WTC 7 Collapse CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one." FACT: NIST researchers support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Hi Neophyte321, Why do you call this lunacy? Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that government did it. I am just asking few questions which no one seems to be able to explain. The main what happen to planes' jet engines that hit pentagon? Everybody's agrees that they could not melt under the temperatures created after the impact. By saying out right that something is lunacy without diligently analyzing it, donât you think that you just shut an idea that is too painful to consider? Regards, redduke
Eyewitness accounts: Boger, Sean "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." Bouchoux, Donald R. Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Falls resident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagon for a 10am meeting. He wrote: "At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car. Washington Post, 20 Sep 2001 Anderson, Steve [Director of Communications, USA TodayI witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. . . . Shortly after watching the second tragedy [at the WTC], I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke. (You get the idea. There's dozens of witnesses that saw the plane hit.)
You're wasting your time and energy trying to convince these imbeciles that the events of 911 are what they are.....the results of a terrorist attack. But it does warm my heart to know that some of them are on the other side of my trades.
Clearly these witnesses and the dozens of others you mention are somehow connected to Halliburton, or spies for Mossad, and/or members of the vast Jewish Cabal conspiracy that has Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld in their pocket.
Have you seen this site? http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm This is the document that declares (pg63): Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â like a new Pearl Harbor. http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf I'm not saying that this is proof by any means. But you have to admit if they didn't actually do it they sure as hell took advantage of it to further their goals. And if they are taking advantage of a catastrophic event for political gain is it really that much of a stretch that they would sacrifice 3000 lives. Almost as many have died in Iraq. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Now you can analyze the pictures yourself. Please take an extended moment and do so. Either I'm on drugs and not seeing the real picture - or you are blinded by your own denial. Take a red pill and study this image - okay? http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/uncropped.html Drag this video sequence and you will see a long smoke trail- just prior to the blast-- http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=b46c5aab-9e6c-415f-8328-916cda002194#
Cute but not convincing at all. but now the the name calling- that shows where the smarts lie. (pun intended)
kk fellas...not all da witnesses said they saw a plane hit da buildings and some of 'em said they so a chopper flyin' 'round da penta for quite some time before hearin' a a big explosion [followed by many others]'n'almost all of 'em clearly stated smellin' somethin' similar to CORDITE....maybe a plane really hit that buildin', it is impossible to say, but that alone is just 1 piece of da puzzle'n'sure doesn't explain out all da inconsistencies surroundin' da events.... as persented by u countless times before, almost all da evidence brought fww by da gov has proven to be questionable at best if not completely unreliable.
what's odd in that video also is that i cannot figure out how some1 with zero experience in landin' an aircraft cud have been able to decend so perfectly and to run in a straight line [like a missile,r0r] without disintegratin' apart before hittin' its tgt spot on...i mean have u tried to imagine how tough it is to flyin' a thing like a boeing in that way[?]