WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (HOLY SNIKIES!)

[Juan_Bottom]

I also remember the same doubt being raised at the time, and an account in Private Eye (I think) suggesting that the reason for the collapse was the difference between the specifications for the buildings and the actual construction - i.e. skimping in construction leading to weakness which made it easier for the buildings to collapse.
I don't believe in the conspiracy theory of deliberate sabotage by the powers-that -be, though I wouldn't contend that it is completely impossible (any more than I can disprove the existence of God) - but the idea that the carnage was exponentially increased due to shoddy construction (very possibly involving corruption and some point in the building/ safety inspection/ whatever process) would not even raise one of my eyebrows. NY crane safety inspections anyone?

Now I said at the start that this would make more seese than fire bringing down the buildings. And certainly there has been little mention of shoddy construction. The company that built the towers has been pretty vocal that their structure would hold. Even to the point of people losing there jobs. Furthermore, the cheif construction manager died in one of the towers; he did not attempt to flee. So certainly he could not predict collapse. And that's a big deal when we are discussing shoddy construction.

Well, ya... If the entire floors worth of supports have failed, separated, that means that you've got a good 15 floors worth of building on top of the supports below the failure point. Each suport has to support x amount of weight and there's four supports, that's well over 60x of weight crashing down on top of the floor below the failure point, causing a chain reaction of failures until you have a pancaked building. And just because a building is leaning doesn't mean it can't fall inwards...

What you are forgetting, is that the idea of a tower collapsing inwards, and pancaking, freefall spped acheived through the path of resistance, are brand new theories that have come of necessity. To accept these theries it total you have to ignore a volume of information, just like NIST does.
Again, taking your scenario, the tower was leaning 20 degress. The weight of the tower caused the joints on the supports ON THE OTHER SIDE to give away. So the tower collapsed inwards, destroying the INTACT support structure underneath it. Once a collapse starts anywhere (from three beams) total collapse is inevitable. You're presuming that any local collapse on any tower will automatically lead to global collapse. Again, at face value alone, it seems flawed. Yet with a controlled demolition, all the pieces do fit. The only questions remaining are how & why.
In fact, NIST does not go into any detail about the structural behaviors of the building once collapse had begun. Or freefall speed.

NIST's Theory
Remaining strictly within the confines of the officially prescribed theory, NIST crafts an explanation for the "initiation of the collapse of each Tower" that avoids faulting the Towers' construction: The aircraft impacts dislodged insulation from the steel, and the exposed steel succumbed to the fires. Sagging trusses pulled in portions of the perimeter walls, causing a rapid spread of "column instability" in perimeter columns, which in turned strained the fire-weakened core columns. The "tremendous energy" of the floors above the collapse zone led to "global collapse."

NIST's also continuosly talks about "Progressive Collapse" as if it is an accepted idea. They are completely ignoreing the histories of steel framed buildings reguarding total collapse, not to mention witness testimonies. The towers are their only examples; even NIST's own models failed to collapse.
NIST has never evidenced that the fireproofing was ever dislodged. It just sounds good to them.
NIST has never evidence tha the sealed core was exposed to fire. Nor have they shown how a fire reaching a maximum of 650C could have weakened the core.

At any rate, this guy said what I'm saying.:

1) A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball.
2) The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures.
3) The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.
Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Selling Progressive Collapse
The Report mentions "progressive collapse" 16 times, mostly in sections describing recommendations. It defines progressive collapse as when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure" but does not mention how rare the phenomenon is or that there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of 9/11/01.

By repeatedly invoking the specter of "progressive collapse" while concealing the phenomenon's lack of repeatability outside of "terrorist incidents," the Report surreptitiously bolsters its supposition that "global collapse" automatically follows from "collapse initiation."

It should also be noted again that for NISTs theory to even work, you have to have fire temperatures that were greater than the actual fires in the buildings.

6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
...

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.

Not only has NIST failed to ever evidence that the core was thermally weakened, the core was basically fireproof.

The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)

Again, this sounds good, but has not only never happened before, but NIST also is making assumptions here.

The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)

No calculations as to how much energy. NIST does provide diagrams, but no calculations.

It is very significant that the Report does not display any images of its multifloor global model or its global model actually showing the "building section above the impact zone" beginning to tilt or beginning to move downward. There are a number of illustrations of its multifloor global model such as to the right, but none show "column instability", tilting, or downward movement.

Again, probably because NIST's own models failed to collapse....

Why the World Trade Center Tower's floors could not 'pancake' collapse as we have been told.
The typical floor structural configuration for the World Trade Center Towers spanned from the exterior wall columns to where the inner columns and a welded cage of steel formed support for the elevator shafts, stair towers, air shafts and mechanical systems, as well as, transferring floor and roof loads to the reinforced concrete foundation/footing structure sitting on bedrock some 70' below grade. Leasable floor areas typically terminated at the service core, where individual floor sections began again according to the floor plan layout. Yes, the individual floors acted as a unified structural 'diaphragm' to stiffen the structure laterally, but the steel composition of each floor was constructed in smaller units of open web trusses spanning between steel reinforced concrete�beams and topped with a steel deck and lightweight concrete. Thus, each floor was NOT a monolithic slab and structural system spanning across each tower from one exterior wall to the other three, as we are led to believe.

Each floor, in fact, terminating at the contiguous inner structural service core, resembled a square 'donut', with the core area being the 'donut hole', so to speak. Failure of floor structural support in any quadrant of the building plan, or even in any half, thus, would have failed asymmetrically. And at the time of failure would not, could not, have 'pancaked' symmetrically as the misleading NIST and commission reports indicate (diagrams shown in these reports are graphically out of scale, and do not accurately represent the building's massive, in fact, over designed, internal structure).

Original WTC Construction Drawings: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... table.html

Floor Plan, 35th to 40th Floors, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... A-58_0.png

Building Sections http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... -177_0.png

How do I know this? What is my personal technical reference? From 1970 to 1972 I was a young design development draftsman for the firm of Minoru Yamasaki Associates, the design architectural firm for the WTC. I was part of the team that detailed the complex aluminum cladding fenestration details for similar building and also worked, in part, on detailing the WTC Executive Floor interior paneling and updating the WTC plans to reflect various 'as-built' construction changes. Based on actual project experience, I was, and am, quite familiar with the structural system at work on the towers, both at a technical and intuitive level.

From many videos it is clear that the initial devastating floor overloading was uneven, and then, suddenly, floor by floor, the destruction became uniform as the buildings seemingly demolished themselves. I would have expected a random destructive overload to cause only a portion of the building floors to fail at a time. This did not happen. The failure, thus, appears controlled and suspicious.

For the floors to 'pancake' uniformly, the first floor to fail would require all perimeter connections to fail almost simultaneously on each floor. The towers could not possibly have collapsed in this way as we have been told in the official reports. One floor, coincident, on top of another to start a demolition-like sequence, without powerful external forces at work, forces other than the plane crash--and the relatively low temperature jet fuel fires which burned away quickly--would not lead to a symmetrical, uniform collapse of all the floors. What other external forces could there be? Explosives? It is my view, knowing what I know, that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished.

R H Nigl July 18, 2008

rhnigl@exoptica.com

N.B. Where are the structural drawings? They still have not surfaced available for public review. I know they are available, there must be many copies in archives. Certainly the Port Authority, the City of New York, the architects and the steel shop fabricator's have copies.

And again, for NISTS theories to be right, they ignore testimonies from over 250 people. Firemen saw bodies in tower 7, firemen and witnesses saw bombs, firemen and civilians were hit with bombs, seismegraphs recorded mysterious explosions, mysterious explosions are on film matching the squibbs. And this is still just WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes are full of holes too.

Conduction is exactly what's happening. Metals in general are a fantastic heat sink (you've got one in your computer, open it up and look, you should have a fan over a big hunk of metal) so any fires still burning afterwards, which there seemed to be, would have put a lot of their heat into the surrounding metal, oxidizing, possibly melting steel (keep in mind, this is after collapse) and melting other metals like aluminum.

I still don't see how you can have pockets of heat 1300 degrees days later, from a fire that was burning at 650C at it's hottest? Not only are you missing a lot of energy and heat, how hot was it to begin with that days later it's still hotter than the fire that brough the towers down?

You said it yourself, nobody actually tested the metals. How do you know it was steel?

lol, NIST and FEMA never tested the metels...
Molten steel was found by metallurgical examination of WTC dust, by the U. S. Geological Survey, the RJ Lee Co. and physics professor Steven Jones. All of the official reports agree that a building fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, cannot attain air temperatures higher than about 1,800 degrees. Steel melts at 2,800 degrees.
There is also the now-famous video of molten steel flowing from a window in the South Tower.

There is also this image ofa flash of WHITE flame from the 81st floor of the South Tower.

For Backglass:

Here is what he wrote to me today at 10:38 PST:
Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
http://www.controlled-demolition.com

There’s another complication in terms of the WTC debris temperatures, according to NASA analyses made on September 16th and 23rd.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-040 ... -0405.html

Over 800 degrees F is hot, but not nearly hot enough. A more speculative view on the paper suggests maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... l.r09.html ), but that's still well below the “about 2,800° Fahrenheit” we need to get "literally molten steel".

The get-out here is that NASA could only see surface temperatures, obviously. And they took their first measurements on the 16th, so temperatures could have been even higher before then. Keep in mind that the hotspots had reduced significantly by the 23rd, though, and excavators wouldn’t have been digging anywhere close to the basement levels until some time after that.

Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[hecter]

Well, ya... If the entire floors worth of supports have failed, separated, that means that you've got a good 15 floors worth of building on top of the supports below the failure point. Each suport has to support x amount of weight and there's four supports, that's well over 60x of weight crashing down on top of the floor below the failure point, causing a chain reaction of failures until you have a pancaked building. And just because a building is leaning doesn't mean it can't fall inwards...

What you are forgetting, is that the idea of a tower collapsing inwards, and pancaking, freefall spped acheived through the path of resistance, are brand new theories that have come of necessity. To accept these theries it total you have to ignore a volume of information, just like NIST does.
Again, taking your scenario, the tower was leaning 20 degress. The weight of the tower caused the joints on the supports ON THE OTHER SIDE to give away. So the tower collapsed inwards, destroying the INTACT support structure underneath it. Once a collapse starts anywhere (from three beams) total collapse is inevitable. You're presuming that any local collapse on any tower will automatically lead to global collapse. Again, at face value alone, it seems flawed. Yet with a controlled demolition, all the pieces do fit. The only questions remaining are how & why.
In fact, NIST does not go into any detail about the structural behaviors of the building once collapse had begun. Or freefall speed.
It makes perfect sense though. The load on the supports is gone, so that load must be transfered elsewhere. That puts more strain on an already strained building causing a global collapse.

NIST's Theory
Remaining strictly within the confines of the officially prescribed theory, NIST crafts an explanation for the "initiation of the collapse of each Tower" that avoids faulting the Towers' construction: The aircraft impacts dislodged insulation from the steel, and the exposed steel succumbed to the fires. Sagging trusses pulled in portions of the perimeter walls, causing a rapid spread of "column instability" in perimeter columns, which in turned strained the fire-weakened core columns. The "tremendous energy" of the floors above the collapse zone led to "global collapse."

Ya... Force=Mass*Acceleration. Assuming there were 20 floors, each weighing 10 metric tons (10000kg) and they were falling at half of freefall speed (~4.9m/s), that's nearly 1'000'000N of force. That's a lot.

NIST's also continuosly talks about "Progressive Collapse" as if it is an accepted idea. They are completely ignoreing the histories of steel framed buildings reguarding total collapse, not to mention witness testimonies. The towers are their only examples; even NIST's own models failed to collapse.
No steel framed building had been built like that before, so previous history doesn't really apply.
NIST has never evidenced that the fireproofing was ever dislodged. It just sounds good to them.
They were hit by a plane. Besides:

Selikoff and Monti pushed for asbestos substitutes, vouching for their safety and effectiveness – even though the substitutes had barely been tested against fire, according to WTC documents from the 1970s.

NIST has never evidence tha the sealed core was exposed to fire. Nor have they shown how a fire reaching a maximum of 650C could have weakened the core.
You keep bringing up that 650C, but, once again, I've heard that temperatures from the fires reached up to 1800F (650C is about 1200F), but both are enough to weaken the steel.

At any rate, this guy said what I'm saying.:

1) A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball.
2) The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures.
3) The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.
Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Again, the WTC weren't designed like normal steel structures.

You said it yourself, nobody actually tested the metals. How do you know it was steel?

lol, NIST and FEMA never tested the metels...
Molten steel was found by metallurgical examination of WTC dust, by the U. S. Geological Survey, the RJ Lee Co. and physics professor Steven Jones. All of the official reports agree that a building fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, cannot attain air temperatures higher than about 1,800 degrees. Steel melts at 2,800 degrees.
There is also the now-famous video of molten steel flowing from a window in the South Tower.

There is also this image ofa flash of WHITE flame from the 81st floor of the South Tower.
You have no evidence that what's flowing from that window is molten steel. It could be just about anything that can melt. You claim that we make so many assumptions, but you make just as many, if not more.

Look, just answer these few questions.

• Why did the side of the building buckle pre-collapse?
• Why did the building top fall at an angle like it did?
• Why would the government risk so many more witnesses and people that need to be kept quiet by blowing up the building when crashing a plane into a building would be more than enough shock value?

I know you can't answer the last one, but it's something that needs to be answered in order for the demolition theory to make any sense.

[Juan_Bottom]

It makes perfect sense though. The load on the supports is gone, so that load must be transfered elsewhere. That puts more strain on an already strained building causing a global collapse.

No it doesn't make sense. The guys who built the tower said it doesn't make sense. For this collection of brand new theories to work, according to NIST:
1) The fireproofing was knocked loose
2) The center supports were weakened from fire (even thought they were stronger, and sealed)
3) The steel was weakened past a load bearing strength (even though the heat was not distributed evenly)
4) The fire had materials to get it to burn that hot
5) The top floors falling down had too much weight and velocity to be stopped
6) Once a partial collapse begins a full collapse cannot be stopped.
7) The witnesses/tape don't exist
Rapid symmetrical collapse is not unusual
9) Total destruction is reasonable
10) Fires can cause steel structures to collapse

NIST has not shown any of this too be true. They make the assumption and then invent theories to go along with it.

You keep bringing up that 650C, but, once again, I've heard that temperatures from the fires reached up to 1800F (650C is about 1200F), but both are enough to weaken the steel.

EVEN at that temperature it is not enough to bring the building to collapse. Let alone a total one. The center supports in the very least, would remain intact. If one can simply set a building on fire to drop it straight down why do we need demoliton contractors?
And actually, given the materials that were even there to burn 1800F sounds too hot. NIST needed an unlimited supply of jet fuel to get the fire hot enough to weaken the steel. Otherwise, we are just talking about an office fire here. And they do not make towers that can fall from office fires.

Ya... Force=Mass*Acceleration. Assuming there were 20 floors, each weighing 10 metric tons (10000kg) and they were falling at half of freefall speed (~4.9m/s), that's nearly 1'000'000N of force. That's a lot.

Even if, massive weight would still support the Demolition Theory. Again, even NIST couldn't make thier simulations collapse.
A scientific examination of the collapse:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... Method.pdf

No steel framed building had been built like that before, so previous history doesn't really apply.

That's just silly. We are not discussing the design(though it was STRONGER than other steel buildings, and is now the basis of ALL tower design) we are talking about whether the fire could weaken the steel. No steel towers have ever collapsed from a fire, and that includes towers that burned for longer than 24HRS.

Selikoff and Monti pushed for asbestos substitutes, vouching for their safety and effectiveness – even though the substitutes had barely been tested against fire, according to WTC documents from the 1970s.

The towers had been and were being updated in the recent months leading up to 911. And I would actualy like to see any proof that you have that either the fire proofing would not work or that it had been knocked free. Again, even though the fire could not burn hot enough to melt the steel.

You have no evidence that what's flowing from that window is molten steel. It could be just about anything that can melt. You claim that we make so many assumptions, but you make just as many, if not more.

Ok, I'll give you that. NIST claims it is aluminum from the wheel of the jet. However, what I want you to see in the flame is the quick blast of WHITE fire. That's incredibly hot, and an indication of explosives.
But as for more evidence of molten steel:
Important notes:

posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=71907#postingbox

1. The WTC debris pile fire was oxygen-poor.
2. The images below represent surface temperatures, the "optical depth" is at the most a few millimeters. (ACS919)
3. Thermal Data was Used to Direct Firefighting Efforts.
4. OSHA safety experts were concerned about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel.
5. This page is updated frequently.

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (recordonline.com) (audio)

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (americanfreepress.net)
Source publication date: 09/03/2002
Witness: Peter Tully
Date molten metal was observed: "more than a month after the collapse" up to 10/11/01

Again for Backglass :

The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,”. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (gcn.com)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (fallenbrothers.com)

Plus there's what I just showed you:

lol, NIST and FEMA never tested the metels...
Molten steel was found by metallurgical examination of WTC dust, by the U. S. Geological Survey, the RJ Lee Co. and physics professor Steven Jones. All of the official reports agree that a building fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, cannot attain air temperatures higher than about 1,800 degrees. Steel melts at 2,800 degrees.

but you make just as many, if not more.

This is simply not true.

Why did the side of the building buckle pre-collapse?

I did answer, I can't believe you believe the sequence of events that NIST laid out. NIST hasn't even proven any of it. They couldn't even get their own models to collapse. NIST used about 250 government and private experts, in all, to put this together. AE has twice that many professionals alone.

Why did the building top fall at an angle like it did?

It didn't, It fell backwards.
In fact, the only way to get a building that is burning and is leaning to the point of falling from stress to fall into itself, is through demolition. Otherwise gravity will take effect and have the building continue to lean untill it collapses. I've remarked on this a few pages back. That is also why NIST claims the center supports gave out. Because if they didn't then those towers could never fall like that.

Why would the government risk so many more witnesses and people that need to be kept quiet by blowing up the building when crashing a plane into a building would be more than enough shock value?

More evidence of Thermite:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... index.html

I know you can't answer the last one, but it's something that needs to be answered in order for the demolition theory to make any sense.

I don't even know how you come off saying that. They found traces of thermite on and around the towers. Seismographs recorded 2 earthquakes with a magnitude of 6 after the planes hit, but just before the towers collapsed. But didn't pick up anything else. Firefighters were injured by bombs. Manny Ramirez was in the sub levels when something exploded benieth him. Which actually coincides exactly withone of the seismograph readings.
Firemen inside the South and the North towers said that the fires were contained and isolated. NISTs own models could not get hot enough to drop the towers. But their reports have the fire getting hotter and hotter because that's the only way to explain the collapse. What you need to search for an answer for, is why the testimonies of over 250 people were never heard. I don't understand how people can ignore all the witnesses and then say it makes sense that we have to come up with new theories and re-invent science to explain the collapses. NIST/the Commission/ and to a lesser extent FEMA simply take the data that they need, and discard all the rest.

And the best part, is all of this stuff has already been dismissed by independant reasearch. Even a few world governments doubt the official story.

[hecter]

It makes perfect sense though. The load on the supports is gone, so that load must be transfered elsewhere. That puts more strain on an already strained building causing a global collapse.

No it doesn't make sense. The guys who built the tower said it doesn't make sense. For this collection of brand new theories to work, according to NIST:
1) The fireproofing was knocked loose
They were hit by a 767, so that's not exactly an unreasonable assumption.
2) The center supports were weakened from fire (even thought they were stronger, and sealed) and hit by a 767...
3) The steel was weakened past a load bearing strength (even though the heat was not distributed evenly)
You've "poked a hole in the screen netting" which required redistribution of the weight, you've got all the live load factors going on, you've got focused fires causing failure of specific points of the supports which causes the beginnings of the tower to fall putting even more force on the already weakened and overloaded structure. Of course it's going to fail.
4) The fire had materials to get it to burn that hot
You've got jet fuel, jet parts, office furniture, walls, floors, ceiling, plastics, electronics, paper, wood, the list goes on. There was no shortage of materials to burn.
5) The top floors falling down had too much weight and velocity to be stopped
You've got the force and weight of a good 15 floors coming down on something that's only supposed to support 1. Duh...
6) Once a partial collapse begins a full collapse cannot be stopped.
If you really want to you can get superman to try...
7) The witnesses/tape don't exist
Just like the witnesses and tapes of people planting the explosives, detonating the explosives, ect. ect. don't exist. Ya, ya, people heard "bombs" and a "count down" and shit like that, but I'm hardly going to believe that people put in an extremely stressful situation to be able to distinguish an explosion from a building crashing.
Rapid symmetrical collapse is not unusual
'Cause planes crash into skyscrapers built like the WTC all the time...
9) Total destruction is reasonable
It is.
10) Fires can cause steel structures to collapse
It did.

NIST has not shown any of this too be true. They make the assumption and then invent theories to go along with it.
*tries not to laugh*

You keep bringing up that 650C, but, once again, I've heard that temperatures from the fires reached up to 1800F (650C is about 1200F), but both are enough to weaken the steel.

EVEN at that temperature it is not enough to bring the building to collapse. Let alone a total one. The center supports in the very least, would remain intact.
I don't think you fully understand just how many forces are at work here. We're not talking about simply weight loads on these supports, we're talking about a lot of angular force and torque on top of any weight it was supposed to bear acting on it. Nothing could withstand that much force. Besides, if they could, then it would have required a LOT more prep would to bring down the centre supports via demolition than what was possible given the situation of the tower.
If one can simply set a building on fire to drop it straight down why do we need demoliton contractors?
To do it safely and effectively, allowing for proper recycling of the materials.
And actually, given the materials that were even there to burn 1800F sounds too hot. NIST needed an unlimited supply of jet fuel to get the fire hot enough to weaken the steel. Otherwise, we are just talking about an office fire here. And they do not make towers that can fall from office fires.
This is not just an office fire. This is a fucking plane bigger than any designed when the tower was built crashing into this tower. This alone would be enough to weaken the tower, which it did.

Ya... Force=Mass*Acceleration. Assuming there were 20 floors, each weighing 10 metric tons (10000kg) and they were falling at half of freefall speed (~4.9m/s), that's nearly 1'000'000N of force. That's a lot.

Even if, massive weight would still support the Demolition Theory. Again, even NIST couldn't make thier simulations collapse.
A scientific examination of the collapse:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... Method.pdf

No steel framed building had been built like that before, so previous history doesn't really apply.

That's just silly. We are not discussing the design(though it was STRONGER than other steel buildings, and is now the basis of ALL tower design) we are talking about whether the fire could weaken the steel. No steel towers have ever collapsed from a fire, and that includes towers that burned for longer than 24HRS.
It doesn't matter, the fact is that it was still very different. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Selikoff and Monti pushed for asbestos substitutes, vouching for their safety and effectiveness – even though the substitutes had barely been tested against fire, according to WTC documents from the 1970s.

The towers had been and were being updated in the recent months leading up to 911. And I would actualy like to see any proof that you have that either the fire proofing would not work or that it had been knocked free. Again, even though the fire could not burn hot enough to melt the steel.
There you go, melting steel again...

Why did the side of the building buckle pre-collapse?

I did answer, I can't believe you believe the sequence of events that NIST laid out. NIST hasn't even proven any of it. They couldn't even get their own models to collapse. NIST used about 250 government and private experts, in all, to put this together. AE has twice that many professionals alone.
You're not answering the question... I don't care if you've answered it already, I'm asking you to answer it again.

Why did the building top fall at an angle like it did?

It didn't, It fell backwards.
In fact, the only way to get a building that is burning and is leaning to the point of falling from stress to fall into itself, is through demolition. Otherwise gravity will take effect and have the building continue to lean untill it collapses.
That's a ridiculous claim. Gravity is pulling straight down on all points of the building. One side gives out, that side begins to fall (the angle of the top of the building that can be seen) which puts extreme amount of stress on the rest of the supports which causes the rest of the building to fall. Where will it fall? Where it's being pulled, of course. In order to do that via controlled demolition, you'd have to get the prep work done without anybody noticing, then you'd have to blow one side of the building at the exact point that the plane hit, then the other side, then the rest of the building.

Why would the government risk so many more witnesses and people that need to be kept quiet by blowing up the building when crashing a plane into a building would be more than enough shock value?

More evidence of Thermite:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... index.html

I know you can't answer the last one, but it's something that needs to be answered in order for the demolition theory to make any sense.

I don't even know how you come off saying that. Probably due to the fact that you didn't answer the question...

[Backglass]

You are your fellow tin-foilers have certainly spent a lot of time explaining away what really DIDN'T happen, yet zero explaining what really DID happen.

You really need both to prove anything, do you not?

[Juan_Bottom]

You are your fellow tin-foilers have certainly spent a lot of time explaining away what really DIDN'T happen, yet zero explaining what really DID happen.

You really need both to prove anything, do you not?

That's how science works. Ideas get tested.
And I think I'm doing a fine job here.

They were hit by a 767, so that's not exactly an unreasonable assumption.

The building was built to withstand multiple 707 hits.
Unreasonable or not, it still has not been proven.. It's a guess.

and hit by a 767...

The center supports weren't exactly hit by the 767s. For that, the plane would have to hit flush in the center.
However, just before collapse, the roofline did dip in the middle, and seismographs did record earthquakes of 6 magnitude. Which according to the experts, is a charactoristic of a demolition. The center supports would be cut 6.5 seconds before the tower would be brought down.

You've "poked a hole in the screen netting" which required redistribution of the weight, you've got all the live load factors going on, you've got focused fires causing failure of specific points of the supports which causes the beginnings of the tower to fall putting even more force on the already weakened and overloaded structure. Of course it's going to fail.

That's simply not true. Again, NIST couldn't even get their own models to collapse. It's actually quite strange thatt he buildings fell. FEMA has said the cause of the collapse of tower 7 is still unresolved.

You've got jet fuel, jet parts, office furniture, walls, floors, ceiling, plastics, electronics, paper, wood, the list goes on. There was no shortage of materials to burn.

But there was a shortage of things to burn hot enough. In NIST's experiments, they could not get their models to collapse untill they used an unlimited supply of jet fuel and raised it to it's highest burning temperature.

You've got the force and weight of a good 15 floors coming down on something that's only supposed to support 1. Duh...

Again it doesn't mean anything. The steel had a tinsle strength of somewhere around 200:1. A total collapse is unreasonable. A total collapse from a fire is unreasonable, to expect whole floors to buckle a the same time is unreasonable. That's why NIST had to invent new theories to get it to work.

Just like the witnesses and tapes of people planting the explosives, detonating the explosives, ect. ect. don't exist. Ya, ya, people heard "bombs" and a "count down" and shit like that, but I'm hardly going to believe that people put in an extremely stressful situation to be able to distinguish an explosion from a building crashing.

Fine, but again, it's over 250 people. You even have tapes of firemen inside the buildings saying that bombs were going off. And that's before the building came down. You also have seismograph evidence. You can see demolition squibbs on pretty much all 9-11 footage. You have people saying bombs went off IN THE BASEMENTS before the towers collapsed. Stressfull or not, there is no way to explain explosions in the basements. Nor can you explain why the seismographs matches up. Where the seismographs stressed?
I mean, how can you ignore the witnesses when the crash LOOKS like a controlled demolition. And falls like one. It has all the charactoristics.
Radial Symmetry
Rapid Descent
Demolition Waves
Demolition Squibbs
Pulverization
Totality
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

The firefighters site, along with a few others, does also have audio/video of unexplained explosions before each floor came down. And other neat stuff.
And continuing with he witnesses, what do you say to the firemen who saw bodies in tower 7? Were they too stressed too? And how are you going to say that people who heard a countdown and were told to keep their mouths shut were simply stressed?
I'm afraid the only way to explain all of the witnesses is to simply ignore them.

I don't think you fully understand just how many forces are at work here. We're not talking about simply weight loads on these supports, we're talking about a lot of angular force and torque on top of any weight it was supposed to bear acting on it. Nothing could withstand that much force.

I don't think you understand. NIST has not released any of their models. Models which they tampered with till they found what they believed was a reasonable explination for the towers collapse. Almost none of the data they used (pictures, videos, wreckage) are on public record or available.
But many physisits and engineering experts have challenged NISTs version of the collapse in very specific ways. I even posted a paper on here earlier. But here is the engeneering site.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

And you're also ignoreing the fact that the collapse is not anywhere near the realm of "normal." Not for destruction by fire. Remember, NIST had to come up with brand new theories to explain the collapse.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

This is not just an office fire. This is a fucking plane bigger than any designed when the tower was built crashing into this tower. This alone would be enough to weaken the tower, which it did.

Fudging the Models
The Report contains a lengthy accounting of how the models performed under various assumptions about the buildings and the planes. One assumption common to all their simulations is the following:

The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed. (p 100/150)
[emphasis added]
Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity.

For each Tower, NIST created two cases. The first set of cases, North Tower case A and South Tower case C, were based on the averages of NIST's estimates of building and plane strength, impact trajectories and speeds, etc. The second set of cases, North Tower case B and South Tower case D, assumed conditions more favorable to the failure of the buildings. The enhancements adopted for Cases B and D over cases A and C are described in the following table:

North Tower South Tower
increase in impact speed 29 mph 28 mph
decrease in approach angles 3º 1º
increase in aircraft weight 5% 5%
increase in aircraft strength 25% 15%
decrease in Tower strength 20% 15%
decrease in Tower live load 20% 20%
increase in Tower fuel load 25% 25%

The Report noted that cases A and C did not produce results matching observations, so cases B and D were selected for use in its four-step modeling.

Since the Report does not provide any evidence that NIST was able to model its alleged "collapse initiation" in which the "upper building section" began tilting and then moving downward (as noted in NIST's "Global Analysis"), one might ask why they bothered to fudge their models. Perhaps NIST's detailed descriptions of its substitution of cases B and D to for cases A and C is a dissembling tactic. Showcasing the adjustment of parameters to favor the failure of its computer-modeled buildings draws attention away from the lack of any evidence that NIST's models predicted building failure at all.

Altering Flight 175's Path


This illustration (p 115/165) shows NIST's estimate of damage to the South Tower's columns, red indicating severed columns

This illustration from WAKING UP FROM OUR NIGHTMARE shows the probable path of Flight 175's fuselage through the South Tower based on the appearance of a fragment the diameter of the fuselage exiting its east corner.

Whereas NIST admits some of the liberties it took in adjusting its models' parameters to fit the desired result, such as their substitution of cases B and D for the more accurate cases A and C described above, it hides others.
This illustration (p 115/165) shows NIST's estimate of damage to the South Tower's columns, red indicating severed columns.
For example, NIST estimates that the crash of Flight 175 severed 10 core columns and damaged 11 others. That damage estimate assumes that the plane impacted the right side of the core nearly head-on.

NIST's assumption contradicts FEMA's estimate of Flight 175's trajectory, as well as the simple analysis of the plane's path through the building based on the entry and exit points of the fuselage. The illustration to the right shows the South Tower's impact gash, a video frame showing a fragment of fuselage exiting the Tower's east corner, and the path connecting the centers of the entry and exit holes. That trajectory left only the left wing and engine to do nearly all of the alleged damage to the Tower's core structure.

In contrast, NIST estimates that Flight 11 severed only six of the North Tower's core columns. Thus, NIST estimates that the North Tower had less core damage than the South Tower, which is completely implausible because:

Flight 11 impacted the North Tower's core in a direct, centered fashion, contrasting with Flight 175's off-centered impact, glancing the core.
The core columns at the North Tower's 95th floor impact zone were only about half as thick as the core columns at the South Tower's 80th floor impact zone.
These facts are evidence that NIST modified the trajectory of Flight 175 to enhance core damage, and that it incorrectly modeled the core columns in the South Tower impact zone as small H-columns instead of large box columns.

It doesn't matter, the fact is that it was still very different. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

And what do you call it when NIST has to tamper with their models to get them to collapse? By adding things like structural damage they can't evidence, dislodged fireproofing they can't evidence, unlimited jet fuel........

Probably due to the fact that you didn't answer the question...

If I HAD TO make a WILD GUESS I would say the only reason to destroy something is to hide something. Yes?
Tower 7 was mainly a government building. Firemen saw bodies in it before it came down. Maybe those bodies were loose ends for some covor up. Maybe they ran the demolition? There are a few witnesses that claim to have seen a tunnel underneith tower 7 with a 6 wheeled army truck in it. But that has not been evidenced at all. I don't know. LOOSE CHANGE among other films does contain a lot of information about when bringing the towers down would be in someone's interest. We know that "put options" on United were 20 times their daily average on the morning of 911. But if you have foreknowledge that something like this is gonna happen... and want to make a quick buck, would you only invest in United's put options? Destroying the towers would destroy the evidence of your insider trading. And what evidence wasn't destroyed would be picked up. Jason Burmass has a short interview with a member of some German tech company that was hired to recover as much information from the trade computers at the towers as they could. The guy said he could never have believed there was so much foreknowledge. The company did their job, gave the data back, and reported it to the FBI.
Larry Silverstein has also admitted that the towers were loseing a lot of mony. The towers also needed updated insulation and fire proofing and a few other things(this was actually being worked on when the towers were struck). This would have cost millions. And again, loose change has all the exact figures. At any rate, Larry Silverstein actually made a profit from the towers collapse, rather than the huge financial loss he was faceing.
Months before the attacks he took out a new insurance policy on the towers. One that specifically covered acts of terrorism. After 9-11 he sued the insurance company claiming each attack was a seperate terrorist attack.
Tower 7 also contained all of the governments research and evidence on the ENRON company. So with the destruction of that, they can't prosecute any more people.
So yes, I suppose that destroying the towers would accomplish something for some people. But again, This is complete speculation and not something to debate.

[Nobunaga]

Freefall speed means nothing to you? I am willing to hear alternative explinations as to why the building would fall that fast.

... Gravity comes to mind.

...

[Juan_Bottom]

Freefall speed means nothing to you? I am willing to hear alternative explinations as to why the building would fall that fast.

... Gravity comes to mind.

...

That's the point. Or do you agree with me?

[Snorri1234]

You are your fellow tin-foilers have certainly spent a lot of time explaining away what really DIDN'T happen, yet zero explaining what really DID happen.

You really need both to prove anything, do you not?

That's how science works. Ideas get tested.
And I think I'm doing a fine job here.

I think his point is that it's all very well to put doubt on the official story, but if you don't have any proof for your own theory it doesn't help.

[hecter]

They were hit by a 767, so that's not exactly an unreasonable assumption.

The building was built to withstand multiple 707 hits.
Unreasonable or not, it still has not been proven.. It's a guess.
But it also hasn't been disproven, and it is a reasonable assumption to make.

and hit by a 767...

The center supports weren't exactly hit by the 767s. For that, the plane would have to hit flush in the center.
However, just before collapse, the roofline did dip in the middle, and seismographs did record earthquakes of 6 magnitude. Which according to the experts, is a charactoristic of a demolition. The center supports would be cut 6.5 seconds before the tower would be brought down.
Look at the first collapse. You can see the building begin to fall at an angle. In order to get that you would have to break just one side of the supports at a specific point before you got the rest. That would require an insane amount of work that simply isn't possible. In terms of your seismographs...
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20 ... apse_1.jpg
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20 ... apse_1.jpg
Sorry, but I don't see it...

You've got jet fuel, jet parts, office furniture, walls, floors, ceiling, plastics, electronics, paper, wood, the list goes on. There was no shortage of materials to burn.

But there was a shortage of things to burn hot enough. In NIST's experiments, they could not get their models to collapse untill they used an unlimited supply of jet fuel and raised it to it's highest burning temperature.
How do you know so much about NIST's unreleased models?

You've got the force and weight of a good 15 floors coming down on something that's only supposed to support 1. Duh...

Again it doesn't mean anything. The steel had a tinsle strength of somewhere around 200:1. A total collapse is unreasonable. A total collapse from a fire is unreasonable, to expect whole floors to buckle a the same time is unreasonable. That's why NIST had to invent new theories to get it to work.
You've got 15 floors crashing down. The floors below simply could not support that.

Just like the witnesses and tapes of people planting the explosives, detonating the explosives, ect. ect. don't exist. Ya, ya, people heard "bombs" and a "count down" and shit like that, but I'm hardly going to believe that people put in an extremely stressful situation to be able to distinguish an explosion from a building crashing.

Fine, but again, it's over 250 people. You even have tapes of firemen inside the buildings saying that bombs were going off. And that's before the building came down. You also have seismograph evidence. You can see demolition squibbs on pretty much all 9-11 footage. You have people saying bombs went off IN THE BASEMENTS before the towers collapsed. Stressfull or not, there is no way to explain explosions in the basements. Nor can you explain why the seismographs matches up. Where the seismographs stressed?
I mean, how can you ignore the witnesses when the crash LOOKS like a controlled demolition. And falls like one. It has all the charactoristics.
Radial Symmetry
Rapid Descent
Demolition Waves
Demolition Squibbs
Pulverization
Totality
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?
There wasn't radial symmetry, rapid decent for a falling building isn't exactly strange, I don't buy any of the demolition crap, there wasn't complete pulverization, only a little which is to be expected in a falling building, and the totality one doesn't even make sense.

The firefighters site, along with a few others, does also have audio/video of unexplained explosions before each floor came down.
Proof?
And continuing with he witnesses, what do you say to the firemen who saw bodies in tower 7? Were they too stressed too?
I don't know, there's a number of reasons that there could be bodies in tower 7. I don't know what that has to do with anything though...
And how are you going to say that people who heard a countdown and were told to keep their mouths shut were simply stressed?
That doesn't even make sense... "Hey, we're having a super secret demolition! Let's let everybody know about it by counting down!"

I don't think you fully understand just how many forces are at work here. We're not talking about simply weight loads on these supports, we're talking about a lot of angular force and torque on top of any weight it was supposed to bear acting on it. Nothing could withstand that much force.

I don't think you understand. NIST has not released any of their models. Models which they tampered with till they found what they believed was a reasonable explination for the towers collapse. Almost none of the data they used (pictures, videos, wreckage) are on public record or available.
You certainly know a lot about these unreleased models...

And you're also ignoreing the fact that the collapse is not anywhere near the realm of "normal." Not for destruction by fire. Remember, NIST had to come up with brand new theories to explain the collapse.
Know what else isn't anywhere near the realm of normal? A building having a fire burning in it for quite some time after being hit by a 767 (or two).

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
Which can be seen...

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
You can see the top of the tower leaning on the side during collapse where the fires were burning the most...

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
See the difference? Softening steel, not melting it. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there weren't temperatures that high enough to weaken the steel and/or the bolts used to hold it together.

[Juan_Bottom]

The problem is, no matter what I put down here, none of you are reading it. It isn't easy constantly digging all this stuff up.
And snorri, what are you talking about? I've even posted a picture of thermite burns on steel, and a flash of white fire. Not to mention the mountains of other information.

[hecter]

See, the problem with your evidence is that it's entirely circumstantial based solely on a few people saying they heard explosions, a few easily explained phenomenon and assumption. Now, obviously there are problems with NIST's explanation, but that doesn't mean that there were bombs in the building.

[Backglass]

See, the problem with your evidence is that it's entirely circumstantial based solely on a few people saying they heard explosions, a few easily explained phenomenon and assumption. Now, obviously there are problems with NIST's explanation, but that doesn't mean that there were bombs in the building.

Also...all these supposed "eye-witnesses" to bombs, squibs & explosions...why are they just now coming forward? Where were they in the first DAYS or WEEKS of the attack? Are these repressed memories half a decade later?

[Juan_Bottom]

See, the problem with your evidence is that it's entirely circumstantial based solely on a few people saying they heard explosions, a few easily explained phenomenon and assumption. Now, obviously there are problems with NIST's explanation, but that doesn't mean that there were bombs in the building.

Also...all these supposed "eye-witnesses" to bombs, squibs & explosions...why are they just now coming forward? Where were they in the first DAYS or WEEKS of the attack? Are these repressed memories half a decade later?

Duh Backglass.... duh...... A lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
They came foreward the moment it happened. Do you not remember Fox News, CNN, the BBC, all reporting about secondary explosives? They interviewed these people and broadcast it on air. HOWEVER none of their statements were used in NIST's, FEMA's, or the Commissions investigations. Congressmen quite the investigation because of it.

See, the problem with your evidence is that it's entirely circumstantial based solely on a few people saying they heard explosions, a few easily explained phenomenon and assumption. Now, obviously there are problems with NIST's explanation, but that doesn't mean that there were bombs in the building.

Witnesses are not circumstancial, that does not even make sense. And the evidence clearly bakes up their story much better than NIST's. And your "easily explained phenomenon" is actualy more of a phenomenon of explinations.

[hecter]

It's baked alright...

[Backglass]

Duh Backglass.... duh...... A lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
They came foreward the moment it happened. Do you not remember Fox News, CNN, the BBC, all reporting about secondary explosives?

I do not. Surely you have some you-tube video from that first week...being a good lawyer and all.

[Juan_Bottom]

Duh Backglass.... duh...... A lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
They came foreward the moment it happened. Do you not remember Fox News, CNN, the BBC, all reporting about secondary explosives?

I do not. Surely you have some you-tube video from that first week...being a good lawyer and all.

Go to any of those sites I listed, they'll link you. Or you can try watching a free online movie on the subject, such as loose change or in plane site. Most of the sites also have complaints from witnesses about how they were asked to testify and then treated as if they were liars or criminals, only to have their testimony removed from the final report. Loose Change even has an interview with a lady who says she saw a missle hit the pentagon and that the FBI threatened her life.

[heavycola]

Duh Backglass.... duh...... A lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
They came foreward the moment it happened. Do you not remember Fox News, CNN, the BBC, all reporting about secondary explosives?

I do not. Surely you have some you-tube video from that first week...being a good lawyer and all.

Go to any of those sites I listed, they'll link you. Or you can try watching a free online movie on the subject, such as loose change or in plane site. Most of the sites also have complaints from witnesses about how they were asked to testify and then treated as if they were liars or criminals, only to have their testimony removed from the final report. Loose Change even has an interview with a lady who says she saw a missle hit the pentagon and that the FBI threatened her life.

Juan - it's all well and good to poke holes in testimony and official accounts, but all you have done - like all troofers - is to pose huge questions that no one seems bothered about answering. Perhaps you could have a go.

Eg: this 'countdown'
Why would there be a countdown to a secret demolition? WHo heard it, and why were they special? Why would they broadcast a countdown to a demolition that was supposed to look like a collapse by plane strike? Is there no other way of timign a demolition than by counting down like it's new year's eve in Times Square? WHY??

Or the woman who saw a missile hit the pentagon:
(here, by the way, are plenty of eyewitnesses - not interviewed by loose change, presumably - who saw a plane hit http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm)
Who is this woman? What is her story? If a missile hit, where is the missing plane? What happened to the passengers? Why did no one track this missile, or see a launch? if this woman saw it hit the building, how come no one saw it in the skies beforehand?
if her testimony is right, then every eyewitness who mentions a plane is lying - so there was a huge and instantaneous cover up. What made this woman come forward? If she was threatened with death, and she's still alive, then the FBI was bluffing - so why have more patriots not come forward since?

As soon as you start quoting this stuff, you need to take these questions into account. Saying they are not important is not good enough. You need an alternative scenario, and you don't have one.

[Backglass]

Juan - it's all well and good to poke holes in testimony and official accounts, but all you have done - like all troofers - is to pose huge questions that no one seems bothered about answering. Perhaps you could have a go.

Eg: this 'countdown'
Why would there be a countdown to a secret demolition? WHo heard it, and why were they special? Why would they broadcast a countdown to a demolition that was supposed to look like a collapse by plane strike? Is there no other way of timign a demolition than by counting down like it's new year's eve in Times Square? WHY??

Or the woman who saw a missile hit the pentagon:
(here, by the way, are plenty of eyewitnesses - not interviewed by loose change, presumably - who saw a plane hit http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm)
Who is this woman? What is her story? If a missile hit, where is the missing plane? What happened to the passengers? Why did no one track this missile, or see a launch? if this woman saw it hit the building, how come no one saw it in the skies beforehand?
if her testimony is right, then every eyewitness who mentions a plane is lying - so there was a huge and instantaneous cover up. What made this woman come forward? If she was threatened with death, and she's still alive, then the FBI was bluffing - so why have more patriots not come forward since?

As soon as you start quoting this stuff, you need to take these questions into account. Saying they are not important is not good enough. You need an alternative scenario, and you don't have one.

This is Juan's quasi-religion. These quotes and witnesses are all 100% factual is his eyes.

[Juan_Bottom]

Eg: this 'countdown'
Why would there be a countdown to a secret demolition? WHo heard it, and why were they special? Why would they broadcast a countdown to a demolition that was supposed to look like a collapse by plane strike? Is there no other way of timign a demolition than by counting down like it's new year's eve in Times Square? WHY??

Firefighters who were inside tower 7 were order to get out and get to a safe zone. That is, they knew the tower was going to collapse.
Now, there were firefighters inside the building that saw bodies and wanted to look further, but they weren't allowed to, because the building was coming down. IF you are wondering, this is HUGELY SIGNIFICANT because tower 7 was a government building. CIA, FBI, IRS and a few others. It's also were all of the ENRON investigation information was stored. At any rate, The fire that dropped that building was slow to start. IT IS THE OFFICIAL stance of the government that no one died in tower 7. So, what were the bodies doing there?

6. There are 3 witnesses to the statement from F.D.N.Y. Chief of Department Peter Ganci, who was also killed in action on the morning of 9/11. All 3 witnesses were on-scene at the time and all 3 substantiate the statement, separately from the others, in virtually the same words and meaning.

See: 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press; David Ray Griffin; 2008

Also: WTC7, Barry Jennings, Peter Ganci, Giuliani & Arnold Weick; Geezer Power; May 26, 2008 at:

http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/05/26 ... old-weick/

Also:http://hidhist.wordpress.com/terror/911/wtc7-barry-jennings-peter-ganci-giuliani-arnold-weick/

Further, and of the same significance, at the moment that global collapse ensued, Chief Ganci looked up and stated:

“What the f*ck is this?”

(Verbatim quote from F.D.N.Y. Deputy Assistant Chief Albert Turi, in whose presence the above statement was made)

7. A BBC report attempted to minimize Jennings’ comments by noting that he never actually said that he had actually seen the dead bodies. Jennings maintained he was certain about the dead bodies in the lobby of Building 7. The cause of Jennings’ death has not yet been explained:

“That interview was not released until June 2008 at the request of Mr. Jennings, who had received numerous threats to his job and asked that it to be left out of Loose Change: Final Cut because of those threats. Jennings statements have lit fire to questions about what really caused the sudden collapse of WTC7 just as NIST had hoped the release of their report would quash widespread beliefs that the building was brought down by controlled demolition. News of Jennings’ death comes on the heels of losing another 9/11 hero and eyewitness– Kenny Johannemann, who reportedly committed suicide 12 days before the seventh anniversary of 9/11. Johannemann is credited with saving at least one man’s life on 9/11 and was also a witness to explosions in the towers. NIST’s report, as well as that of the 9/11 Commission (which did not even mention WTC7), completely ignored statements from the building leaseholder Larry Silverstein as well as numerous police, fire fighters and other eyewitnesses who have testified that they were warned about the building’s collapse and told to get back. One rescue worker even heard a countdown for the building’s implosion.

Unfortunately, Barry Jennings, whose testimony was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, can no longer raise questions personally about his experience inside WTC7, but his account will remain on the record and available in-full on the Fabled Enemies DVD so that what he witnessed about 9/11 cannot be ignored.” Aaron Dykes, InfoWars, September 16, 2008; Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53. Accessible at:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/Septem ... itness.htm

Firefighersfor911 truth also have statements from firefighters inside the tower who say they neither heard, or saw anything to give them any indication that the building was coming down. If they hadn't been told to get out they would have continued trying to fight the fire.

Officer Bartmer strongly discounts there being any major damage to Building 7 prior to the series of explosions that he says brought it down:

“I walked around it. I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. “
“Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”

At any rate, a few first responders and firement claim to have heard a countdown;

Shocking New Revelations On 9/11 Ground Zero Cover-Up
First responder heard WTC 7 demolition countdown, was warned to “shut up” when he reported secondary explosions; Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet; September 28, 2007:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... ver_up.htm

First responder heard WTC 7 demolition countdown:

“In a video interview with Alex Jones, McPadden describes the moments before the collapse of WTC 7.

“When we saw the firemen pick up their equipment and start bustling back and forth they were getting ready to do something, we started asking questions,” said McPadden.
Despite numerous attempts to glean information from Red Cross officials, McPadden and other first responders were told nothing while one official, shortly after talking to firemen, held his hand over his radio and told them to “just sit tight” and “calm down” before admitting “they’re thinking about bringing the building down.”
McPadden and his colleagues were miffed as to what the official meant by this statement, initially thinking the building next to them was possibly being brought down.
“He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one,” said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, “just run for your life.”
“And you heard - boom, boom, boom,” said McPadden, describing the sound of bombs tearing down the building.”
(Paul Joseph Watson, 2007) (emphasis added) (Sources confirm that the anonymous EMT mentioned above this entry is a separate individual from Kevin McPadden)

But the countdown is a weak argument, since that's all you have. I don't put much stock into it. Nor do I use it as a basis in any way for my arguement.

Who is this woman? What is her story? If a missile hit, where is the missing plane? What happened to the passengers? Why did no one track this missile, or see a launch? if this woman saw it hit the building, how come no one saw it in the skies beforehand?
if her testimony is right, then every eyewitness who mentions a plane is lying - so there was a huge and instantaneous cover up. What made this woman come forward? If she was threatened with death, and she's still alive, then the FBI was bluffing - so why have more patriots not come forward since?

Loose change got her statements from her while she was in the hospital and she has not been involved in 911 truth since.
I agree that there would have to be an instantanious cover up, but not a huge one. And there are huge numbers of people who have come forward. Just very few with any inside information. Mostly all witnesses.

I dunno what your after anyway. I have provided a wealth of information, in fact, pretty much everything backglass says has already been answered. So I know no one is really paying any attention. Do you want a timeline or 9-11 scenario as I see it or something?

[heavycola]

Eg: this 'countdown'
Why would there be a countdown to a secret demolition? WHo heard it, and why were they special? Why would they broadcast a countdown to a demolition that was supposed to look like a collapse by plane strike? Is there no other way of timign a demolition than by counting down like it's new year's eve in Times Square? WHY??

Firefighters who were inside tower 7 were order to get out and get to a safe zone. That is, they knew the tower was going to collapse.
Now, there were firefighters inside the building that saw bodies and wanted to look further, but they weren't allowed to, because the building was coming down. IF you are wondering, this is HUGELY SIGNIFICANT because tower 7 was a government building. CIA, FBI, IRS and a few others. It's also were all of the ENRON investigation information was stored. At any rate, The fire that dropped that building was slow to start. IT IS THE OFFICIAL stance of the government that no one died in tower 7. So, what were the bodies doing there?

6. There are 3 witnesses to the statement from F.D.N.Y. Chief of Department Peter Ganci, who was also killed in action on the morning of 9/11. All 3 witnesses were on-scene at the time and all 3 substantiate the statement, separately from the others, in virtually the same words and meaning.

Wait - the Barry Jennings who went on the BBC and stated publicly that he never told Loose Change that he had seen any bodies?? I watched that, man! he said he and some lawyer guy were the last people in the building, and denied telling anyone he had seen bodies. He said he had been told by a fireman (which one? he would be a better witness for you, presumably!) to 'not look down' and he thought, as result, that there might be bodies on the floor. But he stated on teh record that he hadn't seen any. Added to which, no one is recorded as having died in building 7 - so who were these 'bodies'? The building was empty!
More questions. Anyway, so much for that.

But the countdown is a weak argument, since that's all you have. I don't put much stock into it. Nor do I use it as a basis in any way for my arguement.

It's not all I have, it's just one example of yours that i picked up on. And if you don't 'put much stock' in it, then why include it at all?

Who is this woman? What is her story? If a missile hit, where is the missing plane? What happened to the passengers? Why did no one track this missile, or see a launch? if this woman saw it hit the building, how come no one saw it in the skies beforehand?
if her testimony is right, then every eyewitness who mentions a plane is lying - so there was a huge and instantaneous cover up. What made this woman come forward? If she was threatened with death, and she's still alive, then the FBI was bluffing - so why have more patriots not come forward since?

Loose change got her statements from her while she was in the hospital and she has not been involved in 911 truth since.
I agree that there would have to be an instantanious cover up, but not a huge one. And there are huge numbers of people who have come forward. Just very few with any inside information. Mostly all witnesses.

like all the witnesses I listed who watched a plane fly into the pentagon?
And how come these troofer witnesses aren't dead?

I dunno what your after anyway. I have provided a wealth of information, in fact, pretty much everything backglass says has already been answered. So I know no one is really paying any attention. Do you want a timeline or 9-11 scenario as I see it or something?

Yes. Tell us what you think happened, and be prepared to answer a few questions about it.

[Juan_Bottom]

???
Barry Jennings is dead.
EDIT:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/Septem ... itness.htm
Ok... but here is a case of a guy who was threatened, just like you were searching for.

Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7’s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”

That interview was not released until June 2008 at the request of Mr. Jennings, who had received numerous threats to his job and asked that it be left out of Loose Change: Final Cut because of those threats.

[heavycola]

???
Barry Jennings is dead.
EDIT:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/Septem ... itness.htm
Ok... but here is a case of a guy who was threatened, just like you were searching for.

Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7’s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”

That interview was not released until June 2008 at the request of Mr. Jennings, who had received numerous threats to his job and asked that it be left out of Loose Change: Final Cut because of those threats.

he had numerous 'threats to his job'? - Er, no, according to the loose change guy here, Jennings complained of receiving loads of phone calls at work, presumably from concerned troofers, and was in danger of losing his job.

Anyway. [url=en.metapedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jennings+%22barry+jennings%22+BBC+transcript&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk]Here is a transcript of the interview[/url] he gave AP.

Things to notice:
At no point does he say he saw any dead bodies. He says he thought he was stepping over bodies. He was, he admits, 'hearing explosions', and what had happened to the lobby itself was 'unbelivable'. This man is not a credible witness to what he felt with his feet anyway. No ione in that situation, who was running for his life, would be.
- He says 10 firefighters came back for him - why have none of them reported dead bodies in the lobby?

Anyway- still waiting for your version of events.

[Backglass]

No one in that situation, who was running for his life, would be.

Exactly. It has been proven over & over again that in times of great stress and mayhem, people invent all kinds of fantastic stories in their minds to attempt to cope with what they experienced.

pretty much everything backglass says has already been answered.

Well then, it's obvious you and the troofers have a clear-cut case! Why is it then that nobody is listening? Are we all blind lemmings? All on the take or part of the conspiracy?

Or perhaps...it just doesn't hold water?

[Juan_Bottom]

Exactly. It has been proven over & over again that in times of great stress and mayhem, people invent all kinds of fantastic stories in their minds to attempt to cope with what they experienced.

Then why do we ever listen to witnesses for anything? Duh? 250 people on record is a big number....

Well then, it's obvious you and the troofers have a clear-cut case! Why is it then that nobody is listening? Are we all blind lemmings? All on the take or part of the conspiracy?

Or perhaps...it just doesn't hold water?

Duh Backglass...... you are aa blind lemming. I had already answered all of your questions, quite respectfully, before you even wrote them.
Do you remember the last time we had this talk and you kept debunking Dancing Mustard and Heavycola without realizing they were on your side? Slow down a sec.


It's actually a lot harder than I thought to draw a clear timeline of the events leading up to, and during 911. But I'm working on it. The hard part is pulling all the info together again.