A strong foundation for any 9/11 argument is Building 7.

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Yes, that damage on the SW corner isn't too bad. In fact, that picture makes it look more damaged than it was because the smoke is covering up the corner, making it look like more of it is missing.

However, doesn't seeing that damaged corner make you wonder how damaged the lower part of the south side was? If you look back at the quotes I posted above, the firefighters there seemed sure that the building was going to collapse due to how bad the damage was.

I'm thinking about emailing various officials in New York to ask them if they have any photos at all of the lower south side. I'm sure they exist, they just don't seem to be on the internet. I want to ask first if that's already been done to death, because if it has been, I don't want to bother them. Anybody know if that's been done?



If only one corner is damaged how do you explain that fact that the building fell stright down and didnt tip over at point of most damage.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by TinFoilBat]

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
How good is that steel frame when chunks of it are taken out from the bottom? After that, I'm sure the weight factor is of huge importance.

Who knows? There's no evidence of that happening either way. All the stuff on the outer faces of the building was rather superficial structurally. All the important columns were in the center of the building and no one is saying debris penetrated that far, even NIST.

Originally posted by TinFoilBat
If only one corner is damaged how do you explain that fact that the building fell stright down and didnt tip over at point of most damage.

I didn't say that only one corner was damaged.

As for falling straight down, there actually was a slight lean to the south, as shown in the video below.

Originally posted by bsbray11
All the stuff on the outer faces of the building was rather superficial structurally. All the important columns were in the center of the building and no one is saying debris penetrated that far, even NIST.

That's hard to tell when looking at the big gouge in the first picture posted by BoneZ. I'm not sure why I overlooked that before. I found a composite version that shows more. It almost looks like the gouge is connected to the damage at the top:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/085626204c71.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course, that's not showing the damage inside, but when looking at the photo, it's not easy for me to conclude that it's just surface damage. It's also close to the center, too

By the way, I'm not assuming that the collapse was caused by the debris damage alone, but a combination of the debris and the fire damage. I've mostly been arguing about the debris damage since it was mentioned earlier that WTC7 wasn't hit that hard. NIST may say it was from fire alone, but I've never seen a diagram by them showing the damage inside before the collapse. Until then, I'm just going to assume it was both the fire and the debris.

It's possible that I'm wrong about the debris damage being part of the cause, but whether it was the debris, the fire, or a combination of them both, I fail to see how any of those prove an inside job.

edit - I know that you're not trying to say that it was an inside job by fire, I'm just saying that it may be pointless for me to argue about whether it may have been fire or debris, when I should be arguing that there were no bombs.

[edit on 5/16/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
It almost looks like the gouge is connected to the damage at the top

Even if it is, what you're looking at doesn't suggest that the debris went deep into the structure. Especially if it's connected, it looks exactly as if something hit the exterior structure and then just fell straight down through it.

You can see the exterior panels that were knocked out in this photo:



Remember that's exactly what happened to the SW corner, too.

Also happened to Banker's Trust:




I don't think there were any "bombs" either. But there was a eutectic mixture applied to steel in that building, that ate holes through it, for one thing. The biggest fact, that you no one can argue with, hands down, is the fact that it accelerated at free-fall. A building can't fall through itself and do that. It can't even do that falling through air, so that the medium of air would be replaced by a system of solidly connected steel columns built to stand as stable as possible, and it falls even faster? It shouldn't even fall with air resistance also taken into account, but a whole lot more resistance than either air OR nothing would provide. That is un-arguable to me, and was the real clincher for me when I first looked at all of this stuff. I know the physics, and I know there is no way for it to work out. NIST couldn't even get it to and admits they can't explain how it did that. It something that everyone is still in collective denial about, but it is THE smoking gun imo.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Great post, star for you! I hadn't seen the image of the Bankers Trust building. Nearly identical damage as WTC7, but still stands. Now take into account that every WTC building had to go. Bankers Trust building wasn't owned by the same landlord as the WTC complex, so it still stood.

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
It almost looks like the gouge is connected to the damage at the top

The damage at the top was very minor:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42afa53d7271.jpg[/atsimg]

Bonez, youre pretty smart, and almost every post has good content. Thanks for doing some of your research.
Ive read alot of old threads and posts, you do quite a bit of work.
Thank you!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The damage at the top was very minor:

It doesn't seem as minor when you look at the photo in my last post.

As for bsbray11's last comment, he/she raised some interesting points. I'm a little too "tipsy" to address those now, so I'll be back tomorrow when I'm a little more sober.

But if its the same building, from the same day, wont the pics be the same, C.A?
Ill go look at your post, can you link it? or just the pics?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I hadn't seen the image of the Bankers Trust building. Nearly identical damage as WTC7, but still stands.

Not only that, did you see it in the news a while ago, when it caught on fire while they were tearing it down in 2007?

Two firefighters are dead from injuries they sustained fighting a fire at the vacant Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street opposite ground zero today, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg confirmed at a news conference this evening. Mr. Bloomberg said there was “no danger” that the building would collapse and preliminary tests showed no environmental hazards.
...
He elaborated on the structural integrity of the skyscraper: “We’ve had the Buildings Department in there, they’ve looked at every floor and they are totally satisfied that there is no danger whatsoever. The fire was not that hot. The aluminum decking may melt, but the basic structure of the building, our Buildings Department has said quite explicitly, is secure.”

cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...

The fire was not hot enough to compromise the steel structure, in other words, even though the structure was being dis-assembled.

The blaze began about a dozen floors up in the tower.
...
The fire was burning on multiple floors at the building. Construction crews had already dismantled 14 of the building's 40 stories -- reaching the 26th floor on Tuesday. Some firefighters used stairs to reach the burning upper floors.
...
More than two hours after the blaze was first reported, the blaze was declared a six-alarm fire.

www.foxnews.com...


And it burned for at least a couple of hours, with that article saying it was "declared a six-alarm fire" over two hours after it was reported. The same article says it was eventually declared a seven-alarm fire.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

it burned for at least a couple of hours, with that article saying it was "declared a six-alarm fire" over two hours after it was reported. The same article says it was eventually declared a seven-alarm fire.

This firer looks very suspicious, as to what could have burnt for two hours, when there is noting but steel and concrete. This time we can leave out jet fuel as the cause.

reply to post by impressme


You can rule jet fuel out of any of the WTC buildings, too, because it burned up in both buildings well before they collapsed (even NIST says this in their report) and WTC7 didn't have any jet fuel to begin with.

That being said, I don't know what exactly was still inside the building that was combustible, but it was obviously something if it was a seven-alarm fire. Jet fuel actually puts out a comparable amount of heat to various office materials burning.

Just because the government didn't plan 9/11 doesn't mean several people high up in government weren't complicit. The bottomline is the government was completely incompetent however you want to look at the events that unfolded prior to the planes crashing into the building.

Originally posted by jenny21
Bonez, youre pretty smart, and almost every post has good content. Thanks for doing some of your research. Ive read alot of old threads and posts, you do quite a bit of work. Thank you!

Thank you.

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
It doesn't seem as minor when you look at the photo in my last post.

You are correct, it does seem like there's more damage from a different angle, but we do have to take all angles into account to get the big picture.

Originally posted by bsbray11
did you see it in the news a while ago, when it caught on fire while they were tearing it down in 2007?

I sure didn't. Quite suspicious.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And it burned for at least a couple of hours, with that article saying it was "declared a six-alarm fire" over two hours after it was reported.

Fire on multiple floors for 2 hours with a damaged structure of at least 20 floors I can count in your picture above, and no collapse and no weakening of the existing structure.

But in the case of the south tower that only had damage on 4-6 floors and fires for only 56 minutes, a complete and global collapse all the way to the ground ensued. It's a miracle!

And even the second in command at Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mark Loizeaux, CEO and son of the owner, was quoted as saying:

"If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire-produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle."

Source:
Newscientist.com

Article: Baltimore blasters
* 24 July 2004
* Liz Else
* Magazine issue 2457

On-line reading requires a subscription.

reply to post by impressme


Could have easily been oxyacetylene tanks or something similar used by the construction crews. They were disassembling the building.

reply to post by bsbray11


That is a big hole in the Bankers Trust building, but it's possible that because of the web column design, the building was able to take that beating. Also, I can't find any sources saying that there were any fires in there.

It's interesting that you bring this building up, because I think that it helps prove that the firefighters and police were sure that WTC7 was going to collapse. They evacuated the area around WTC7, but I don't recall hearing anything about them doing the same to the Bankers Trust building. Here's a video of a report talking about the police evacuating the WTC7 area:

Byron Pitts discusses WTC 7 collapse

As for the freefall, there probably wasn't much resistance when the final stage of the collapse happened. It's hard to tell how much fell during the first stage. I still haven't even seen a video that shows exactly how long the collapse took.

The eutectic mixture was explained by FEMA. I know, it's FEMA, but I don't know of any experts disagreeing with them on this point.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

Source

edit - Maybe I should have read the page that I found the quote on first. I see that this Steven Jones guy is a physics professor. Oh well, he's just one.


[edit on 5/18/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
It's interesting that you bring this building up, because I think that it helps prove that the firefighters and police were sure that WTC7 was going to collapse. They evacuated the area around WTC7, but I don't recall hearing anything about them doing the same to the Bankers Trust building.

Those suggestions were actually coming from higher-ups first, at least from the impression I got from reading a number of oral histories and things of that nature. For one thing, Rudy Giuliani and his entourage knew that WTC2 was going to collapse before even any of the firefighters suspected it, having set up command in WTC1's lobby. Rudy was with the OEM and FEMA in WTC7 (where they had set up the night before) until shortly before WTC1 came down, and FEMA was actually directing the police and fire chiefs, etc. through radio contact. Also Indira Singh, a civilian medic, said there were officials walking up and down along the street telling everyone to move away from WTC7, that it was going to be "brought down." The knowledge that it was coming down did not necessarily stem from any structural damage it had sustained, at least as far as I am concerned.

As for the freefall, there probably wasn't much resistance

Sorry, you're a little off here. There was less resistance than there should have been. If you had said that, you would have been more correct. If it had fallen a little slower than with drag taken into account, THEN you could say "there wasn't much resistance from the building," but when air is simultaneously being pushed out of the way, and it's literally accelerating at the rate of gravity, you can't get away with saying there was ANY resistance. NIST even measured the acceleration directly and found a period of this, and admits it themselves, and they can't explain it, either. Collective denial, like I said.

The eutectic mixture was explained by FEMA. I know, it's FEMA, but I don't know of any experts disagreeing with them on this point.

I guess you didn't read the report. They couldn't identify what it was or where it came from.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

Source

All that says is that a eutectic mixture ate holes through the steel. Thermate is a eutectic mixture. So you see where this is going. FEMA couldn't say where it came from; they didn't even venture a guess. This is the same report that didn't even venture a guess as to why WTC7 collapsed, and just passed it off to NIST. Except NIST never came back to the sulfidated steel samples.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by SPreston

Could have easily been oxyacetylene tanks or something similar used by the construction crews. They were disassembling the building.

You know someone could have accidentally knock over a can of paint thinner by the elevator shaft and some maintenance man come along and flick his left over cigarette by the elevator and BOOM! And the WTC fell down. It really amazes me how our government plays on our intelligent.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Rudy Giuliani and his entourage knew that WTC2 was going to collapse

I'm not sure that anything solid ever came from that. It's possible that he was just getting an opinion.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The knowledge that it was coming down did not necessarily stem from any structural damage it had sustained, at least as far as I am concerned.

I've shown quotes from firefighters that makes it seem that they were concerned about the building falling based on their own observations. Some of those could be open to interpretation, but others are more clear, like the firefighter in the first video I posted.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Also Indira Singh, a civilian medic, said there were officials walking up and down along the street telling everyone to move away from WTC7, that it was going to be "brought down."

That implies that the officials were in on it. That I could never buy into considering how many of them died that day. It seems more likely that Indira Singh isn't exactly telling the truth, or that her memory of the event isn't clear enough. Her statement doesn't match up with all the official accounts I've heard. I read through her statements, and she seemed to show signs of confusion.

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST even measured the acceleration directly and found a period of this, and admits it themselves, and they can't explain it, either. Collective denial, like I said.

Yeah, I forgot about that. I'm not going to deny it, I just need to look into that more. It was just a period though, like you said. Could the following be a possible scenario?:
1 - A few columns were out before the penthouse fell.
2 - The penthouse falls, taking out more columns, or is an indication that more columns just went out.
3 - The few columns that are left are suddenly forced to take all the weight for a brief moment before they all give in at about the same time.

Like I said, I'm no expert in physics and architecture, so that's why I'm asking.

I should have asked this next question in my last post, but I didn't think about it at the time. Why is the freefall thing important to you? I thought that argument was for people who think that the building was brought down by explosives. If you believe that it was the eutectic mixture, then why are you trying to say that all the columns went out at once? How does the mixture do that?

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
That implies that the officials were in on it. That I could never buy into considering how many of them died that day.

How many of who? How many FEMA or OEM or members of Giuliani's office died that day? I'm not saying firefighters or policemen had anything to do with it.

It seems more likely that Indira Singh isn't exactly telling the truth, or that her memory of the event isn't clear enough. Her statement doesn't match up with all the official accounts I've heard.

That was the point, it contradicts "official" accounts. An based only on that point you reject it. Maybe she was confused, because she couldn't understand why or how they could just "bring down" a building like that.

There is video of unidentified people walking away from WTC7, with bolt cutters, hard hats, and face masks saying something along the lines of, "You hear that? That building's coming down soon," as you hear things exploding in the background. They weren't firefighters, or policemen. That should confuse you, because it doesn't make sense given what authorities have officially stated.

It was just a period though, like you said.

This is just according to NIST, remember. Others have also measured the acceleration, and even when it isn't right on the dot of 9.8...m/s^2 (whatever the number is, I think it's irrational), it's within less than a 0.5m/s^2 margin. As soon as you take drag into account, once again, you are faced with the same basic issue.

Why is the freefall thing important to you? I thought that argument was for people who think that the building was brought down by explosives.

Because falling at the rate of gravity means none of the potential/kinetic energy of the falling mass was actually used to do anything. All it did was fall, and all of its energy went towards only that, thus falling at the rate of gravity by technical definition.

No matter what brought that building down, it was obviously not the falling mass, so the technical specifics of what it was are unimportant to me, especially if there was any effort whatsoever to conceal that information.

Not even FEMA's engineers were familiar with the material they found on the columns.