Ed Moving On is coming.

[Pardalis]

Operation Northwoods was planned by elements in the US military. It was not LIHOP. That is the precedent I referred to. I also said, "I believe at the very least it was facilitated by elements within our current administration."

Operation Norwoods has been adressed many times in this thread, too bad you haven't read these replies.

I have no idea how the buildings may have been wired. Bringing the buildings down had many possible effects beyond what just a plane crash would do. Of course any additions to any plan involving human beings increases the risk.

How does that help your case?

Irregardless of the planes the official explanations of the collapse of all three buildings is fire - correct?

Wrong. The offical explanation is that the impacts and the fires caused the structure to collapse. Read that NIST report again.

 

[Moving On]

1) Please summarize what they said about WTC 7's condition.

2) Do you have any reason to believe that the accounts of WTC 7's condition are false?

Gravy,

I don't know why you are asking me this when you are already aware of the following facts.

"In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United States (FEMA) released a report on the collapse. [3] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers, and not to the actual impact damage of 1 WTC and 2 WTC as they collapsed. The report noted that, prior to this collapse, there was no record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building such as 7 WTC.



The report did not reach final conclusions, outlining a number of issues needing to be explored with respect to the cause of the collapse. Specifically, FEMA made these findings:

“Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” (Chapter 5, pg 31.)​

Now if FEMA can admit this, we should be able too as well. We will have to wait for the final report to discuss this aspect of it fully.

I believe the best use of the structural damage to WTC as evidence is that it is what caused the NYFD commanders to perceptually conclude a safety hazard that constituted the evacuation of the firefighters from the building.

Per your request I will continue on with my Silverstein evaluation. I am doing it in the spirit of seeking your analysis as well because I consider either interpretation unusual to the say the least when fully analyzed.

Russell

 

[Scientologist]

But in the end is it not fire that is attributed for the collapse of the buildings?

Yes or no?

Russell

No. I'll give you a clue. Something happened BEFORE the fires were started. Remember? A BIG GODDAMN AIRPLANE SMACKED INTO THE ****ING TOWERS

Jesus.

 

[Kent1]

I still have 3 questions that have not been addressed. Despite the limitations in my personal knowledge this is also a two way street where I would like to learn. I have no fear of being wrong if it is educational.

1) If the fuel went down the shaft and ignited the sub levels which would have happened immediately, do we have any evidence or firefighter reports of basement fires prior to the collapses?

2) Is there an explanation for the top of the building not continuing on to the ground?

3) Did the collapse of WTC7 start in the area of the structural damage?

Russell

Russell, I believe I adressed no 3 previously. WTC7 collapse did not start in the area of structural damage. At least I am not aware of any large exterior damage in that area other than the probable burning diesel fuel. I would also suggest reading the NIST draft report. However please note I can guarantee some details and damage estimates will change. NIST will be showing some new photos of the south face in the not too distant future. From what I understand they will show more than the Spak photo I gave them in back in June.

Scott

 

[Moving On]

pardalis,

My "case" as you put it is a personal belief as I have stated, as is the no conspiracy position. To date nobody has produced irrefutable evidence for either belief.

I have read every word of this entire thread. I am not keeping up very well with responses however.

OK, I found the NIST summary and you are correct.

"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001."

By self admission they also did not test for the presence of explosives or give a thorough evaluation to a demolition scenario. I wouldn't have expected them to but it is a fact at this point that they did not.

Now we know that much of the evidence is gone. This initially upset some in the firefighting industry.

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Bill Manning - Fire Engineering's editor in chief

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

As I have stated before I have a high regard for firefighters. This observation means a lot to me. I don't mind referencing the general details of the various reports back and forth but I feel the same about them as I do the 9/11 Commission report and the recent revelations from the chair and vice chair of that.

A grain of salt.

Russell

 

[LashL]

It was my understanding that elevator shaft dampers had been retrofitted after the 1975 fire. Am I incorrect?

I believe you are incorrect. There were fire dampers in the HVAC systems and duct shafts, but my information is that there were no fire dampers in the elevator shafts. (As an aside, I also recall that the NIST found that the existing fire damper systems within the towers did not operate properly on Sept. 11/01, in any event)

The towers also had no enclosed "firefighter elevators", by the way. I was a bit surprised to learn that, because FF elevators are so standard in highrises these days. Of course, the towers were built before the days when FF elevators were standard, but still, I was surprised to learn that none had ever been added over the decades that the towers existed. Of course, had they had FF elevators, many more lives would likely have been saved.

I am very surprised to hear they had no intention of fighting the fires and sent firefighters inside even though they felt collapse was likely. I will research this more.

Research is good.

The better part of valour now would seriously indicate that my direct and specific knowledge of the towers is lacking. So, I concede that I cannot discuss the towers with a solidly informed position!

Fair enough.

 

[Pardalis]

By self admission they also did not test for the presence of explosives or give a thorough evaluation to a demolition scenario. I wouldn't have expected them to but it is a fact at this point that they did not.

Read it again.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[Moving On]

Scott,

I believe I adressed no 3 previously. WTC7 collapse did not start in the area of structural damage. At least I am not aware of any large exterior damage in that area other than the probable burning diesel fuel.

Thank you.

I am up to speed on this now. It was a little correctness on both sides. The towers were reported to be a combination of causes and WTC7 seems to be mainly attributed to fire with a "low probability of occurrence".

This is where I become a skeptic. This is again an asymmetrical, localized damage that resulted in what appears to be a perfectly symmetrical collapse. If you watch the video of that and hold a piece of paper up to the screen along the edge of the building you will see what I mean. That is also despite asymmetrical trussing.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

LashL,

I believe you are incorrect. There were fire dampers in the HVAC systems and duct shafts, but my information is that there were no fire dampers in the elevator shafts.

This is where my information came from just so you know I wasn't making it up.

"On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html

I know it is a CT site so please disregard everything else and do not do a debunking that requires me to be further indebted to you which I have not forgotten.

Russell

 

[Kent1]

Scott,



Thank you.

I am up to speed on this now. It was a little correctness on both sides. The towers were reported to be a combination of causes and WTC7 seems to be mainly attributed to fire with a "low probability of occurrence".

This is where I become a skeptic. This is again an asymmetrical, localized damage that resulted in what appears to be a perfectly symmetrical collapse. If you watch the video of that and hold a piece of paper up to the screen along the edge of the building you will see what I mean. That is also despite asymmetrical trussing.

Russell

Please note FEMA does not state that collapse was "mainly attributed to fire with a low probability of occurrence"
They state "Loss of structural integrity was LIKELY a result of weakening caused by fire on the 5th to 7th floors"

"The collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers, and not to the actual impact damage of 1 WTC and 2 WTC as they collapsed."

When they stated the "best hypothesis" it was in reference to the "total diesel fuel on the premises"

Furthermore we have much more information now than FEMA did.

I understand your problem with the symmetrical collapse vs asymmetrical
damage. That's why I hope you will read some of the report first. Rather than have me explain it.

Best Scott

 

[Moving On]

Read it again.

"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

My point was they did not have a separate and dedicated component of the investigation to consider CD. They found the conclusion they believed was responsible and in the process of that said, "In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001."

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Scott,

I am ultimately waiting for the final report.

When is it due?

The bottom line is we have a bizarre and unprecedented event on film along with a hard to make sense of comment by somebody in relation to it. I have to do some other things here for a bit and I will respond to Gravy about Silverstein later.

Russell

 

[LashL]

1) If the fuel went down the shaft and ignited the sub levels which would have happened immediately, do we have any evidence or firefighter reports of basement fires prior to the collapses?

There are some accounts of people being burned in the sub-levels by fireballs coming down the elevator shafts. I'll haven't the time to look up the accounts just now, but off the top of my head, I believe that one was the fellow that William Rodriguez talks about, and another was a woman.

There are also accounts from survivors about being trapped in an elevator that fell to just above the floor of the lobby, in which they were trapped for quite some time, with many of the passengers in that elevator being burned to death by a fireball that roared down, through, and past their elevator car, while the survivors struggled to escape. Some pretty gruesome and graphic stuff about about the survivors having to crawl over top of the bodies of those who died within the same car.

There are also accounts of several people being burned to death on the lobby level from fireballs blowing out elevator doors. Again, pretty gruesome and graphic stuff.

I haven't seen anyone say that the fireballs ignited large fires on the various floors below the impact floors where they blew out elevator doors, though, so I'm not sure why you're qualifying your question with "and ignited the sub levels which would have happened immediately".

2) Is there an explanation for the top of the building not continuing on to the ground?

It did, in fact, continue to the ground.

But, if you are asking why it didn't topple off separately to the side and land elsewhere, the answer is "physics". I am not personally qualified to explain it, but it has been addressed many times here before, and in professional reports, so I am sure others can point you to them.

 

[Pardalis]

My point was they did not have a separate and dedicated component of the investigation to consider CD.

Why would they?

 

[LashL]

LashL,

This is where my information came from just so you know I wasn't making it up.

I know it is a CT site so please disregard everything else and do not do a debunking that requires me to be further indebted to you which I have not forgotten.

Russell

Oh, I didn't think that you just made it up, not to worry.

I've seen the assertion made on several CT sites, but none of them has ever provided a source that backs up their assertion. Not one.

It would be nice if one of them ever does. As I said above, my information is that there were fire dampers in the HVAC system ducts/shafts but not in the elevator shafts.

I guess it doesn't really matter all that much since it was found that the fire dampers that were in existence at the time did not operate properly in any event, but still, it's good to get the details right. I'm certainly not infallible, and when I get something wrong, I readily admit it when shown where I erred. Unfortunately, it seems that most CTers don't operate on that standard.

 

[Moving On]

Why would they?

Pardalis,

The most basic reason would be the confirmed presence of a terrorist bomb at that location prior to 9/11 in an attempt to collapse the building.

Why would we assume they would not do both?

What if the whole cover up is that terrorists had penetrated us so deeply as to do both?

It has not been ruled out that there may have been some USG cover up related to incompetence - right? What could be more incompetent than to have terrorists succeed with planting explosives in addition to aircraft impacts.

In that sense we would both be partially right.

I am open to all possibilities.

You seem tense today?

Russell

 

[Kent1]

Scott,

I am ultimately waiting for the final report.

When is it due?

The bottom line is we have a bizarre and unprecedented event on film along with a hard to make sense of comment by somebody in relation to it. I have to do some other things here for a bit and I will respond to Gravy about Silverstein later.

Russell

Postponed again until around spring of 07. You might find some of this very interesting (regarding the tests).
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

 

[Pardalis]

The most basic reason would be the confirmed presence of a terrorist bomb at that location prior to 9/11 in an attempt to collapse the building.

Did you notice these two planes hitting these buildings?

What could be more incompetent than to have terrorists succeed with planting explosives in addition to aircraft impacts.

They saw "no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001", what more do you want?

You seem tense today?

I'm perfectly willing to debate LIHOP with you, but controlled demolitions are completely ridiculous.

 

[Dog Town]

Pardalis,

The most basic reason would be the confirmed presence of a terrorist bomb at that location prior to 9/11 in an attempt to collapse the building.

Why would we assume they would not do both?

What if the whole cover up is that terrorists had penetrated us so deeply as to do both?

It has not been ruled out that there may have been some USG cover up related to incompetence - right? What could be more incompetent than to have terrorists succeed with planting explosives in addition to aircraft impacts.

Russell

Hmmmm....maybe because they would have rubbed it in our faces long ago. They would not wait for the "Hardley Boys"!

DT

 

[LashL]

What if the whole cover up is that terrorists had penetrated us so deeply as to do both?

It has not been ruled out that there may have been some USG cover up related to incompetence - right? What could be more incompetent than to have terrorists succeed with planting explosives in addition to aircraft impacts.

Leaving aside the obvious, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

What impact would it have on the government if private security at an office building failed to prevent someone from planting explosives? Wouldn't the government be delighted to be able to point the finger at others and say, "Hey, look, it wasn't our fault. It was those lax security systems; the airplanes were just for show."

/devil's advocate