9/11 WTC Video

First of all... please please please STOP with the "no fire has ever....." we all KNOW that. I will concede to that statement as soon as you admit that no other skyscraper had a commercial airliner flown into it...or was on fire due to a sky scraper collapsing near it with debris having effect on the structure.

As far as falling into its own footprint...it may appear that way, but due to the collapse, WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which has been torn down in 2006 due to the damage and Damage was done to the Verizon Building from WTC 7.
Source: FEMA

I looked into the seismic evidence...again..this stuff is kind of out there. I will admit to not knowing the science behind it. What i did find was this written by Brent Blanchard, Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael and John Golden. Brent is the Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services Inc. The others are employees at Protec. www.protecservices.com

A quick background on Protec, they are one of the world most knowledgable independant authoirites on explosive demolition. They have performed engineering studies, structural analysus,vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. Thiks includes world records for the tallest,largest, and most buildings demolished by explosives. They have had expeirience with every american demolition company. On 911:

They were in Manhattan on 911 and Brooklyn with Field seismographs....please check out this site and let me know what you think.

www.implosionworld.com...


This is just one comment i pulled out in regards to seismic evidence:

Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument. –Brent Blanchard of Protec

Bsbray, i respect your posts, (most of the time) Your knowledge obviously is far greater than mine when it comes to this technical stuff...I do my best with the research I do and information I gather. Since I lack the background in these areas, I like to get my information by specialists.

You said:

Yeah, and you've done nothing to rectify that, unless you think you just posted the statements of every single firefighter there on that day.

In fact, not even all of the testimonies you just posted stated ANYTHING about a major fire, or fires at all.

Well its OBVIOUS i cant get quotes from EVERY fireman that was there...but allow me to post some more. If you can find me some quotes from the firemen saying that the fires were not that major prior to the collapse.

Here are some ( not just firemen)

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...

At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
graphics8.nytimes.com...

[Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti /paqux

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango
graphics8.nytimes.com...

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by CameronFox]

Here are a few more quotes from eye witnesses. (Firefighters)

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.

–Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it.

–Chief Frank Cruthers
graphics8.nytimes.com...

I can post more if need be. Truth is, I have yet to see any evidence that the fires were minor..or more importantly, the damage done by the debris was minor.

My previous post stated that the WTC7 collapse casued serious damage to other buildings....here are a couple pictures.







and:

www.fallenhope.com...

Originally posted by CameronFox
Here are a few more quotes from eye witnesses. (Firefighters)

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.

–Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it.

–Chief Frank Cruthers
graphics8.nytimes.com...

I can post more if need be. Truth is, I have yet to see any evidence that the fires were minor..or more importantly, the damage done by the debris was minor.

OK, so let's take these quotes you have about the stability of WTC7 and analyze further, from a scientific perspective.

How, then, did WTC7 fall at near free-fall speed, with a kink in the middle of building, and the left side of the penthouse falling seconds before the remainder of the building fell?

Why did FDNY never set up manual firefighting efforts within WTC7 [and this was recorded at, I believe, 11:30 am]? But then Larry Silverstein talked of pulling the firefighters out of the buildings hours later when he talked with the Fire Chief, or so he says? [and no, I'm not questioning FDNY's morals here, I'm questioning Corporate Larry's...]

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP

Originally posted by CameronFox
Here are a few more quotes from eye witnesses. (Firefighters)

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.

–Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it.

–Chief Frank Cruthers
graphics8.nytimes.com...

I can post more if need be. Truth is, I have yet to see any evidence that the fires were minor..or more importantly, the damage done by the debris was minor.

OK, so let's take these quotes you have about the stability of WTC7 and analyze further, from a scientific perspective.

How, then, did WTC7 fall at near free-fall speed, with a kink in the middle of building, and the left side of the penthouse falling seconds before the remainder of the building fell?

Why did FDNY never set up manual firefighting efforts within WTC7 [and this was recorded at, I believe, 11:30 am]? But then Larry Silverstein talked of pulling the firefighters out of the buildings hours later when he talked with the Fire Chief, or so he says? [and no, I'm not questioning FDNY's morals here, I'm questioning Corporate Larry's...]

If you look into WTC7... there wasnt much going on. The standpipes were gone. There was VERY minimal water. Most efforts were going into search and recovery....ALSO the entire firefighting operation was word of mouth. There was minimal walki-talki's.

I think the most important quote here is from Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

/g8c6y

Originally posted by CameronFox

If you look into WTC7... there wasnt much going on. The standpipes were gone. There was VERY minimal water. Most efforts were going into search and recovery....ALSO the entire firefighting operation was word of mouth. There was minimal walki-talki's.

I think the most important quote here is from Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

/g8c6y

Word of mouth? Have you seen the FEMA report?

Chapter 5 - WTC 7
IT appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

Source

Chapter 5 - WTC 7
In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers. hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual supression activities.

Source


Now I know this could be ample reason why the steel could have failed and the building still fell, but if this is the case, at what point in time was the message relayed between Chief Nigro and Silverstein about "pulling"? Because, from the FEMA report, from walkie-talkie conversations released by the FDNY, all firefighters were out of that building (and the vicinity) by no later than 2:30 pm that day.

If that's the case, then I ask the question again, What was Larry Silverstein refering to? If we could get a time stamp on the time of their conversation, it would alleviate alot of speculation among WTC7 and this entire 'pull it' comment.

Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all... please please please STOP with the "no fire has ever....." we all KNOW that.

You don't seem to understand; fire cannot, and has NEVER contributed damage to a structure comparable to what a jet impact does. The jet impacts SEVERED columns (and not many at that). Fires can only make steel SAG, and only when exposed to the steel for a long enough period of time to heat the steel sufficiently.

Sagging does not, and has never led to runaway global collapses:

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

This project was the first major effort to understand this behaviour using computational models of the Cardington fire tests. A full explanation of the mechanics that are responsible for the robust behaviour of unprotected composite frames in fire has been achieved and will be presented in detail in this report. Reaching this new understanding has been a laborious process, and numerous blind alleys had to be investigated along the way, however obvious the answer may now seem to the researchers involved in this project. It is possible that the conclusions will not seem obvious to others who have not been directly involved, however considerable effort has gone in to presenting the results of the project to provide as much detail as possible. Approximately 40 supplementary reports and over 10 technical papers have been written and appear as an appendix to this report. This amount of work has ensured that the conclusions presented have been verified by a number of independent approaches. Mutually reinforcing arguments were developed from the results of different computational models, application of fundamental mechanics and the analysis of test data. It is therefore with a great deal of confidence that these findings have been presented for close scrutiny by the profession. Once this new understanding of structural behaviour in fire is widely disseminated, discussed and understood, the way will be clear for completing all the other tasks which are necessary for full exploitation of the knowledge gained. This will lead to safer, more economic and rational design of steel frame structures for fire resistance.

guardian.150m.com...

What NIST and others have suggested is NOT SUPPORTED.

NIST did tests similar to the Cardington tests themselves, with models of the WTC truss assembles, and could not get failures. Why!?

As far as falling into its own footprint...it may appear that way, but due to the collapse, WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which has been torn down in 2006 due to the damage and Damage was done to the Verizon Building from WTC 7.
Source: FEMA

It also damaged buildings to its East and West, and partially fell into Vesey Street on its South. That puts the center of gravity right back into the footprint. Just look at a freaking image, and figure out where the debris from WTC7 is, and where it isn't, and you SHOULD realize where it fell IMMEDIATELY.

They were in Manhattan on 911 and Brooklyn with Field seismographs....please check out this site and let me know what you think.

I have not seen the seismic records from Brooklyn. Have you?

Blanchard argues that the tower collapses were not conventional demolitions, and I agree with that. He then baldly references NIST as real science, which is where he loses me.

He also makes some statements that show an ignorance of certain evidence, such as when he declares that the towers should have had explosions in their basements, but since they didn't, they couldn't have been demolitions (in the conventional sense). So, I'm assuming he's unfamiliar with the eyewitness testimonies and various other evidences to the contrary.

Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

So an energy release greater than that of the global collapse is not unusual, coming before the penthouse even fails? I imagine Blanchard didn't really look into this, and he certainly doesn't offer many details here. NIST offered timestamped photos/video of the penthouse falling that lines up awfully awkwardly with the actual sesmic charts we have from LDEO. Like I said, I haven't seen anything from Brooklyn.

Well its OBVIOUS i cant get quotes from EVERY fireman that was there...

Then you can hardly justify saying that ALL of them reported raging infernos, can you? Rather than being the norm, it seems more like the exception in the ones you've posted thus far. Fires, yes. Threat of localized collapses, maybe. They weren't even sure of that. Global collapse? I don't think anyone was expecting that unless they'd received word from someone wise to the situation, that the whole building was going to be coming down.

First off... there was not enough walki talkies...not ZERO...

Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --
Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?
A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Time Stamp:
First lets once again look at the quote: “...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."

ok key words...THEY made the decision. FDNY. NOT silverstein.

The actual pullout started at around 2:30 pm the building collapsed at 5:20. What time did Nigro call Silverstein? I'm not sure.

Think about it though on the PBS documentry "America Rebuilds". DO you think such a smart man like silverstein would make an “accidental confession?”

I would love to address the whole PULL IT theory..since that term is NOT used in EXPLOSIVE demolition. Here:

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

/z6zyc

Not sure if i answered your questions... i will try to find out what time Nigro made the call to Silverstein.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all... please please please STOP with the "no fire has ever....." we all KNOW that.

You don't seem to understand; fire cannot, and has NEVER contributed damage to a structure comparable to what a jet impact does. The jet impacts SEVERED columns (and not many at that). Fires can only make steel SAG, and only when exposed to the steel for a long enough period of time to heat the steel sufficiently.

Sagging does not, and has never led to runaway global collapses:

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

This project was the first major effort to understand this behaviour using computational models of the Cardington fire tests. A full explanation of the mechanics that are responsible for the robust behaviour of unprotected composite frames in fire has been achieved and will be presented in detail in this report. Reaching this new understanding has been a laborious process, and numerous blind alleys had to be investigated along the way, however obvious the answer may now seem to the researchers involved in this project. It is possible that the conclusions will not seem obvious to others who have not been directly involved, however considerable effort has gone in to presenting the results of the project to provide as much detail as possible. Approximately 40 supplementary reports and over 10 technical papers have been written and appear as an appendix to this report. This amount of work has ensured that the conclusions presented have been verified by a number of independent approaches. Mutually reinforcing arguments were developed from the results of different computational models, application of fundamental mechanics and the analysis of test data. It is therefore with a great deal of confidence that these findings have been presented for close scrutiny by the profession. Once this new understanding of structural behaviour in fire is widely disseminated, discussed and understood, the way will be clear for completing all the other tasks which are necessary for full exploitation of the knowledge gained. This will lead to safer, more economic and rational design of steel frame structures for fire resistance.

guardian.150m.com...

What NIST and others have suggested is NOT SUPPORTED.

NIST did tests similar to the Cardington tests themselves, with models of the WTC truss assembles, and could not get failures. Why!?

As far as falling into its own footprint...it may appear that way, but due to the collapse, WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which has been torn down in 2006 due to the damage and Damage was done to the Verizon Building from WTC 7.
Source: FEMA

It also damaged buildings to its East and West, and partially fell into Vesey Street on its South. That puts the center of gravity right back into the footprint. Just look at a freaking image, and figure out where the debris from WTC7 is, and where it isn't, and you SHOULD realize where it fell IMMEDIATELY.

They were in Manhattan on 911 and Brooklyn with Field seismographs....please check out this site and let me know what you think.

I have not seen the seismic records from Brooklyn. Have you?

Blanchard argues that the tower collapses were not conventional demolitions, and I agree with that. He then baldly references NIST as real science, which is where he loses me.

He also makes some statements that show an ignorance of certain evidence, such as when he declares that the towers should have had explosions in their basements, but since they didn't, they couldn't have been demolitions (in the conventional sense). So, I'm assuming he's unfamiliar with the eyewitness testimonies and various other evidences to the contrary.

Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

So an energy release greater than that of the global collapse is not unusual, coming before the penthouse even fails? I imagine Blanchard didn't really look into this, and he certainly doesn't offer many details here. NIST offered timestamped photos/video of the penthouse falling that lines up awfully awkwardly with the actual sesmic charts we have from LDEO. Like I said, I haven't seen anything from Brooklyn.

Well its OBVIOUS i cant get quotes from EVERY fireman that was there...

Then you can hardly justify saying that ALL of them reported raging infernos, can you? Rather than being the norm, it seems more like the exception in the ones you've posted thus far. Fires, yes. Threat of localized collapses, maybe. They weren't even sure of that. Global collapse? I don't think anyone was expecting that unless they'd received word from someone wise to the situation, that the whole building was going to be coming down.

Bsbray...we do not know and will never know exactly the amount of damage that was done to the building during the collapse of the tower. All we have is eyewitnesses on the scene. Of all the eyewitnesses that have done interviews...I havent heard one say that the damage was minmal...thate the fires were small... I am not an engineer...I dont know what it takes to bring a building down...

Where is the evidence that this was a CD? We have a man here that works with seismographs and controlled demolitions around the world and has worked with EVERY American Demolition Company...his company holds records in pretty muich EVERY controlled demolition...he says the seismographs so not support a controlled demolition....who would you believe?

Originally posted by CameronFox
We have a man here that works with seismographs and controlled demolitions around the world and has worked with EVERY American Demolition Company...his company holds records in pretty muich EVERY controlled demolition...he says the seismographs so not support a controlled demolition....who would you believe?

I don't believe anyone.

That's the difference: I look at information, you look at people.

Blanchard dedicated a whole two sentences or so to an issue that I don't even know he's aware of, and I KNOW he wasn't aware of the eyewitness basement testimony, white smoke, lobby damage, seismic activity, etc., even if he has worked with x number of people in his field. If you actually look back, there is a whole thread somewhere in the 9/11 forum in response to Blanchard paper, point by point.

Essentially -- he assumes any demolition necessarily means a conventional one, and as far as "there was no basement blast so it wasn't a demolition" and "there was no seismic oddity so it wasn't a demolition", he just has his head up his ass, and that's about all I can say for him.

I respect your opinion on you thinking he has his head up his a**. His past history shows me different. If he was as dumb as you say...I highly doubt he would be as succesful as he is. And yes...i DO listen more to people that have experience before i listen to a person on the internet. Sorry...just me.

Just one more question...the janitor, William Rodriguez.. in his first interview...with CNN... he never claimed hearing explosions at his feet.

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

archives.cnn.com...

Originally posted by CameronFox
I respect your opinion on you thinking he has his head up his a**. His past history shows me different. If he was as dumb as you say...I highly doubt he would be as succesful as he is.

He had his head up his ass because there is information available that he apparently is unaware of. Doesn't reflect his intelligence so much as his ignorance of the events he's talking about.

Between several independent eyewitness testimonies, emergency response radio transcripts, white smoke wafting up from through the lobbies/underground, and seismic events whose times don't match up to the plane impacts by some significant amounts of time, there is evidence of basement explosions, for example. Yet he asserts that because there wasn't any such blast, the towers couldn't have been demolished. You read this part of his paper, correct? That's what I would call some ignorance of what he's talking about, or else he would have at least REFERENCED that information instead of assuming it didn't exist.

Same for the seismic stuff. The LDEO/NIST timestamp comparison, as far as I've seen, has only been pointed out by one person thus far, and that's LaBTop on these forums. That's because he took the time to examine those items and find contradiction between them, or an anomaly, and then brought it up in discussion here. I would be willing to bet that if Blanchard was oblivious to all the info suggesting basement explosions, then he wouldn't have a clue on this item, either, OR the other info from Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong summing up all the contradictions between various federal agencies on when exactly the planes hit the towers, and when their seismic events registered.

And yes...i DO listen more to people that have experience before i listen to a person on the internet. Sorry...just me.

No: I wasn't saying you should "listen" to ANYONE! You don't go to school or research things or learn in general just to listen to other people explain everything to you as far as they think.

Now, if Blanchard had used information in his paper that made sense to me, no matter if he was Bozo the Clown, I would tend to agree with it. And there is information in his paper that I agree with; more than any other "debunker" paper I've ever read, which is why it's hosted on studyof911.com with the other outside articles we mirror there.

The parts on which we disagree can be debated beyond "well he does this for a living so therefore he is correct END OF STORY". I gave you examples above of his apparent ignorance of information, and irrelevant assumption that the towers would have been conventional demos as observed, and I could give you more if I actually went back and got a link to that other thread on his paper.

Just one more question...the janitor, William Rodriguez.. in his first interview...with CNN... he never claimed hearing explosions at his feet.

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

archives.cnn.com...

I don't see how this is a question. He left out where the "rumbles" were coming from completely. There is a difference between contradicting yourself, and not including more detailed information.

Im trying to understand all this stuff BsBray...thanks for taking the time explaining it to me. I still dont get 1/2 of this crap.....

As far as Will the Janitor goes....if you look at the date that article was posted. 9/12/01 This would look to me like the very first interview he gave. IS it possible that he may have embelished his story a little as he went along?

Sure it's possible, but I don't get the feeling personally that he was, and he wasn't the only one to come forward with that particular testimony.

Originally posted by CameronFox

I would love to address the whole PULL IT theory..since that term is NOT used in EXPLOSIVE demolition.

First of all... please please please STOP with the "no fire has ever....." we all KNOW that. I will concede to that statement as soon as you admit that no other skyscraper had a commercial airliner flown into it...or was on fire due to a sky scraper collapsing near it with debris having effect on the structure.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by CameronFox]

PULL means the same thing for building 7 as it did for building 6. They PULLED building 6.

Yes thier has been an aircraft flown into other builidings, you must have forgotten about the B-25 that hit the Empire State building. If you compare the size of the B-25 to the size of the Empire State builidng its close to the same as a 767 hitting the towers.

The fires in other buildings i have just posted had caused strutural damage but the buildings still did not collapse.


[edit on 9-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

How fast was the B-25 flying? What damage was done to the Empire State Building. You can't compare the two in size, weight, and fuel capacity.

Originally posted by CameronFox
How fast was the B-25 flying? What damage was done to the Empire State Building. You can't compare the two in size, weight, and fuel capacity.

As i stated if you compare the size of the B-25 to size of the building they are close to the size of a 767 and the towers. The Empire State builidng is a older and a lot smaller building.

history1900s.about.com...

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

Here are some spooky things !!!!


Closely read through the text and try following instructions, I promise, you are surprised in the end!
1) In the name New York (New York City) 11 letters
2) In the name Afghanistan (Afghanistan) 11 letters
3) In name Ramsin Yuseb (the terrorist, in 1993 planned destruction of Towers of Twins in New York) 11 letters
4) In a name Georges Bush (George W Bush) 11 letters

1. New York is 11-th state
2. In the plane №11 92 passengers (9 2=11) flied
3. In the plane №77 which too has flown in Twins, there were 65 passengers (6 5=11)
4. The tragedy has occured on September, 11th, or 11.09 (1 1 9=11)
5. A phone number of service of rescue in the USA - 911 (9 1 1=11)

1) the Number of victims by the plane which has wrecked, has made 254 (2 5 4=11)
2) on September, 11th – 254й day in a year (2 5 4=11)
3) 3.11.2004 there were explosions in Madrid (3 1 1 2 0 0 4=11)
4) the Tragedy in Madrid has occured in 911 days, after tragedy in New York (9 1 1=11)

And now more unusual facts:

The most known symbol of the USA, after stars and strips, an eagle.

Following verses are taken from the Koran, the most sacred book of an islam:

("For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.
The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of
Allah and while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced:
For the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace.")

So, it were verses of the Koran at number 9.11 (9 1 1=11)

You all still trust, what it is simple concurrences? Try to make the following and look, that you after that will think and in what to trust:

Open Microsoft Word and make the following:

1. With big letters print: Q33 NY. It
Number of the first plane which has flown in
Twins.
2. Allocate Q33 NY
3. Change the size up to 48
4. Change a font on WINDINGS (WINDINGS 1) Q33 NY

Still think it is a coincidence !!!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1PULL means the same thing for building 7 as it did for building 6. They PULLED building 6.

Building 6 WAS indeed "pulled" meaning there were cables used to PULL the building's supports down. 7 collpased...if you want to go with a CD...then fine call it that. If you PULL a building, that does not mean by way of explosives.
This is a video of Building 6:
www.infowars.com...

Yes they say PULL IT...With CABLES

Building 6 was “pulled” with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.

“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”

“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction

Pull it is not a term used for an explosive demolition:

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

/z6zyc

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1PULL means the same thing for building 7 as it did for building 6. They PULLED building 6.

Building 6 WAS indeed "pulled" meaning there were cables used to PULL the building's supports down. 7 collpased...if you want to go with a CD...then fine call it that. If you PULL a building, that does not mean by way of explosives.

The point is "PULL" does mean to bring a building down. Their are several ways to bring a building down, you do not have to use explosives. If you look at the structural damage to builidng 7 from the debris of the tower plus the fact that most of the floors were gutted by fire it would not take much to bring the building down.

Also if you look at the FEMA report that states their seemed to have been no fire on the ground floor so some kind of beam cutters could have been used to bring the building down.

www.wtc7.net...

Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

We also have this letter about the use of beam cutters.

www.valis.cjb.cc...

Dear Mr. Gould and Mr. Boyd

Re: Were oil company bombs, cutters used to 'pull' WTC #7?

A former (1965-1980) Schlumberger field engineer and researcher into computerized real-world data fusion, I am now a forensic economist investigating the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams used to execute the precise and co-ordinated series of attacks on 9/11.

I invite the board of directors of both of your companies to investigate the possible use of oil company remote-controlled bomb and cutter technologies by as-yet unidentified organizations which decided to ‘pull’ – industry jargon for demolish – WTC building #7.

WTC#7 became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse through fire. The collapse generated pools of molten steel in the debris piles at the site, consistent with the ignition of chemical (thermite) cutters pre-positioned by wireline inside its structural box columns and the remote-controlled detonation of atomized aluminum powder or ‘rocket fuel’ bombs in segregated column sections.

Schlumberger’s “Casing and Tubing Cutters” document has, “Cutters used to sever tubing or casing .. Jet cutters cut casing in a flat plane perpendicular to the casing wall. Chemical cutters burn the casing .. Applications: .. Burr- and flare-free cutting with chemical cutters; Bomb for heavy drillpipe or casing [base of box columns 4” thick]”.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]