A Peer-Reviewed Professional Publication

[luke warm]

I have never claimed the NIST report was purposefullly deceptive, but I don't think it's too much to say that any government agency can be influenced by politics and politicians.

if they are influenced, how is that influence manifested?

Most  seem to think a puposeful controlled demolition too complex to have been carried out, and it seemed that way to me for quite some time.  But the more I considered it the less complex it seemed.

well it seems awful complex to me... give me a not so complex way it might have been done

[Winstonm]

I have never claimed the NIST report was purposefullly deceptive, but I don't think it's too much to say that any government agency can be influenced by politics and politicians.

if they are influenced, how is that influence manifested?

Most  seem to think a puposeful controlled demolition too complex to have been carried out, and it seemed that way to me for quite some time.   But the more I considered it the less complex it seemed.

well it seems awful complex to me... give me a not so complex way it might have been done

Perhaps you haven't worked in an environment that is highly bureaucratic, with levels of management, but I can assure you that if one of the few at the top of the foodchain said "we don't need to bother looking at that possibility" then it would not be looked at. I have written before concerning other problems that it only takes a few people in key powerful positions to inact a common goal or belief system.

 

There are a handful (IMO) powerful enough to politically sway the focus of this type investigation - either them personally or their spokesman whom is known to be speaking for the higher up: the president, the vice-president, the head of CIA, the head of the Justice Department, or the possibly the head of the State Department.

 

As to the complexity question, if the plot had been known for some time by a third country in advance, then simply consider how few in the U.S. would actually need to be involved.

 

Third country intelligence informs a high-level authority who is like-minded. The message is simple - control U.S. air force response and WTC security and you will get your new Pearl Harbor. Blueprints of the buildings are available. Third country demolition experts design the placement of charges exactly as they need to be. A week or so before D-day WTC security is "disabled for repairs" - and a third country team goes into the building on the premise of rewiring - the planning has already been done so this is simply placement - working 24 hours a day, and sets the charges in both towers.

 

On the day of the event, there has been a change in policiy and now only one person can order a military intercept and shootdown of hijacked airplanes - those orders do not go out until all the planes have impacted.

 

This is the scenario I have considered - and it doesn't seem all that outrageous - and the forbidden knowledge is contained to 2 or 3 key people, and one of those would also have to be able to manipulate the subsequent inquiry to not look for evidence of demolition.

 

Certainly it seems outrageious to even consider - and I had no doubt about the collapses either, until I learned of WTC-7 and started to read.

 

Demolition is an outrageous thought - but perhaps not as impossible as it first seems.

[hotShot]

WTC7 was a separate building standing on solid ground, wasn't it?

 

This not not quite true. Lets start with the solid ground.

The ground around the WTC was/is full of tunnels.

Subway, sewage water system, they have steams pipes there and of cause water, electricity, telephone have their own tunnels too.

 

Probably there were even tunnels connecting the buildings or they shared the underground parking lot.

 

The WTC subway station collaped when the towers came done and so did other tunnels. After that the ground under WTC7 was no longer solid.

The building "fell" into that whole. And because it did not fall evenly it was ripped apart at several points.

 

If you search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Station for "deep" you will find that the lowest platform is 53m underground and under that there are technical supply rooms.

 

Not to mention the shock waves and vibrations caused by the collapse.

[luke warm]

I have never claimed the NIST report was purposefullly deceptive, but I don't think it's too much to say that any government agency can be influenced by politics and politicians.

if they are influenced, how is that influence manifested?

Perhaps you haven't worked in an environment that is highly bureaucratic, with levels of management,  but I can assure you that if one of the few at the top of the foodchain said "we don't need to bother looking at that possibility" then it would not be looked at.

i understand that, winston... it's just that i don't see the difference between not looking at something and in being "purposely deceptive"... deception can be either through action or inaction, and both are (it seems to me) purposeful

Most  seem to think a puposeful controlled demolition too complex to have been carried out, and it seemed that way to me for quite some time.  But the more I considered it the less complex it seemed.

well it seems awful complex to me... give me a not so complex way it might have been done

As to the complexity question, if the plot had been known for some time by a third country in advance, then simply consider how few in the U.S. would actually need to be involved.

 

Third country intelligence informs a high-level authority who is like-minded.  The message is simple - control U.S. air force response and WTC security and you will get your new Pearl Harbor.  Blueprints of the buildings are available.  Third country demolition experts design the placement of charges exactly as they need to be.  A week or so before D-day WTC security is "disabled for repairs" - and a third country team goes into the building on the premise of rewiring - the planning has already been done so this is simply placement - working 24 hours a day, and sets the charges in both towers. 

 

On the day of the event, there has been a change in policiy and now only one person can order a military intercept and shootdown of hijacked airplanes - those orders do not go out until all the planes have impacted.

 

This is the scenario I have considered - and it doesn't seem all that outrageous - and the forbidden knowledge is contained to 2 or 3 key people, and one of those would also have to be able to manipulate the subsequent inquiry to not look for evidence of demolition. 

 

Certainly it seems outrageious to even consider - and I had no doubt about the collapses either, until I learned of WTC-7 and started to read.

 

Demolition is an outrageous thought - but perhaps not as impossible as it first seems.

fine, but when (in the scenario you considered) were the explosives planted? how? by whom? how long would it have taken? with or without the government's acquiescence?

[Winstonm]

I believe you are being reasonable, but I am see points of discrepancy, as far as I am concerned.

 

Not to mention the shock waves and vibrations caused by the collapse

 

WTC-7 collapsed about 7 hours later - far after vibrations and shock waves had ceased, so this seems unlikely.

 

The building "fell" into that whole. And because it did not fall evenly it was ripped apart at several points.

 

Video I have watched showed a smooth, straight down collpase into the building's own footprint - not an uneven fall with the buidling ripped apart. The comparison to controlled demolition is - to me - both staggering and obvious.

[Winstonm]

fine, but when (in the scenario you considered) were the explosives planted? how? by whom? how long would it have taken? with or without the government's acquiescence?

 

Let me take these one at a time.

1) When were the explosives planted?

If the collapse was a demolition or aided by demolition, the planting would have had to occur pre-impact of the planes. Anywhere from 1 month to as little as a few days, perhaps, depending on the amounts needed, the speed of placement, the skill of the team, and the size of the team.

 

2) By whom?

I don't know. All I am doing is constructing a possible sequence of events that makes demolition not as far fetched as it immediately seems.

 

3) How long would it have taken?

As long as the WTC security could be disabled - 3 days, a week, a month? - who knows - there are a number of factors that influence this speed.

 

The importantance of this exercise is not to specify exactly what happened, but to give an example of what could have occured. In this context, sabotage is not so insane a contemplation as it first appears and so should be examined as a potential cause of collapse - not so much to show that it was the cause but simply to make damn well certain it wasn't the cause.

[luke warm]

Let me take these one at a time.

1) When were the explosives planted?

If the collapse was a demolition or aided by demolition, the planting would have had to occur pre-impact of the planes. Anywhere from 1 month to as little as a few days, perhaps, depending on the amounts needed, the speed of placement, the skill of the team, and the size of the team.

 

2) By whom?

I don't know. All I am doing is constructing a possible sequence of events that makes demolition not as far fetched as it immediately seems.

 

3) How long would it have taken?

As long as the WTC security could be disabled - 3 days, a week, a month? - who knows - there are a number of factors that influence this speed.

ok, i'll just let your answers sink in while i contemplate exactly *why* occam's razor supposedly doesn't apply

[Winstonm]

I am well aware of how much WTC-conspiracy BS/crap/insane/stupid/ridiculous/nonsensical/etc. ideas are presented on the internet, and I know it takes quite a bit of diligence to find the truly legitimate concerns - D. Stephen Jones is one of those who has consistently argued on the science and not the hype, and he has helped debunk a number of the really silly claims - idiotic claims such space beam weapons or no planes really hit, etc. I really don't fault anyone their derision of the conspiracy ideas, and thus supporting the official claim, mainly because I can see from all the insanity how stupid are so many of the claims - the trouble is in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

If you look beneath all the trash, though, you will find genuine concern from people who are degreed and professional, and those concerns seem to be legitimate.

 

When you are considering Occam's Razor, also consider these kinds of items, as it is importnat, IMO.

 

The floor trusses supposedly sagged and pulled in the walls, yet none of the actual fire tests could cause anywhere near enough sagging for collapse - in fact, in the models, NIST had to basically manipulate the input data to get enough sagging in the floors for a collapse. Now, they may have found the answer, all right, but what does Occam's Razor say about guestimations and manipulated data? Is it likely that their input, although non-verifiable by tests, just happened to occur that way in actual life?

 

I do not know the answer.

[Al_U_Card]

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes all that there is...until new information comes to light.

 

Big buildings, a known target, needing refurbishing (as well as asbestos removal to the tune of a cool billion or so) on prime real estate. A fire-sale deal to a person that immediately takes out terrorist insurance.... quo bono?

 

They had EPA rescue units in place as well as NORAD defense drills running.....too many things, not enough excuses.

 

ps Remember that the FBI had to coerce the 1993 bombers to carry out their plans....almost comical if it hadnt been so tragic.

[Winstonm]

Here we sit nearly 7 full years later and the information keeps trickling in. Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...trassID=/has%5C

 

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

 

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

 

This latest news becomes even more perplexing when combined with the information of the 5 young Israelis who were arrested right after the attacks.

[Al_U_Card]

Geez, c'mon Winston.....the Mossad, the CIA, what, secrets?

 

It is all about security and staying in control. They as well as others with money and power have no compunctions about doing away with 3 or 3000....

[bid_em_up]

Every day somewhere buildings are burning, if they burn long enough they collapse.

 

From what I have read, no time in history has a building totally collapsed due to fire - again, if you have a link supporting your claim, it would be good to see.

Oh please, can you cite another instance where a building has been struck by a 747?

[bid_em_up]

Did the NIST report take into account anywhere the factor of having an extra 400-500 tons or so (approximately 900,000 pounds) of weight being added into the building as a possible cause of collapse?

 

Just curious.

[Winstonm]

Every day somewhere buildings are burning, if they burn long enough they collapse.

 

From what I have read, no time in history has a building totally collapsed due to fire - again, if you have a link supporting your claim, it would be good to see.

Oh please, can you cite another instance where a building has been struck by a 747?

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane.

[bid_em_up]

It wasn't on fire either....

 

I have no problem accepting that Building 7 "might" have been intentionally destroyed. So what? It had been evacuated by that point in time, right?

 

But really, enough of the conspiracy theory bullshit on the other two. Big plane, weighs a lot, hits building, catches fire, burns, building collapses. Duh. Enough of the nonsense already.

[Winstonm]

I have no problem accepting that Building 7 "might" have been intentionally destroyed. So what? It had been evacuated by that point in time, right?

 

You have arrived at the starting point where most of us who once accepted the official explanation had to stop and say, WTF?

 

If building 7 was a controlled demolition - which is what its collapse strongly resembles - then the implosion would have had to have been arranged prior to the the impacts of the airliners.

 

If so, what other information has been withheld, concealed, or altered?

 

Edited: I am in agreement with jtfanclub. Discussion is purely hypothetical. I in no way condone the idea that a conspiracy was was even possible.

[jtfanclub]

I have no problem accepting that Building 7 "might" have been intentionally destroyed. So what? It had been evacuated by that point in time, right?

 

You have arrived at the starting point where most of us who once accepted the official explanation had to stop and say, WTF?

 

If building 7 was a controlled demolition - which is what its collapse strongly resembles - then the implosion would have had to have been arranged prior to the the impacts of the airliners.

 

If so, what other information has been withheld, concealed, or altered?

But as has been previously pointed out, Building 7 had reasons on than 'conspiracy' to have been wired to explode for decades. And they had reasons other than 'conspiracy' to blow it up, although I think it's more likely that it wasn't intentional (if you wire a building to explode, it's not too shocking when it blows up on its own during a major ground-shaking).

 

That's part of what makes the WTC1 and 2 being blown up by controlled demolition so laughable. A plane crashes into the side of the building, it burns for 40 minutes, and somehow the explosives still work? Come on. Since Building 7 didn't have any such issues, any explosives they'd had installed would work as advertised.

 

Actually, even more laughable than somebody rigging up WTC1 to explode, and then having it work after a plane crash and 40 minutes of burning, would be anybody EXPECTING a controlled demolition to work after a plane crash and 40 minutes of burning. Wires get cut (hell, entire pillars got cut), explosives will burn or melt, detonation devices tend to be sentitive things, how could any of them survive that? This doesn't even qualify for Occam's Razor. This is a case of taking the impossible (a controlled demolition surviving the crash and fire) over the obvious (crash and fire knocked down the building).

[Al_U_Card]

Still just a question of too many questions and not enough sensible answers. Science (NIST) was used in an attempt to gain time and present an "official" version but it was so hamstrung and castrated in its scope that it only serves to fuel the fires that have kept burning since 9-11. Finally, when the truth will out, no one will be left that will care enough to make a difference. As they also planned.

[blackshoe]

I can well understand how someone can look at the NIST report and have questions about both their methods and their conclusions. However, to leap from that to "coverup" and "conspiracy" is just insane.

[Al_U_Card]

No offense but look at the world today...we have such a place of wonder and potential and with what we are doing to it....seems pretty much insane to me.

[Winstonm]

I can well understand how someone can look at the NIST report and have questions about both their methods and their conclusions. However, to leap from that to "coverup" and "conspiracy" is just insane.

You are right, and I happen to agree with this. There is no concrete proof at all of coverup or conspiracy. And I believe to make this leap is unreasonable without proof. But I believe it just as unreasonable to ignore the flaws in the NIST report and rule out without investigation the possibility of demolition.

 

And there is only one reason I say this - the controlled demolition hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon, while the NIST does not even try to address all the phenomenon. If a demolition hypothesis gives such a complete account, surely it should be ruled out based on lack of evidence or some other scientific criteria rather than be disregarded as simply implausible.

 

I don't think it is crazy whatsoever to go from questions about NIST methods and conclusions to a re-investigation. If a re-investigation turned up evidence of a controlled demolition, then at the point the leap to coverup and conspiracy would be narrowed to the point of reasonableness.

 

But I am with you on the claim that it is too much to leap from doubt to conspiracy; however, I think there is reasonable cause to look deeper into the matter.

[Winstonm]

But as has been previously pointed out, Building 7 had reasons on than 'conspiracy' to have been wired to explode for decades. And they had reasons other than 'conspiracy' to blow it up, although I think it's more likely that it wasn't intentional (if you wire a building to explode, it's not too shocking when it blows up on its own during a major ground-shaking).

 

If the building had been pre-wired, and the owner knew that, then collecting insurance on the buidling for a natural collapse would have been a conspiracy to defraud.

 

No government agency has legal authority to pre-wire occupied building to explode or to destroy occupied buildings with explosives, so if this had occured again it would have been a conspiracy to violate the law.

 

An argument for some sort of natural reason for collapse would be a lot more compelling than an accidental implosion or pre-planned implosion event.

[blackshoe]

But I am with you on the claim that it is too much to leap from doubt to conspiracy; however, I think there is reasonable cause to look deeper into the matter.

We're in agreement then. B)

[PassedOut]

This just in: Report Says Fire, Not Explosion, Felled 7 W.T.C.

 

The long-delayed report by engineers here at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in suburban Washington is intended to solve one of still lingering central questions about the 2001 attacks: Why did 7 World Trade Center fall, if it was not hit by an airplane.

 

“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail,” said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator. “Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse that brought the building down.”

 

So far as I know, there is no public evidence that anyone in the white house "edited" this particular report.

[Al_U_Card]

Oh those crazy fires!!!! This has nothing to do with the fact that the fires were not really located (according to fire dept. calls/ eye witnesses or even video records) in the region of the "vital" support columns.....

 

Somehow, when insurers are trying to "not pay" on most of my claims....wassup wit dat?