognized as the World's foremost design firm. :)

-Put that feather in your cap, Mr. Robert A. M. Stern!

(2.) T. S. Gordon's Insider Knowledge

ESTABLISHING EVENTS:

*CRITICAL DATE CORRECTIONS: In June, of 1986, I moved to NYC, and spent around two months at my friend's loft on Hudson St. Then I moved to Woodstock/Saugerties to save on rental expenses. I spent nearly a year commuting to the city from there, staying on Hudson St. whenever my friend was away on business, in Isla Mojares, Mexico. It was October, 1987 before I actually rented my own apartment on Thompson St., thus my confusion about the actual 'year' by which I had "moved there," and thus been measuring these events. After 9/11/2001, all I could remember was paying my first month's rent with the deposit money I had received to photograph the "Exchange Building" on Sunday, the weekend following the '87 Crash, when you could literally hear a pin-drop from Bowery to Lower Broadway.

I had moved to Manhattan, seeking architectural photography assignments from various architects. Following a brief introduction to Mr. Barry Roth Jr., AIA, the President of Emery-Roth & Associates, and his partner, (cousin) Mr. Robert Sobel, AIA, I was instructed to photograph "the World Trade Center" in the early Spring of 1987.

Supervising the WTC project at that time were Mr. Barry Yanku, AIA, and Richard Stob, AIA, who had instructed, and/or accompanied me throughout my employment with the firm. I became aware of these individuals through personal friends of Mr. Yanku, including; Gregory Vargo, of Perkins & Will, NYC., who had befriended my former client, Simon Zalkind, of Denver. Each of whom may serve as my material witnesses.

Widely known in the trade journals, "Ezra Stoller" and "Norman McGrath" had thoroughly photographed the World Trade Center for a period of many years prior. They created some of the finest known images of the towers, the most memorable ones had circulated the world, as book covers and on posters, often featuring the Statue of Liberty in the foreground. 'Why' these famous photographers were released from their contracts, and I was subsequently hired, is beyond my comprehension. Neither party has released a single WTC photograph since! So I ask, on what basis would two independent parties willingly 'throw-away' something of say, easily $100,000. in current resale value?

Before I began any coverage of the site I was required to thoroughly analyze the Original WTC plans and over 5,000 original copy written photographs. (Many were signed gifts.) I had asked every available associate in the office a lot of questions which provided me with the information I have covered here. However, during that first week, the "librarian" at Emery's offices, (who served as the firm's main corporate secretary and receptionist,) had refused to answer even the simplest of my questions about the buildings. This presented my first challenge, and triggered my concern over some of the materials, (and particularly the physical ones) that I discovered.

I was particularly interested in why they had commissioned *three* entirely different sets of plans for the towers? Their answers were logical, since AutoCad didn't exist when they began. The plan-set posted widely on the internet-"was created ONLY for interior refurbishment."

Not long after the buildings were built, the WTC owners created a separate contract to retain the architects and their "official photographers," as well as several principal engineers from the original consulting firm; "to establish the safety of the twin towers." Each of their staff members worked on this project on a "full-time contract basis," most of them for a period spanning from around 1976-78, or about 10 years, prior to my arrival.

By 1987, according to Mr. Yanku; "there are about 15 participants from ER&A, who have been continually retained for the structural research project, from the onset." This is a huge admission, because their names, and the positions they held therefore must be listed on numerous documents of record.

My assignment was: "To photograph Both of the Towers in their contextual situation. Not just the buildings, but especially how they 'fit' with the neighborhood, including 1-point perspectives of every adjacent structure." Roth had, "been in contact with the property management personnel that this would directly concern." This reinforces my point about potentially available written records! I was only asked to provide my drivers license to access these buildings, with hardly a minor glitch. This was an inherently ludicrous, yet highly challenging request, making it right down my alley! The project was titled "the Bridgeways Project."

Their stated objective was; "to encircle the entire twin-structure with scaffolding, to insure the safety of pedestrian traffic during the complete de-commissioning of the towers."

Following a month and a half of coverage I had exhausted my interest in the street vantage-points, so I decided to go up in the towers early one morning, just to see which adjacent rooftops offered the most suitable additional vantage-points. My memory of these dates is the fact it was far too chilly for me to access any of the higher rooftops. This was either May 9th, or June 9, 1987.* [Technically, I was actually residing at Tony Parker's in Woodstock-Saugerties at that time.]

My apartment on Thompson St. was searched about a fortnight after I moved there. My girlfriend had a shop a few doors down. She became alert to the fact that we were being followed for a period of two years thereafter. Occasionally, she would ask: "Who's that guy?" - "Who are those two guys following us?" They were the same two photographers, "assigned to supervise the clean-up operation for FEMA",-Jim Chestnutt and Kurt Sonnenfeld. (photos provided.) As my proteges in Denver will attest, they were completely incongruous in promoting themselves as a professional "photo-assistants" to various friends of mine at the time.

This pair did not go unnoticed by David Zinser's landlord and neighbor, Frank Ponte. Both he and 'Doc' provided their assurances for my safety, and I soon believed it was entertaining 'to be tailed' in this way. (Doc's got a PhD in spy novels.) About two years later, I made a scheduled visit to see my friend Haidar's Studio, on Sunset Boulevard, in LA. Later that week, we received a visit from these two, again offering their "professional assistant services." -This time, I directly confronted the pair, and I said, "You two guys look familiar." With this, Kurt said, "I'll wait in the car," and he left without looking back.

Jim, (the serious one) remained calm, so I asked him outright: "Are you an FBI agent? Why have you followed me to LA? - This startled him noticeably and his response confirmed that he had received rigorous, professional training. He said nothing more than,- "I believe this interview is over." (Real photographers would have laughed at these assertions!) As soon as he departed, I asked Haidar to let me use his car to follow them! Instead, he physically restrained me, and said; "How about let's you live another day. I know who they are, I can find them." But, he refused to elaborate in any way. "Forget it," he would say, "Let it go, they aren't here to Kill you!"

(3.) "FBI" 'take-over' at the WTC!

Aware of the neighboring Manhattan building 'security' protocols, I was well prepared as I entered the building, during the morning rush, at about 9:10am. However, I was singled-out from the ordinary building patrons, and immediately escorted to a secondary check-point by the lobby guards, which entirely caught me by surprise.

I explained my interests politely, assuming that I would be allowed free access to the general 'public' areas, such as "Windows on the World," where, "I was just looking forward to seeing the view." -Evidently, someone had provided them with my photograph because I looked indistinguishable amongst the usual patrons at that time of day. However, I was immediately told that I was on a list of persons who were explicitly to be escorted upstairs, "to insure that I would arrive at the engineering office in time for Our meeting." - What meeting, I thought?

The suite was listed on the Guard's ledger as: "Skilling & Jackson, P.C.," -a name I had seen somewhere in print, but I had no prior relations with. I thought, being fully aware that Emery Roth had NOT maintained an office in the building for many years, so clearly this was NOT a situation vaguely pertaining to me! Two regular WTC official guards came from the nearby service area (rear) to escort me upstairs. As we arrived at the 'skylobby,' two, different guards accompanied me from there.

When we arrived at the door to this suite, (Tower 1, around the 84th to 86th floor, North) there was yet another guard standing outside, and I became highly skeptical by this point because of the temporary qualities of the sign on their 'main' office door. They had a brand new, fake wood engraved plastic sign, it read: "Skilling Associates, P.C." (I thought, this name doesn't match, and this office has been here for what, over 10 years?)

"Everyone sit down and be quiet." "Who's this?"
-The Chief orator said loudly, starring at me, as the guards led me toward the door of an isolated, (est. 14'x 24') glazed conference room, immediately to the left of this rear entry.

I said: "I am the official photographer from Emery Roth," and offered to shake his hand. Un-flinching, somber and businesslike, he said without drawing a breath,- Then, you are to be included, who sent you here?

I said; "Barry Yanku- I just got a message from his secretary." (Which was not true, but she had called me about something the day prior, but I was not able to learn why she had called .)

He nodded and addressed the full group, (then reading from a 4x5 file-card,) "As you know some of your associates have worked as absentee members, and each of them have already confirmed their knowledge of, and prior 'agreements of compliance' with the orders I have described to some of you earlier today.

He said to everyone: "Listen carefully, nobody gets out of this!"

"Each of you were called here to sign an affidavit of non-disclosure. None of the information from our project can find it's way into the public-eye. Absolutely nothing that we have learned from this project can be revealed to the public because it is potentially damaging to our client. Some of you have enjoyed 10 years of service on this project for our client. Each of the team leaders have recently received raises and additional benefits. { someone } -has already received a new assignment and he will be getting a healthy raise at his new location, which, as I've explained to each of you, must remain undisclosed."

"I know this transition will take you by surprise, but there was no other way to handle it. You are All terminated from this project effective immediately! This means you need to clear your desks and surrender all of your files by the end of the day. I will assist you in getting these papers into the archive cabinets so we can give them to the owners for safekeeping."

"After you have signed these forms, we will have a short recess. You may go to the Cafe, or to 'Windows' for lunch, but do not leave the buildings! "

"I want you all to know that I am sad to have to break this news. Your fine work here will not go unnoticed. Each of you has provided an invaluable service and we are all grateful. Do not think that this action shows any reflection on the exceptional quality of your individual work!"

This guy's speech sounded like a military operation. Everyone in attendance could tell he had no connection to the Port Authority, or the WTC Security Staff, yet no one in the group recognized that I didn't technically work for their firm, and I had no business being there!

"The 'Critical' issue with these Structures:"

Next, we were escorted to "lunch," at around 10:15am., where I was able to visit with 4, or 5 of the lesser engineers, without oversight from the supervising officers. I played it really cool despite my total ignorance. Each of these men were genuinely furious about what had transpired. I said things like,- "Shame we have to disband-band. I was looking forward to being here for at least a few months."-"What do you suppose we've done wrong?" ...Each man (who's identity was not known to me) in turn revealed:

"The fact is, we all know that the buildings can't stand safely for over 40 to 60 years. It's not the sub-soil, that's granite. They must have received the completed demolition report, which we all knew to expect. It was supposed to be finished months ago. Clearly it looks bad. Well, I'm damn sure we all know the real implication- that the owners can't ever get their money back! That's what we all learned today. -Thanks, _(no knowledge of person he named)_, -screw you!"

I asked: -"Why? What do you mean;- how Much too much?"

"It's $2.6 Billion just to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, and that's only the beginning. They literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! -Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell soon, or take a serious bath; ...Total?- You tell me, $4.5 Billion, or so!" (I forgot his figures.)

-"Why now?" I asked. "They still seem really stable, -architecturally."

"They are much too big. It's come down to a piece-by-piece problem. They simply can't be imploded, we know of no other way. Why do you think they hired me for 10 years to find other solutions? I'm not a structural specialist, just an architect, and a pretty damn good one at that! "

- "I thought Barry said you guys were about to find a solution."

(I could sense this was the wrong thing for a non-participant to say.) A definite look of concern spread over their faces, until I said-"What's a few more flying buttresses going to cost?" It was a lame assertion, but they certainly bought it, as a joke, and everyone relaxed, as I said something like; "So, what about me, should I be composing a resume for my next 'real-job' interview?"

Then someone asked, "Why are you allowed to free-lance?" He asserted: "None of us were allowed to be holding other jobs, as long as we've held these titles, because of the contract-stipulation that had occurred about 4 years ago." - "Tom, Were you aware of this?"

Of course, I had to answer, "No." Which immediately indicated the end of their interest in confiding in me. Instead, they all griped about the pathetic lunch. "This is horrible, I can't eat here!" No one was very relaxed at any point. The more I had learned, the more scared I was, still I played the Jr. draftsperson, listening for more fascinating inside news. -Fat chance.

-Finally, truly pushing my luck, I prodded again, directly addressing the most reserved engineer in the group. "-So tell me about the electrolytic issue?"

Everyone went quiet at first. But, they all realized that we had been sharing some deeply guarded insights. One man began a patent, evasive narrative, clearly not about to go anywhere. But, this main guy had sensed that I actually did know as much as each of them about the compositional, and mechanical arrangement of these disparate metals. By then, I had effectively blown my cover, yet their identities were unknown to me, and we ALL knew that we had found ourselves in a similar jamb here.

He said: "If you are referring to the coring project, I don't think any of us here had any direct involvement. That was terminated a long time ago." I asked; Is it not feasible to simply put a sleeve in with the bad bolts, to separate the metals?

With this, they all joined in, and I got all I needed to know.- There were a total of about 15 floors which had received new bolts, each bolt-hold requiring a noisy core-drilling which had caused the project to cease. The procedure caused a 'ringing' that transferred the noise, vertically throughout dozens of floors. This infuriated the tenants, beyond belief, and thus it became an unacceptable and impractical approach.

Suddenly, well short of our hour, two men came in (-swat-team style) to escort us back upstairs. Behind them they had back-ups. They were all being "sent to their desks," (which by now didn't exist,) yet the contents of which were completely boxed and/or removed. The Principal Officer awaited us (actually just me) at the entry door:

"Again, son, tell me who you are?" -he asked, like he had all day to become real friendly. "You guys walk ahead," he said, using assertive body-language to physically indicate that he would be in a position to restrain me right there at the door, or at any time he should choose.

I answered: "I'm T.S. Gordon their new, official photographer. I've only been here two months. Evidently, they were tired of paying Mr. Stoller."

"Who's Stoller?, I only know of a Mr. McGrath? -Are you saying you are Not with Mr. McGrath's photography firm?"

I said; "You don't know Ezra, the world's greatest at shooting tall buildings? Haven't you seen all the great shots up at Emery Roth? -McGrath has shot what, 4 or 5 decent photos in 4 years!,"

(-I was 'acting' as though I were always a sarcastic SOB by nature, until I began to feel that he might arrest me. By the way, Norman's shot's were awesome, but I felt I had to assert a strong, and belligerent opinion here, specifically, just to anchor any notion that he may have had concerning my 'right' to be in attendance here, which I did not, but I didn't care. For me, this WAS serious 'espionage'. )

"Son, I asked you a question, ARE YOU, or ARE YOU NOT working with MR McGRATH?"

(gulp!) "No Sir! I don't work for Norman McGrath, nor have I ever met the man." -I said, quite truthfully.

"You go by, Tom, Thomas, or T.S.?" -He asked, looking again at my Colorado drivers license.

"T.S., or Tom, - I was only contracted to cover site-analysis, not technically just the buildings. I didn't even need to come in here again to complete my assignment!" - I said; "Look, I can find my way to the elevator if you really don't want me here." He immediately grabbed my arm, (like a trained MP,) and proceeded to direct me back out into the corridor behind the others.

"No, funny business, man! I'm going to assume you are who you say you are. You were called in because Everyone had to sign off on their contracts as described in their part in this entire assignment. You say you work for Barry__ -who?"

I responded, "Yanku," and added, "He's the one that cuts my checks, and I give him ALL the film." (I knew Barry was a former, 'on-site' project manager, and that he would probably be "at lunch" if they tried to call. Of course, I lied about giving-up the film. [see: ASMP contract guidelines. ]

"You are not to tell anyone about your employment here, ever!" -he said, "You do exactly what I tell you. You are not allowed to leave these premises. Now, I'm going to have to separate you from the others, while I check your employment status with this Mr. Yanku."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I had witnessed by this point was beyond belief! The entire 1/2 office-floor suite had been almost completely emptied by now. In place of the prior cubicle walls they had demarked the entire space with a grid of masking tape. Uniformly boxed and boldly labeled, were only those items, (as he announced to be); "of personal value to their rightful owner."

"Tom, wait here by the window. -IN FACT, all of you with outside affiliations are to wait in a small group here where I can keep an eye on all of you." They (and I) were evidently 'vendors.' A couple of guys took their seats by the North window, but I was really nervous, and I stood against the glass with my back to the FBI. I gazed down on the un-finished looking iron-work of building #7, which I knew had just been 'topped-out' the day before. I began to compose a photographic mental record of the scene below, by extending my thumbs, and shifting my imaginary perspective, as only a large-format shooter might do.

"What are you studying?" someone quietly asked. "I still can't believe that building is that tall and skinny." (And I really couldn't. I had toured #7, with Photographer Bill Charles, about 10 days earlier, before it went 'high-security,' and I was quite curious about this birds-eye angle.)

He stood up, evidently angry, now, and said quite unpleasantly; "Yeah, good old #7, the building that never should have been built!" I was very surprised as he casually, gently bent an ear in my direction. I think he said, (discretely,) "Does Barry even know you're here?" I whispered,- "No" and re-scanned the view, offering him the opportunity to talk... "Are you going to the ceremony, tomorrow at 11:00am?" ...(Hugh?) "I'm considering, why, ...should I?"

The Chief officer, noticing our interaction through the glass, immediately summoned us to stop talking! My instinct was that this man I was talking with was a senior employee, probably the project architect, who had indicated, in this way, a desperate desire to let me know exactly what this was all about!

"Sir, I told you to take a seat." he said, to this guy. With this, the entire East side of the office floor, being some 20 people, went dead silent, thus confirming this man's importance to the team. He separated the four or five of them by one chair each. He made me go to the North East corner, where I had a spectacular view of the Brooklyn Bridge, {which, by-the-way, is the only damn reason I had come here in the first place!}

After about 5 minutes he physically ushered me into the office where there were at least 9, 'FBI-looking' guys, mostly wearing black suits, gathered around the service-grade conference table, clearly not purchased for that tiny room. (Architects, let alone engineers, would never have been dressed so formally, nor been known to organize any office in this way, and I've never met any group that acted so up-tight, much worse so than the Staff at NORAD.)

"Mr Gordon, I'm sorry; Mr. Thomas-Scott Gordon," (he said correcting himself for his witnesses.) "I have called your supervisor at Emery-Roth. He tells me that they Do acknowledge that you have been contracted to photograph the WTC properties." (Note, he did not say "Mr Yanku's" name, and they had not taken the time to discuss any details, so I was "off the hook" in a minor way. Remember, I was NEVER supposed to even be here!)

"I'll repeat for your benefit what has been said to each of the other employees. Your work here is to be terminated immediately! Each member of the staff will be treated as an individual case. You will sign this waiver, which says that you have agreed to comply to an oath of confidentiality concerning your project which we discussed in the hallway." -I asked: "May I read it, before I sign it?" "You may read it, but I can't let you have a copy." I stood at the doorway and read it. After 15 years, I've forgotten the lesser things that were being said between them. A couple of other guys asked me questions too. One man, seated, had asserted a 'superior order' -sounding line. Then, I think the prior leading official said: "Stand-down, Sir, I will handle him." The General (I'll assume that's what he was) chuckled in response to his subordinate, Sergeant's retort. Finally, the General was the one that actually dismissed me, and he even said "good luck with your future photography," which made me think he was playing the Executive architect, and I returned the gesture with a warm,- "Thank You, sir!"

Finally, the Sergeant guy said; "You will be escorted from the premises to assure us that you do not talk to any of the other participants on the way out. And, Mr. Thomas-Scott Gordon; you are not to contact the staff here, -not ever again!" He led me to the door where an armed plain-clothes guard was waiting outside, plus a standard WTC guard. (I think their team members were also mixed-up by now.) At the sky-deck, there were more guards (I hadn't previously seen them) monitoring the freight elevator traffic. The same pair escorted me down to the concierge check-point, where I was identified to the building guards before being taken by the plain-clothes guy, all the way past #6, to the street. -But, why?

Within a few days I called Ezra Stoller, in White Plains. Speaking freely about WTC. He innocently revealed that he - "Wasn't allowed to shoot any more pictures of it." That was a very funny thing to hear him say, because no one ever "doesn't allow" a celebrity photographer to get a better shot! I knew he would hear about this fiasco, but I didn't explain what I had just experienced, only that it was very exciting for me to get to follow in his shoes. I thanked him for the friendly phone visit, and promised to "send him one of my prints, should I ever get any really great shots of the WTC."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4.) Post-mortem; -Follow the Money-:

Minoru Yamasaki was working for the Saudi's when he took on this project. After its completion, in 1973, "he returned to Saudi Arabia to consult on other projects," there, he was accredited to "the Saudi Financial Center," evidently just before he died of cancer in 1986. Minoru befriended Richard Roth Sr., while working for 'Brown & Root,' Chicago. Roth was noted for his contribution on the "Columbia Exposition," and the two shared many stylistic attitudes. Richard Roth Jr. was in charge of his dad's firm when he retired. Their clients included: Carnegie Mellon, Stephen Roth, and Jeffrey Levine, Simkin Master's Interests, Alliance Savings & Loan, Avatar Holdings, URA, and DMT, when their focus moved off-shore, to lesser publicized (US) projects in India, and China.

Before the building was sold to Silverstein, (Westfield America,) Stephen Roth, (who I think runs the "ADL" with Vernado Realty,) worked to take the bid as high as possible, offering $750.M more than the next lower bidder. Did he even have the money? Two months before the official auction, he withdrew the ridiculous bid. Could this have been a mistake, or just a 'foil' to make Silverstein's bid look legitimate? Interestingly enough, ADL's global presence was established through a massive re-capitalization in 1991. Researchers have noted that this occurred simultaneous to an unexpected rise in 'neo-Nazism' propagated in Germany, and attributed to "CIA instigators," under George Bush Sr's control.

Another key Houston player, through this period was Charles Hurwitz, owner of MAXXAM who allegedly used junk bonds to buy Kaiser Aluminum International, an office that received the first-hit. Kaiser's liabilities for their 'asbestos' cases were dropped after the WTC was deemed to have been destroyed by terrorists. Hurwitz was responsible for the demise of United Savings Association of Texas, (vis-a-vie, Michael Milken,) clearly establishing him with the Bush family during this same year. Researchers should look closely at the Bush connections to Alliance Savings and Loan. Lastly, I believe that both George Nethercutt (Senate Appropriations) and Andrew Lundquist, (Cheney Energy Director) had my same level of knowledge before the attacks. Doubtless, we can see ongoing connections through the Seattle-to-Alaska military pipeline.

Between 1989 through 1993, the downtown Manhattan real estate market was in decline, offering suspicion that the WTC owners may have accommodated the first bombing, courtesy of either the CIA, or the FBI. Both, The World Financial Complex, and Battery Park Improvements Project had attracted the WTC's biggest tenants, diminishing its lease viability. By 1996, the internet had "decentralized," (or at least threatened,) the financial industry, further eroding the profitability of this property. Each event significantly factors into this timeline, but I remain focused on the underlying motives:

The building was bid at $750.M, and cost$1.2B to build. It was worth about $4. to $5.B at its peak., but, would have cost nearly $15.B to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 'safe' life. Obviously, it was Imploded, because there was never going to be a 'break-even' point for either, the current, or future owners!

Recently I heard from Tommy Malley, who claims his family are involved in New York City construction. Mr. Malley's testimony sounded very professional as he revealed knowledge of pre-bid information pertaining to the "Decomissioning of theTowers." (A phrase only he and myself have ever used.) Mr. Malley encouraged me to revise my figures, which brings forth a startling, and potentially critical new discovery, which I will quote:

"The owners were fully aware of the problem and had been given the ultimatum that they could not 'implode' the buildings. They received the report stating that: Decommissioning was required by the EPA by no later than 2007, at a projected cost of $20.B"

*After these events, I discussed this with my father at length. His specialty at ALCOA was material-bonding, and galvanic corrosion. Dad's conclusive opinion remains to be, and I quote: "That damn architect is an idiot who didn't deserve his degree!" This was not really Minoru's fault, because aluminum had not yet been tested as a combination-layered structural material in this type of application.

ALUMINUM + STEEL = Electro-mechanical failure!

The exterior Aluminum panels were designed to meet an unusual set of technical specifications. Those criteria were published in various trade-periodicals at that time. This information has not been released by NIST, or otherwise been widely discussed of late. We know that this material was custom manufactured to exacting specifications.

Typical examples from that era had similar alloy compositions, though none were exactly the same as we use today. By varying the percentages of Silica and Alumina, and lesser quantities of Nickel, Tin and Zinc, this material appeared to meet their needs. (I felt it with my hand, and I have handled dozens of unique samples at dad's request.) Uniquely, I thought it had a very coarse-substrate,(6-8g) as though it were cast, but otherwise it appears to have been an extruded profile with a smooth outer finish, having a good-quality brushed sheen. It literally appeared to be brand-new, and far more durable that any of your contemporary aluminum-laminates, such as "Aluccabond I, and II."

This was formally stated as the key to creating an "elastic membrane," that much I remembered as my project began. Materials experts will attest that the entire composition qualities are important to the integrity of this compound.The 'clear,' electro-metallic plating, (then unproven,) may have contained Sulfur, and was pronounced to have; "effectively prevented oxidization and withstanding the elements, performing better than anyone had expected, over time." -(Architectural Record.)

Special 'elasticity' requirements were weighed against the shear-resistance as required to support the vertical, and lateral loads. Experts did not know what alloy mix would ultimately provide the best solution at the time the project was put out to bids. They had certainly evaluated the known "inter-granular corrosion," statistical guidelines, yet this material had never been subjected to this extreme application for civilian use. I had followed some of this in the trade-journals at the time. Choosing the right mixture was sort of a work in progress right up to the final days before the delivery due date. Certainly today's composites exhibit increased qualities in every regard. However, I will cite this photo example from NIST, because it may well be idemnical to the cause, and it certainly serves as an effective visual aid.

[I have illustrated the bolt-hold to indicate the relative severity of the damages involved.]

Internet publishing date: July 7, 2006. By, Thomas-Scott Gordon, Architectural Photographer, Designer, and Audio/Video Systems Engineer. *Minor grammar corrections have been made on 9/29/06. A PDF of the actual documents filed with the US Military is available upon request.*

pragmathen

... exceptionally hot flames ... 40 floors up?

Have you ever been up and outside a sky scraper? at 40ty stories, the wind is always blowing, so if you punch a hole through a building and dump a couple of hundred tons of JET A, and set it alight, you have the effects of a blast furnace, the Chinese were making steel in 202 BC, and use nothing but wood and wind for the furnace, and JET A burns a whole lot hotter than wood.

Ancient steel
Steel was known in antiquity, and may have been produced by managing the bloomery so that the bloom contained carbon.[10] The Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) created steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining ultimate product of a carbon intermediate—steel—by the 1st century BC.[11][12] Along with their original methods of forging steel, the Chinese had also adopted the production methods of creating Wootz steel, an idea imported from India to China by the 5th century AD.[13] Wootz steel was produced in India and Sri Lanka from around 300 BC. This early steel-making method employed the use of a wind furnace, blown by the monsoon winds




http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

That was the plan back in '93 or whatever. The Islamofascists set off explosives in the basement of one tower hoping it would fall onto the other.


But dont forget that it was the CIA that had helped them back then.

These people are gona turn blind eye to the fact that gasoline can melt bolts. They are interested in their personal vendetta.

Actually the another side to all this is that we got to protect the existing buildings bolts, by sticking them with some heat absorbing materials.

JetFuel doesn't even need to melt steel on the WTC....all it needs to do is weaken the structure enough....the WTC was designed to collapse into itself instead of falling to the side and hitting other buildings...thats why it fell that way....

Judging by the footage I saw and my own personal knowledge of that part of the freeway, I believe the driver took the turn too fast and flipped it. These guys have a tendency to treat those beasts like they're sports cars, and the MacArthur Maze is their own personal race track. That, and some of these guys are hit with such tight delivery schedules as to make unsafe driving practices a job requirement.

If these "race car" truck drivers were all so inconsiderate, why don't they wreck more? Could it not be perhaps this driver doesn't really exemplify the majority of other truck drivers? Just a thought.

I think most drivers are very cautious they make damn good money, and it doesn't take much to lose your CDL......they take that seriously.

Singularity

Actually the another side to all this is that we got to protect the existing buildings bolts, by sticking them with some heat absorbing materials.

The bolts and stringers were covered in fire protective materials, the problem was that they weren't covered in asbestos, the environmentalist got that banned in the 80tys, asbestoses is a flexible material that is semi flexible, and doesn't shed under impact, the material that replaced it was a solid foam, when it is subject to impact it shatters, and sheds from the material it is applied to, leavening that material exposed to the heat of the flames, and subject to heat induced structural strength loss.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks


The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse

Singularity



The bolts and stringers were covered in fire protective materials, the problem was that they weren't covered in asbestos, the environmentalist got that banned in the 80tys, asbestoses is a flexible material that is semi flexible, and doesn't shed under impact, the material that replaced it was a solid foam, when it is subject to impact it shatters, and sheds from the material it is applied to, leavening that material exposed to the heat of the flames, and subject to heat induced structural strength loss.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks


The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse

That's total fucking bullshit. The impact of an aluminum plane can't knock the fireproofing off an entire building. The WTC designers said they designed the WTC to act like a screen door. So If a plane was to ever hit it, it would be like pierceing a hole in screen door. Eventhough a hole will be present, the entire structure wouldn't be compromised. Fires don't bring down steel buildings. It's never happend EVER only on Sept 11th.


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Tower2.jpg


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Tower.jpg

Also, don't take my word for it. Listen to one of the WTC designers tell it. And before you use the 707 not 757 crutch, remember the fuel payloads are relatively the same in both planes.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

That's total fucking bullshit.
no, it isn't.
The impact of an aluminum plane can't knock the fireproofing off an entire building.
the impact didn't knock it off the entire building, nor did it need to.

Fires don't bring down steel buildings. It's never happend EVER only on Sept 11th.


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Tower2.jpg


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Tower.jpg

great photos, but there is a piece of information you and that website is overlooking.
the construction of the WTC 1 and 2 was an ENTIRELY different design.
if you look carefullt at the pictures you submitted you will see that the supporting elements are spread throughout the building. contrast that with WTC ! and 2.

Ganymede

Also, don't take my word for it. Listen to one of the WTC designers tell it. And before you use the 707 not 757 crutch, remember the fuel payloads are relatively the same in both planes.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gnedtotake.htm

From the Engineers who did the post mortem, not the designer who was facing multiple law suite.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Ganymede

That's total fucking bullshit. The impact of an aluminum plane can't knock the fireproofing off an entire building. The WTC designers said they designed the WTC to act like a screen door. So If a plane was to ever hit it, it would be like pierceing a hole in screen door. Eventhough a hole will be present, the entire structure wouldn't be compromised. Fires don't bring down steel buildings. It's never happend EVER only on Sept 11th.

Your the one using the bullshit,

1. I never said that the whole of the buldings fire proofing was compromised, it was only at the points of impact.

2. That was if the core structure wasn't compromised, and add fire to a screen door and cut the outer supports and it will collaps, at the WTC 1 and 2the core structure, the major load bearing structure, was comptomised, and in the words of the Report not my words,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

QED. *sips tea*

Jeremyhfht

Like your site, it covers almost everything that I have posted, but in a far funnier way.

I might also add, in case nobody is smart enough to click the link and read the very lengthy point-by-point rebut (on a link Maddox provides), an excerpt from maddox:


steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C

So ... all 45+ stories of the central core of steel were entirely compromised because of a localized disintegration at the (near) highest-point? The entire time the core was on fire, it was busy liquefying the remaining steel running down its entire length (into the basement)...?

Christ, I don't know which is the greater conspiracy--that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition or that the original construction of the buildings was completely boneheaded and intentionally erected so as to fall immediately when their core sustained fire.

Singularity



The bolts and stringers were covered in fire protective materials, the problem was that they weren't covered in asbestos, the environmentalist got that banned in the 80tys, asbestoses is a flexible material that is semi flexible, and doesn't shed under impact, the material that replaced it was a solid foam, when it is subject to impact it shatters, and sheds from the material it is applied to, leavening that material exposed to the heat of the flames, and subject to heat induced structural strength loss.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks


The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse

I hope fiberglass will help.

So ... all 45+ stories of the central core of steel were entirely compromised because of a localized disintegration at the (near) highest-point? The entire time the core was on fire, it was busy liquefying the remaining steel running down its entire length (into the basement)...?
near highest point?
the buildings were not compromised there.

Christ, I don't know which is the greater conspiracy--that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition or that the original construction of the buildings was completely boneheaded and intentionally erected so as to fall immediately when their core sustained fire.
post a video of a controlled demolition that collapsed like WTC 1 and 2.

That's total fucking bullshit. The impact of an aluminum plane can't knock the fireproofing off an entire building. The WTC designers said they designed the WTC to act like a screen door. So If a plane was to ever hit it, it would be like pierceing a hole in screen door. Eventhough a hole will be present, the entire structure wouldn't be compromised. Fires don't bring down steel buildings. It's never happend EVER only on Sept 11th.


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Tower2.jpg


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Tower.jpg

Its better to learn the lesson now, WTC was built using new technology, all the building built on that basis are at risk.

I might also add, in case nobody is smart enough to click the link and read the very lengthy point-by-point rebut (on a link Maddox provides), an excerpt from maddox:

It's never happend before. So what are they basing their assumptions on besides conjecture?

So ... all 45+ stories of the central core of steel were entirely compromised because of a localized disintegration at the (near) highest-point? The entire time the core was on fire, it was busy liquefying the remaining steel running down its entire length (into the basement)...?

Christ, I don't know which is the greater conspiracy--that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition or that the original construction of the buildings was completely boneheaded and intentionally erected so as to fall immediately when their core sustained fire.

Forget christ, think about this.

A Gasoline fire melts the blots of a bridge (i think they are below the road on the bridge), what do u think JetFuel should do ?

Whatever they say steel melts at temperature this and that. The truth seems that fuel fires do melt metal.

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

Sorry, in a mood to add fuel to the fire. Pun intended, of course.

- N

near highest point?
the buildings were not compromised there.
And where were they compromised? Mid-range point? Enough so that the central core, made up of individual steel rods, turned to butter en masse after a few hours of jet fuel burning? You'd think that if the central steel core was so prone to liquefaction from jet fuel fires, the top 1/4 of the buliding would've buckled first--but it was too busy waiting for the entire structure to fall at the exact same time.

post a video of a controlled demolition that collapsed like WTC 1 and 2.
Better yet, find me a video of WTC7 that doesn't resemble a controlled demolition. Or, despite apologists saying it was built with different technology, find me a link showing a building with a steel core collapsing into its own footprint--that is not a controlled demolition.

Better yet, find me a video of WTC7 that doesn't resemble a controlled demolition.
building 7 does indeed present an enigma.
Or, despite apologists saying it was built with different technology, find me a link showing a building with a steel core collapsing into its own footprint--that is not a controlled demolition.
like i said, post a video of a controlled demolition with the characteristics of wtc 1 and 2.

Better yet, find me a video of WTC7 that doesn't resemble a controlled demolition.

WTC7? No need to find any other video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

- N

WTC7? No need to find any other video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

- N
this doesn't explain WTC1 and 2.

this doesn't explain WTC1 and 2.

Well, WTC 7 was the one someone brought up so I responded. It at least takes care of 1 of the 3 towers and explains what happened.

It does make you wonder how it was so quickly set up for demolition while the rest of the area was in complete chaos. Not only that, but it was later thought that WTC 7 would be unsafe or whatever excuse was given to take it down, yet it was all set up for demolition beforehand? They would have had to think the towers were gonna fall the moment the planes crashed into them to decide that WTC 7 was unsafe and rig it early with explosives. Nice predeterminiation there. It's not like later on it was thought it'd be unsafe so someone just magically snapped their fingers and had the place fall down, someone had to have known all this beforehand, rig it up with explosives, then say hey, WTC 7 is unsafe, let's pull it. Uh, what?

In my opinion, the anomaly of WTC 7 explains everything. It's also the reason why it gets so little attention while everyone decides to focus on WTC 1 & 2. Look at what can be easiest to explain, or better yet, what has been admitted, don't get sucked into the WTC 1 & 2 smokescreen debate while ignoring what's given to us on a silver platter. Hell, just forget that WTC 1 & 2 ever existed and look at WTC 7 by itself, with everything that has been admitted, what is your opinion on that matter? Does everything smell kosher and do you not have a problem of what happened? If you have no problem with WTC 7 with everything that's been admitted, it's pretty clear you'd have no problem with WTC 1 & 2, even if it was admitted they decided to pull those too..

- N

Neildo
???????????????????????????????????????????????

Hell, just forget that WTC 1 & 2 ever existed and look at WTC 7 by itself, with everything that has been admitted, what is your opinion on that matter?
let's just forget about 7 and focus on one and two.

like i said, 7 is an enigma but it does not explain 1 and 2.
as a matter of fact wtc 1 and 2 fell in a manner totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

Neildo
???????????????????????????????????????????????

Yeeeeeeeeeees?

like i said, 7 is an enigma but it does not explain 1 and 2.

Well, I still have no official stance on 1 & 2 due to the obvious conflicting sides on the matter, I only have an official stance on WTC 7 due to it being flat out admitted by the owner, and just from that, I smell something rotten in the state of NY.

Because of WTC 7, while I still have no official belief on 1 & 2, I cannot blame conspiracy theorists for their questioning on the matter. It's like the Bush administration and Iraq, at first we had no reason to not believe them (hell, I first bought it all, hook line and sinker), but now that they've been shown to be liars, it's pretty much expected to not believe a word they say anymore on that topic as they lost all credibility on the matter. It's no surprise that because WTC 7 is fishy, some may find WTC 1 & 2 to be as well. While you may disagree with them, can you not blame them?

- N

Neildo, and just as I thought you were making sense.

It's no surprise that because WTC 7 is fishy, some may find WTC 1 & 2 to be as well. While you may disagree with them, can you not blame them?

- N
yes, i can.
you can not used the "controlled demolition" ruse with buildings 1 and 2.
of all the video i have seen of controlled demolitions none fell like 1 and 2.

God I hate those Zionists.
Look what they did to our road!!

It's never happend before. So what are they basing their assumptions on besides conjecture?

Facts. While a plane hasn't hit the WTC before, it's simple enough to do temperature tests (amongst other things). It is not mere conjecture.

If you'd read the link included, you'd know the massive extent at which conspiracy theorists have lost their mind. Claiming it was a demolition, poor construction (in truth, it was somewhat poor construction. In my opinion. But not bone-headed), etc. It's ridiculous.

I refuse to even bother. I've provided a link with so much rebut material that if you don't read it, you wouldn't read what I said either. Since it's the same damn thing, facts.

Why would a demolition have taken that long in the first place? And how do we know there wasn't some simpler explanation, such as shoddy construction to standard?

Eventhough a hole will be present, the entire structure wouldn't be compromised. Fires don't bring down steel buildings. It's never happend EVER only on Sept 11th.

Unless the plane hit the supports, which it seems to have. And no one knows what such a large building would do. And steel melts - again, contrary to Rosie O'Donnell's extensive skill in areas besides flapping her mouth - at the temperatures engendered in the fire.

The conspiracy theory has been unwound. Ah! But who crashed the truck into the bridge to illustrate the point? The Illuminati, of course. We cooked that sucker up in the mailroom.

Had the building used more beams, amongst other things, and distributed floor weight better (from the design I assume it wasn't entirely distributed right), the weak beams could have still supported the tower.

The problem was that after the first beams collapsed, the added force on the lower beams caused the next collapsed. And so on and so forth. This could have been prevented if more money was put into making sure the trade towers could withstand at least five times pressure then was currently in place. Perhaps ten. I'm estimating.

So, yes, I'd say poor design. Demolition is a joke, when the evidence clearly points to what happened.

P.S: I do have severe ignorance when it comes to building construction. So if any literate people are here, kindly correct me.

Neildo, and just as I thought you were making sense.

Where haven't I made sense? I've not claimed any conspiracy theory. Are you questioning what I said about WTC 7? If so, that's straight from the horse's mouth.

- N

There was a Big Gasoline fire for too long time in WTC7, it melted the bolts, there was weight/pressure of 40+ storeys on that fire, WTC 7 was made like WTC 1 and 2, So it collapsed.

You are endangering the millions out there by not focusing on the rest of the buildings built on same designs, now thats a illuminati conspiracy, to save billions on structural reenforcement.

Look at WTC 7 collapse again, its not an instant collapse, first a off center part collapses then center (not the outer) collapses then the floors collapsing in the center pulls the outer walls /beams and then momentum does its job. All this happens rapidly, it will take a clear mind to see that.

And talking about preKnowledge, those people were sacred with thousands dead, it was like a worst war zone area. They could believe anything that time, they were not soljiers, they were civilians. If someone suspect its gona fall , lets not see more dead people. In one video they were waiting for a third plane to hit WTC7 because they believe that fright talk.

hmmmm not again. a few hundred years from now peopole will be saying the twin toweres never existed.

There was a Big Gasoline fire for too long time in WTC7, it melted the bolts, there was weight/pressure of 40+ storeys on that fire, WTC 7 was made like WTC 1 and 2, So it collapsed.

Look at WTC 7 collapse again, its not an instant collapse, first a off center part collapses then center (not the outer) collapses then the floors collapsing in the center pulls the outer walls /beams and then momentum does its job. All this happens rapidly, it will take a clear mind to see that.

What do you say to this, straight from the mouth of the WTC owner?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

Or this, if true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNhbsJ81Q4

- N

What do you say to this, straight from the mouth of the WTC owner?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk


Now why will the person say it if its gona jeopardize his billions from insurance ? And a jail sentence perhaps.

Or this, if true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNhbsJ81Q4

- N

I have seen this video, its the same hysteria situation, its possible that they were not sure if Solomon was WTC7

let's just forget about 7 and focus on one and two.

like i said, 7 is an enigma but it does not explain 1 and 2.
as a matter of fact wtc 1 and 2 fell in a manner totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

No lets not forget about something. Thank god you were never in charge of a crime scene. You have to evaluate all evidence. Not just the evidence that fits your preconcieved and prejudiced mindset. And you're incorrect. Towers one and two collasped at freefall speed, zero inertia, in perfect symetrical fashion.

Now why will the person say it if its gona jeopardize his billions from insurance ? And a jail sentence perhaps.



I have seen this video, its the same hysteria situation, its possible that they were not sure if Solomon was WTC7

That's why the insurers took him to court. The insurance companies won the first trial, but eventually lost the second. And what's very suspicous is Larry Sliverstein was trying to get the insurance companies to pay him 7 billion, when we was only insured for 3.5 billion. And this insurance policy was purchased 3 months before the WTC attacks. Here's an intersting quotes from one of the insures attorneys, regarding Silversteins Lawyer.

At this point, Harvey Kurzweil of Dewey Ballantine, arguing on behalf of Travelers, one of the lead defendants, made one of several objections claiming that Nussbaum was making an argument rather than presenting evidence. Closing remarks, not opening statements, allow lawyers to present arguments to jurors.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1098108217347

Gasoline melts bridge, so why not the WTC with jet fuel?"

Why not? Maybe because jet fuel actually did melt the steel girders of the WTC.

They didn't melt, they would have failed way before that.

No lets not forget about something. Thank god you were never in charge of a crime scene. You have to evaluate all evidence. Not just the evidence that fits your preconcieved and prejudiced mindset.
the post you are refering to was a sarcastic response to neildos post.
And you're incorrect. Towers one and two collasped at freefall speed, zero inertia, in perfect symetrical fashion.
no, you are incorrect. they DID NOT fall at free fall speeds.
go back to reading your conspiracy websites

How much did Larry Sliverstein invest and hence how much did he make out of 9/11 ?

the post you are refering to was a sarcastic response to neildos post.

no, you are incorrect. they DID NOT fall at free fall speeds.
go back to reading your conspiracy websites

Are you spook or something? Because your'e hellbent on propagating misinformation. It took less then 10 seconds for the towers to fall. That's free fall speed. I'd post the numbers but that would be over kill.

How much did Larry Sliverstein invest and hence how much did he make out of 9/11 ?

Private businessman Larry Silverstein’s $3.2 billion purchase of the World Trade Center is finalized, giving him de facto ownership with a 99-year lease of the building. [IREIzine, 7/26/2001] It is the only time the WTC has ever changed hands. It was previously owned by the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency. [International Council of Shopping Centers, 4/27/2001] After 9/11, Silverstein attempts to get $7 billion in insurance for the 9/11 destruction of the WTC towers. [Guardian, 10/24/2001] In late 2004, he will be tentatively awarded $2.2 billion, double what insurance companies offered to pay him. [United Press International, 12/6/2004] A judge also makes a ruling that keeps open the possibility he could eventually receive as much as $6.4 billion. [Associated Press, 12/7/2004]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein

So u mean the poor guy lost money ?

And now he has became a scapegoat for pulling out fire men instead of letting die.

"Pull it" = stop the search and rescue operations.

"Then we saw the building collapsed" is not equal to "Then we Demolished the building"

So u mean the poor guy lost money ?

And now he has became a scapegoat for pulling out fire men instead of letting die.

"Pull it" = stop the search and rescue operations.

"Then we saw the building collapsed" is not equal to "Then we Demolished the building"

Actually you have it completely wrong. Larry Silverstein didn't lose money. He made money off of this Tragedy. 911 was the best thing to happen to the power hungry elite, the oil companies, high level investors cashing in their airline stocks just days before 911. Haliburton, Dynacorp, Blackwater, Bechtel, etc. They all profited from this. In any murder case, the easiest way to solve the crime is to find out who benefits the most!

******A New York jury has decided that the 11 September 2001 attack on the two towers constituted two separate events.

The US District Court ruling means Larry Silverstein could now get an extra $1.1bn (£0.56bn) from nine insurers to finance reconstruction.

He has been fighting the insurance companies, arguing he was owed $7bn (£3.6bn) - double his $3.5bn policy. ******

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4075053.stm

Are you spook or something?
guess.
Because your'e hellbent on propagating misinformation.
how so? the twin towers were not controlled demolitions nor did they fall at free fall speeds. the ONLY websites that support such nonsense is conspiracy websites.
It took less then 10 seconds for the towers to fall. That's free fall speed. I'd post the numbers but that would be over kill.
you can post whatever numbers you wish, hell let's say they are STILL falling.

Private businessman Larry Silverstein’s $3.2 billion purchase of the World Trade Center is finalized, giving him de facto ownership with a 99-year lease of the building. [IREIzine, 7/26/2001] It is the only time the WTC has ever changed hands. It was previously owned by the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency. [International Council of Shopping Centers, 4/27/2001] After 9/11, Silverstein attempts to get $7 billion in insurance for the 9/11 destruction of the WTC towers. [Guardian, 10/24/2001] In late 2004, he will be tentatively awarded $2.2 billion, double what insurance companies offered to pay him. [United Press International, 12/6/2004] A judge also makes a ruling that keeps open the possibility he could eventually receive as much as $6.4 billion. [Associated Press, 12/7/2004]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein

Actually you have it completely wrong. Larry Silverstein didn't lose money. He made money off of this Tragedy. 911 was the best thing to happen to the power hungry elite, the oil companies, high level investors cashing in their airline stocks just days before 911. Haliburton, Dynacorp, Blackwater, Bechtel, etc. They all profited from this. In any murder case, the easiest way to solve the crime is to find out who benefits the most!

******A New York jury has decided that the 11 September 2001 attack on the two towers constituted two separate events.

The US District Court ruling means Larry Silverstein could now get an extra $1.1bn (£0.56bn) from nine insurers to finance reconstruction.

He has been fighting the insurance companies, arguing he was owed $7bn (£3.6bn) - double his $3.5bn policy. ******

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4075053.stm

does nothing to prove your claim of "controlled demolition" or "free fall speeds"

does nothing to prove your claim of "controlled demolition" or "free fall speeds"


Wow, just Wow.

I remember watching a video where wrong comparisons are made using animation with the collapse, side by side.

They should drop weights from a helicopter using the same height and then compare the videos , side by side.

Wow, just Wow.
wow this:
when the towers started to collapse they ejected material from the collapse site.
the material ejected hit the ground before the towers completely collapsed.

if you doubt the above statement then watch the collapse on video.

wow this:
when the towers started to collapse they ejected material from the collapse site.
the material ejected hit the ground before the towers completely collapsed.

if you doubt the above statement then watch the collapse on video.

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

I'll take Dr. Steven Jones (Physics professor )analysis and conclusions over yours anyday. He argues with Science, not with a biased pro Bush perspective.

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

I'll take Dr. Steven Jones (Physics professor )analysis and conclusions over yours anyday. He argues with Science, not with a biased pro Bush perspective.
the videos are available for all to see.

Ganymede, my link provided on page 2 effectively rebuts this claim of yours. Including that professor. I sincerely wish that some of you would have even read it.

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

I'll take Dr. Steven Jones (Physics professor )analysis and conclusions over yours anyday. He argues with Science, not with a biased pro Bush perspective.

Steve Jones the loony from Bring Em Young Uni?

Oh, my.

Also: if the "explosives" removed lower floor material, wouldn't there have been a resulting explosion at ground level? At the least, this would be required to achieve these free-fall speeds. Moreover, the collapse would still have to crush each floor whether the first floor supports were knocked out or not; meaning that the collapse should be slower than free fall anyway.

I have a few doubts about the collapse speed. Any links?

Ok, there was no free fall.

I just went to a youtube post about the collapse and basically you can still see lots of building at 10 seconds. At 12 seconds, not so much. But the smoke is almost completely obscuring the upper floors, so the collapse must be a good 15 seconds top to bottom. And debris does indeed fall faster, hitting the ground sooner. So.

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

Furthermore, while Steve Jones is a fine scientist, I'm sure, although not an engineer, I'm sure, there are a number of other professionals who have signed off on the NIST report:

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)