The History of High Rise Collapses

Originally posted by snapperski
LMFAO....are you some sort of joker....you always make your self out to be a fool,honestly man....for everyone else here,www.911myths.com is a government run and backed website...this is your only source for infomation...lol..you always use this government site for your infomation,do your own research man,and we might consider taking you seriously....and it very childish,to post in caps all the time comments like WRONG AGAIN,or you lose...stop being childish,were trying to debate the facts...its not a bitching contest..

Honestly though, it shouldn't matter if it supported by the government (which btw would usually imply a dot gov ending, but I'm guessing you mean that government agents run it), because if the videos and images are still real, that won't change based on who's using them. Unless you are imagining that they are all faked and that every firefighter that saw trade center 7 was hallucinating the same thing and/or got paid/threatened into telling lies in their testimonies about "pulling" the people out of the area.

You should provide some backing for your assertions other than "they disagree with me, so they must be government agents."

reply to post by Varemia


Bucko, i havent heard that in a long time. Apologies for the jab, had a spat with an employee. No cause to put it on someone else.

As to the molten "whatever it was".
-Cant just spring up 2 weeks after the event, would need an incendiary of some sort, where did it come from?
-If it WAS steel, it would be from the WTC, and the heat from the secondary fires is not enough to maintain the BTU's to keep it at a temp that would keep it in that form.You still need some sort of incendiary, or fuel to keep it at that temp. And by that time whatever fuel WAS leftover from the aircraft would have burned off. Shoot, even the fuel that was in the generators at the WTC would have burned off and wouldnt have been able to get to the temp to keep it at that state.

reply to post by snapperski


You would think that by now we would have dispelled the myth that the 2.3 trillion dollars only became news on Sept 10 and was gone on the 12th. Not the mention it wasn't cash that was missing it was accounting adjustments that did not have adequate documentation. Rumsfeld had been discussing the antiquated computers at the Pentagon and how they were incompatible which led to some of the accounting issues.

reply to post by itbenickp


I found an interesting story about some guys trapped underground between the towers:
www.bowhunter.com...

They experienced constant rolling fireballs under there for hours, most likely from broken gas lines. Idk how hot that could make things, but if there was a constant fresh flame on a pocket of metal, it could raise the temperature enough to make it molten, and once some metals get molten without open air to release their heat, they will stay molten for a long while. It's just a theory of mine so far.

Originally posted by exponent
Funny how you don't even know what the 911 commission was for.

Yes. I agree. So who knows what the 911 commission was for?
Many do know, but to list them all would become redundant so, here's one insider's story that I cherry-picked just to get to the meat and potatoes.

If you counter with that "copy and paste" rhetoric, I will have to list them all, as moot as it would be to reitterate my mention of redundancy above.

Well, I suppose U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer is just a crackpot theorist and lying through his teeth in front of God and all creation. Maybe he is trying to pull a Klinger and get a section 8, I mean Lt. Col is just a step above private right?

Here is an excerpt of what U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer and Former CIA Intelligence Officer Michael F. Scheuer claim the 911 commission was for.

U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, "Everybody on the 9/11 Commission was covering for someone".

Former CIA Intelligence Officer Michael F. Scheuer, "It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom".

Source: U.S. Army & CIA - 9/11 Commission A Cover Up From Top To Bottom

Why are all these high ranking military men and former CIA intelligence officers and other agency employees / former employees going crazy and blaspheming the official story? Psychological break down? Caustic disgruntled employees? Postal worker wannabes?

Regarding my own research, I was a steel erector for years until my mentor fell to his death, then I left the trade.

I can tell you a few things.
#1 there's no-way a red-iron framework is going to buckle from top to bottom instantaneously. (PERIOD)

A good analogy would be:
Say this thread was about questioning fact or fiction of a movie scene.
We'll use the movie "My Cousin Vinnie"
On the witness stand during trial, a self-proclaimed self respecting southernor seems to be able to cook his real harmony grits in approximately 1/3rd the time it physically takes,regarding laws of physics, absorbsion rate, etc...

I would cast you as this whitness character although the evidence and multiple expert and witness testimonies all clearly validate any grand jury decision to indict some of these players, and it might just need to be phrased or delivered in an alternate script to allow the understanding process and it's overwhelming logic to be realized.

If you still prefer jousting with the flimsy commission report as your "overwhelming evidence",
I counter with one question.

Name one person who benefitted enormously, and to clarify that, someone who's financial portfolio increased 10 fold or more as a direct result in monies allocated exclusively due to the 911 collapses and who have been documented on video, audio or other media type, (so as not to have undocumented claims that cannot be verified), who has not lied?

If there is none, all testimony or claim from these people is discredited, therefore, any investigation or lack thereof, report, claim, announcement, or other communication / rhetoric is unbelievable at best.

I would be delighted to actually find one, but I think the proof would be easily googled in minutes.

Care to take a stab at answering my question?
I'll defer going on to #2 things I can tell you... for now.

reply to post by vipertech0596

A few meters? Are you completely unaware that the North Wall of WTC 7 was draped across the debris pile extending onto the mess that use to be WTC 1?

For the sake of argument I will accept provisionally the basic proposition that the penthouse may have collapsed due to some sort of failing in structural integrity, but that still does nothing to explain the 2.25 seconds of officially-confirmed freefall, does it? The columns supporting the penthouse, to the best of my knowledge, were independent from the remaining 340+ columns supporting the floors at the base of WTC7 that were removed to allow for freefall. My problem with NIST's explanation is that it is not supported by any scientific argument or data. It's all conjectural. Unless NIST have retrospective x-ray-vision they don't know what was happening inside WTC7 anymore than we do.

What we can say, however, is that WTC7 collapsed at freefall, which means all structural components within that allotted time were removed synchronically before the falling mass even encountered them. Can fire do that? Let's assume (for argument's sake) it can. In order to do so the fire would have to be equally distributed across all the floors and the columns would have to fail all at pretty much the same time before the falling mass encountered them thus eliminating any potential inertia. The chances of that happening are so slim it is barely even worth thinking about. Even FEMA admit that a fire-induced collapse only had a "low-probability of occurrence".

The simplest explanation is usually the right one. WTC7 looks a like a controlled demolition because it probably was. Also, you should keep in mind that the burden of proof is on you to convince us that a building which collapsed in a way that mimics a controlled demolition collapsed as a result of fire. Do you have any empirical evidence aside from conjecture and authoritative-sounding, pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook from NIST? Because what you have presented here so far have all been re-represented repetitiously by other posters before you and refuted ad nauseam.

You also seem unaware that your "crimp' is directly related to the failure of the building structure above the hole carved out of the building by the collapse of wtc 1.

How do you claim to know these things? You state them as matters-of-fact as though you know them without a shadow of a doubt. Is that really so? In any case, you should know, that NIST have already said that the damage WTC7 sustained from falling derby was irrelevant to the collapse. Are you prepared to disagree with NIST here? Not many debunkers are. Disagreeing with NIST is sacrilegious to debunkers.

Its a lot more than "a few meters". Controlled demolitions drop the centre of the building straight down.

Did you even look at the video I graciously linked you to? It shows a controlled demolition and it leans much more than WTC7. Thus your argument here is essentially meaningless.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by loveguy Someone mentioned lots of jet fuel? But no signs of burning items at pentagon?

Someone forgot that the pentagon is on ground level and was probably extinguished immediately by firemen with hoses that still worked (unlike the situation after the collapse of the first tower, I might add).

Then, with the video, it has been stated fairly repetitively that the plane came in at an angle. Just so you know, that means "not level." And even if it didn't, the pentagon is made of much stronger material than the trade centers. The fact that there was so little damage caused to it was an indicator (at least to me) that the terrorists didn't think everything through to the dot, and that they probably got really lucky in New York, or there was some help from someone, though I've yet to find confirmation of that.

To first address what I underlined for you; Water comes from ground level? Airplane hit while several feet off the ground? The shock was acoustically precise as to sever the water supply, at ground level? Why no sprinkler system activation preceding collapse? Calibrated detonation?

To address what I emboldened for you; Just to emphasize the weakness of your argument.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by snapperski

 

Answer this was the Interstate Bank built in the exact same way as the twin towers?

Its like others who compare the plane crashing into the Empire State Building its not the same construction and wasn't the same size of plane travelling at the same speed.

If you are going to compare fires etc in other buildings there is no POINT unless all variables are the same and what I mean by that is

1) IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THE SAME.
2) HOW THE FIRE WAS CAUSED.

For the benefit of those with no construction experience on this thread (most of you it seems) just because two buildings are steel framed doesn't mean the construction is indentical.

Yes they were built the same way, fundamentally. Utilities are fed from underground. If the water supply suffers damage, it's because the damage occurs underground. The fires at Empire State Building were fought with water being supplied by underground source.

The fires at WTC were not fought with water from underground source...Because building(s) had collapsed and severed supply? Calibrated detonation to sever water source?

reply to post by imd12c4funn


"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks"


The Commission was never charged with discovering the engineering of the collapses. It was charged with examining our procedures, examining just how the 19 hijackers got into our country and what they did while here, examining just how badly the "system" failed and making recommendations to prevent it from happening again. And yes, from the outset, the Commission was never about spreading blame, because they knew...as do MOST halfway intelligent individuals that there was plenty of blame to go around covering YEARS of screwups made by government officials.

reply to post by Nathan-D

How do you claim to know these things? You state them as matters-of-fact as though you know them without a shadow of a doubt. Is that really so? In any case, you should know, that NIST have already said that the damage WTC7 sustained from falling derby was irrelevant to the collapse. Are you prepared to disagree with NIST here?

I have disagreed with NIST more than once on here. Mainly because I know that their report is an educated guess. There is absolutely no way to know the exact collapse sequence nor is there a way to know the exact damage that WTC 7 suffered and how that affected its stability. The best information we have comes from the members of the FDNY who watched that building that afternoon. And their stories indicate that WTC 7 basically started its collapse sequence much earlier in the day...and very slowly...until the early evening when the rest of the building came down.

Originally posted by loveguy
To first address what I underlined for you; Water comes from ground level? Airplane hit while several feet off the ground? The shock was acoustically precise as to sever the water supply, at ground level? Why no sprinkler system activation preceding collapse? Calibrated detonation?

To address what I emboldened for you; Just to emphasize the weakness of your argument.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I was referring to the Pentagon in that post, not WTC 7 or the other Trade Center towers.

Could you clear up exactly what you were talking about?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by loveguy
To first address what I underlined for you; Water comes from ground level? Airplane hit while several feet off the ground? The shock was acoustically precise as to sever the water supply, at ground level? Why no sprinkler system activation preceding collapse? Calibrated detonation?

To address what I emboldened for you; Just to emphasize the weakness of your argument.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I was referring to the Pentagon in that post, not WTC 7 or the other Trade Center towers.

Could you clear up exactly what you were talking about?

Yes, I'll be happy to.
Please think for yourself...If an airplane collides with a building high in the air (away from water source for sprinkler systems), how can the water sprinklers fail during a high rise fire unless the water supply is cut-off (at ground level)?
And one step further, would not the molten metal after two weeks under the debris pile have been cooled-down by a water-leak?
If the (alleged) explosions occurred in the basement, 1- water would spew like oil in the gulf...Unless the water source was mechanically cut-off? I believe the witness testimony of hearing/feeling explosions; not the airplane impacting the building explosions...
The empire state building and all other cases in OP's thread indicated having water available to fight the flames. In your understanding (How I quoted your words) the water source wasn't cut-off until the first building collapsed. If the sprinkler systems were working, the fire(s) would've been less likely to reach the 700-800 degree C to "soften" the steal. I'm saying that the water was cut-off in anticipation of a fire. That stunt can't be pulled-off at the pentagon.
This is buried under our noses, and we can't look past our noses?

reply to post by loveguy


Apparent you know Nothing about water is delivered.....

Sprinklers and standpipes which pipe water up in a building depend on pipes called risers

Look in stairwell of high raise building - will see these pipes

Water is supplied from public water mains, occasionally from roof top tanks

Fire pumps in mechanical rooms are switched on during emergency help move the water up the system

Aircraft impact cut the risers supplying water to floors above the impact area - cutting off the sprinklers

When the towers collapsed severed the underground water mains which cut off water to WTC 7 behind
WTC towers

Without water there can be no effective fire fighting operations - that is why WTC 7 was abandoned

No water. Fire chiefs made decision to abandon WTC 7 because of this

Originally posted by thedman
No water. Fire chiefs made decision to abandon WTC 7 because of this

Not just that, but also the fact that WTC 7 was bowing out on some floors, some firefighters thought it didn't look straight, they could see an ~20 floor gash... I mean, here at ATS eyewitness testimony is supposed to be ultimate, yet every truther seems to completely disregard the testimonies that crush their theories.

As for the molten metal, show me an example of molten steel from a controlled demolition.

I've already found eyewitness proof that there was massive fire under the trade centers for a number of reasons, the least of which being severed gas lines creating fireballs all over the place.

vipertech0596

reply to post by imd12c4funn "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks" The Commission was never charged with discovering the engineering of the collapses. It was charged with examining our procedures, examining just how the 19 hijackers got into our country and what they did while here, examining just how badly the "system" failed and making recommendations to prevent it from happening again. And yes, from the outset, the Commission was never about spreading blame, because they knew...as do MOST halfway intelligent individuals that there was plenty of blame to go around covering YEARS of screwups made by government officials.

I have disagreed with NIST more than once on here. Mainly because I know that their report is an educated guess. There is absolutely no way to know the exact collapse sequence nor is there a way to know the exact damage that WTC 7 suffered and how that affected its stability. The best information we have comes from the members of the FDNY who watched that building that afternoon. And their stories indicate that WTC 7 basically started its collapse sequence much earlier in the day...and very slowly...until the early evening when the rest of the building came down.

so clearly with these 2 quotes by you,that you agreed we need a full public independent international inquiry into the whole 9/11 events,as like myself,think its was one big mess up,weather by total incompetence or malicious intent,either way there has to be a full public independent international inquiry.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by snapperski

 

You would think that by now we would have dispelled the myth that the 2.3 trillion dollars only became news on Sept 10 and was gone on the 12th. Not the mention it wasn't cash that was missing it was accounting adjustments that did not have adequate documentation. Rumsfeld had been discussing the antiquated computers at the Pentagon and how they were incompatible which led to some of the accounting issues.

oh what a load of rubbish ! ....all the documentation was destoryed in the explosion,as well those that happen to be searching for that documentation,and when he mention computers,it was to have a system that could keep track of accounts,so dont try and spin this,with dis info...and the cut and thrust of this,is it would of looked highly more suspicious had it been released about the missing 2.3 trillion dollars after the pentagon account offices were blown up that day,so i'm thinking someone said if were going to do this 9/11 event,were going to have to make a quick statement before the event about the paper work that would reveal were the money went.

it was just back covering,and one that they made just in time,this is were i get my theory that the pentagon,was a last minute decision to do,and really kinda over killed the whole 9/11 events,and was clearly not though out aswell as the towers....

reply to post by snapperski


I'm not against the notion of an "international public enquiry" but how exactly would it work? Who would oversee the process? And who would pay for it?

The US would not give subpoena power to an organisation run by, say, the UN. They wouldn't want countries like Iran or Venezuela having a say in what documents or evidence had to be given up, since they would suspect them of using that power for ulterior motives.

And the likelihood is that the enquiry would be hijacked (forgive the pun) by vested political interests. How would you stop, for example, the Iranian representative on the commission using the thing as just a big excuse to bash the US?

An enormous sum of money would be spent, years would pass, and at the end I can absolutely assure you that it would not satisfy the majority of 9/11 Truthers.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


the simple solution to this,you have the UN council assign a team of world specialist of each field,and give them the resources to investigate,but the biggest problem would be cooperation from the american government,and as for the money,why should that be a problem,after all america prints its own money anyway..but i should imagen the UN could finance this easy,with its income,and it wasn't only americans that died that day,as far as america bashing from states that dis-agree with American Foreign Policy,i'm afraid you get that anyway,so it wouldn't make much differents..would it ? ..but there would be a level of civil investigation,were you have neutral parties overseeing the conduct of the investigators,and making sure it not used as a platform of US bashing,unrelated to 9/11.

Originally posted by loveguy


Yes they were built the same way, fundamentally. Utilities are fed from underground. If the water supply suffers damage, it's because the damage occurs underground. The fires at Empire State Building were fought with water being supplied by underground source.

The fires at WTC were not fought with water from underground source...Because building(s) had collapsed and severed supply? Calibrated detonation to sever water source?

Google dry and wet risers for multi storey buildings

As I have quoted above YOU HAVE NO CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE and it shows!!!

In the Empire State event the plane did not cause as significant damage read here and learn something. Whats also interesting is when YOU read this its shows all the people who claim the jets could not penetrate the walls of the twin towers how wrong they were.

Also this extract shows how people who claim that the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft because of the hole size are mistaken as well.

From link below.

The Empire State Building crash of 1945 also offers insights into the Pentagon attack on September 11. Both buildings are reinforced masonry structures built using similar methods and materials, although the Pentagon has been considerably upgraded to survive impact damage. One topic often used to promote conspiracy theories is the size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon created by the Boeing 757 that struck it. The 757 has a wingspan of almost 125 ft (38 m), yet most conspiracy sites suggest the impact hole is only 15 to 65 ft (4.5 to 20 m) wide. The same can be said of the Empire State Building where a plane with a wingspan greater than 67 ft (20.5 m) created a hole no more than 20 ft (6 m) across.

Link to Empire State Building plane crash. Read and learn.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

This is the level of construction being under taken to ensure that buildings will not suffer the same fate as the WTC BUILDINGS!

HAVE A LOOK ON PAGE 2!!!! COMPARE THAT TO WTC CONSTRUCTION!!!!!

www.modernsteel.com...

here is a nice hi res shot

img404.imageshack.us...

Then stop thinking the planes couldn't have caused the collapse!

reply to post by wmd_2008


one question to the man that clearly thinks,his smarter then the rest of us,now concerning the pentagon,plane engines,made from titanium,apparently just vaporized,but office equipment never,just meters away ,how is this possible,please enlighten us with your great wisdom.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/334f6ba0032c.jpg[/atsimg]

and to zoom in for you..
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98362ab4759c.jpg[/atsimg]

and another thing that bothers me is why they won't released this footage from these cameras.??
surely this wound end all the debating and conspiracy concerning the pentagon..it would put it to bed so to speak...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c08c78ad0ba.jpg[/atsimg]

plus another question i have is were did this plane part come from,as it well documented to NOT be from the alleged plane that hit the pentagon..??
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0ad05ef2d44.jpg[/atsimg]