WTF !?? A perfectly Self professing post. Take a bow neophyte. Now get serious - (Frank - still waitng for your reply.) In the mean time- do check this out. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary that they decided to 'pull' Building 7, a subject which Popular Mechanics daren't touch in their recent hit piece. The evidence that explosives were used in the 9/11 attack is so overhwelming that three full length films could have been made on the subject alone. In this 22 minute clip Alex reports from ground zero and talks to eyewitnesses who were there on the day who reported bombs. Alex also points out the relation of Building 7 to the twin towers and the impossibility that it could have collapsed from minimal fire damage. I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
So what happened to the post that tagged those who would think of questioning this BS as "traitors" ? Got Moderators? maybe? That post really pissed me off. Thanks. "A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts.": Euripides Frank - a poignant "why" answered: Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!
well, I'll admit to reading only a few posts, and concluded that it was conspiratorial garbage. Flying saucers, the LAPD OJ cover-up, etc ... "George Bush Knew All Along!" I don't even know what the hell WTC#7 is... if they "pulled" it unnecessarily and made a few hundred million, I don't give a shit, and if there is proof of this, I'm sure the insurance companies are investigating. over and out
Please - - You should take another bow on your way out. Come back when you are serious about the topic - but please --not when you are feeling trolly-
Do take another bow on your way "over and out" then. Come back when you are serious aboutthe topic - not when you are feeling 'trolly'. WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104easilywithstood.htm Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004 The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance. Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuelâ¦burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brownâs theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the buildingâs steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, Iâm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and âchatterâ. Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
I guess you took them literally.... "Feeling trolly" ... this entire thread is a trolls paradise. "The Government Knew All Along!" You're bating people into this "debate". The notion that something devious had to be at work because two jumbo jets traveling hundreds of miles an hour couldn't possibly bring down two buildings is quite proposterous. I'm certainly no expert but perhaps the structural steel did not deform, maybe the connectors failed. The titanic was sunk by bad rivets. Have you ever witnessed one domino toppling a 100,000 more? Over, and Over and Out
Hi Neophyte321, You conveniently skipped my post about jet engines missing on Pentagon site. This is not a debate about whether plane hit could or could not bring down twins where we have to rely on what experts say. This is a plane fact that no one for some reason disputes. If you look on how forensic work, they find tiny clues and use it to solve the case. These missing engines could be a start, but no one seems to care. 3,000 dead during 9/11, over 2,000 American soldiers dead, over 15,000 injured, no body knows how many thousands of Iraqis dead. When I think about this my heart bleeds. All these people had loved ones, can you imagine how much pain was brought and is being brought into this world by these events. redduke
JAGUARBONE I went to the UL website and did a search for "Kevin Ryan'. No such employee is listed. I then went to the NIST website and found the following. It appears your source is full of shit (big surprise). You can read the whole report at the link, but I have copied the important section. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft. ⢠The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse. NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2005/wjeffreyhousesciencewtc10-26-05.pdf
I went to the UL website and did a search for "Kevin Ryan'. No such employee is listed. Okay - I get it - A fulla bull shit website proved a bull shit website is all bull shit. Cool. As for the other information- why clack out what has already been questioned and proposed about this crap? Arnie -Don't bother trying to understand how the first building to collapse would do so when it sustained the least damaging impact - burned the least amount of time - yet it fu@kin collapses first? -and the best part is - you are quite okay and smug with that? These aren't card houses they built here! Would you like a link to the Japanese designer of the WTC buildings stating he made sure these structure could with stand this degree of impact from aircraft and has a problem with the "story"? Okay I know - your eyes grow weary and tired because it is so much easier to claim BS. Lets surmise it is mutually hopeless to meld consensus on the towers if you are okay with that- if it is the case. So Arnie - what do you see in the 'shocking' newly released Pentagon pics of which all you others ( still reading this) have yet to chime in an opinion? Do you really see the nose of a 757 Arnie? http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/uncropped.html How about a squiggled photoshop job of a more cylindrical shape? And you are quite okay and confident with the release of this one partial piss poor image - knowing there were at least four other cameras which most likely captured this event from many angles and resolutions? Lets surmise it is mutually hopeless to meld consensus on the Pentagon too if you are okay with that- is the case also.
If explosives brought the buildings down, why then did the collapses begin on both at the exact points where the planes crashed? Perhaps the explosives where pre-planted and the hijackers knew exactly which floors to hit? Not too credible. I think this alone disproves the theory.