Should anyone have any doubts about what happened to WTC 7, the answer is from the mouth of its' owner, Larry Silverstein: "Pull it."

The 9-11 Omission Report is a cover up.

9-11 was a joint production of the Bush/Bin Laden Alliance.

Maybe when Silverstein said "...pull it" he meant pull the firemen out to help with the rescue of those caught up in the towers' collapse - 'pull the firefighting attempt on WTC7', ie. abandon it, let it burn. After all, he had insurance.

You're correct in saying the 9/11 Commission Report is a cover-up, because many questions are still unanswered: http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/

Respectfully to The Dossier,

A difference in opinion exists.

As WTC 7 was not struck by aircraft, the idea that the building would collapse in such a straight-down fashion, with a classic, controlled-demolition kink in the center roofline, is beyond rational explanation - that is, without the element of human intervention.

Steel is a metal, a heat sink, much like a frying pan, that wicks heat away from its' source and distributes it to cooler areas. Should the distributed temperatures have been great enough to cause the steel frame to redden and sag, the building windows should have been shattering all over the floors on fire and not just in a few spots.

Thermodynamically, scattered diesel fires would not get close to reaching the temperatures or perfect heat distribution needed for a near symmetric, punctuated collapse, as explained in the theory presented in the BBC video.

A point to remember is that recent steel-frame fires in Madrid and Caracas burned far longer than WTC 7 and did not lead to catastrophic failure. As for as it is known, no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.

The collapse of WTC 7 is best explained by experts in physics, i.e. Dr. Steve Jones, and not by BBC propagandists.

The abnormal collapse of WTC 7 reeks of mischief. Perhaps that is the real reason that the 9-11 Omission didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Here's the NIST explanation:

• An initial local failure at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire
and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which
supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor
bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the
east penthouse; and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and
7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors),
triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of
the entire structure.

Now this makes sense to me. Think about the location of 7 - cantilevered over the Con Ed substation. Debris falling from tower one could cause damage and start fires in key areas of the structure. The above also accounts for the "kink".

I think that as steel is heated by fire, it can't dissipate the heat quick enough to other areas as you assume. Because the heat source is too great. Remember, fire protection to steel only buys time for evacuation and fire-fighting ie. 30 or 60 minutes is the usual rating. Steel only needs to be heated to around 550 degrees celcius to start yielding under load. Material found in offices these days is of a hydrocarbon nature.

As for the other recent buildings that burned without collapsing, well, they didn't suffer severe damage caused by aircraft flying in to them at 450-550mph full of fuel. And their design probably was of traditional steel grid type configuration - not open plan as in the towers. Plus they may of had concrete encasing the steel instead of spray or fireboard.

Most respectfully, Dossier,

Per the statement, "As for the other recent buildings that burned without collapsing, well, they didn't suffer severe damage caused by aircraft flying in to them at 450-550mph full of fuel."

No aircraft struck WTC 7.

There are numerous examples of big skyscaper fires in which fires have burned longer and more intensely.

For example, Parque Central in Caracas had a massive fire that blew out windows and gutted the skyscraper from the 34th through 56th floors. There was no sprinkler system to cool the beams and the steel frame held.

As no other example of a steel frame skyscraper collapse due to fire can be located, the assertion made by the BBC that fire was the only cause is highly suspect.

Okay, no aircraft struck WTC7, but falling debris from the collapsing tower did hit it. Add to that its precarious position over the Con Ed sub-station.

The Parque Central in Caracus was in fact a reinforced concrete structure, see here:
http://www.nfpa.org/displayContent.asp?categoryID=961

Concrete provides a lot more fire protection than drylining or spray fibre. Also, the Parque Central was not cantilevered over another building, nor did it suffer damage from falling adjacent buildings.

An aside, the above film clip isn't BBC. Its History Channel - Engineering Disasters series.

To TheDossier

Your suggestion why Silverstein said "Pull it" is simply ridiculous.
There is no way to "interpret" it, other than that it meant: Destroy the building - pull it. See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html.

It takes time to rig explosives to pull a building. It could not have been done if it had not been rigged in advance.
Why should Siverstein do that ?. Because, as you said, he had - convieniently - insured the building a few months in advance and could draw a heck of a lot of money out of this BIG TIME insurancefraud.

Why where you so reluctant to admit that a plane had not hid the building ?. Even if large pieces of debries had hid the building, well come on, there is no way these pieces could result in fire in the very lowest stories. And to suggest that these small and scattered fires could bring the building down is and stays ridiculous !.

Thomas

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

I've never been reluctant to admit a plane did not hit WTC7. Video clips and accounts show that debris from the falling tower caused the damage and fires.

In the above link, a firefighter says

“On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.”

20 stories what ??. The picture shows that the corner, but certainly not 20 stories - half the buildings height -, is destroyed. But this will certainly not make the building collapse.

He says that there are fires "on several floors" - which means SOME of them - and the fire - if one looks at videos - certainly seems confined to one end. But then why did it collapse absolutely symmetrically ( and in 6.6 s) ???. This certainly baffles me !!.

Concerning the possibility of thermite (or thermate), also probable in wtc 7:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

Readingmistake (I´m not english/american): I think I read "...a whole 20 stories.." . Therefore the odd question "a (w)hole 20 stories what ?".

Still, even if the outer wall was damaged on the facade on 20 stories, this would not in any way cause the tower to collapse - and if it could it would have done so immediately. The explanation must still be fire - which I don´t believe one second as a reason of the TOTAL, RAPID and PERFECT collapse ( even though SOME sections may have partly sunk, buckled a.o. ). When firefighters heard "noises", this is what one must expect from a building burning (relatively) strong where the fire is concentrated, with the risk of some stories coming down partially. Besides, two towers had already collapsed "because of fire" that day, so naturally the firefighters ON THAT DAY would have thought that this was a risk in WTC 7.

Just to let you all of you know. The mayor's bunker was located in WT 7. Yes, the NYC's mayor has a bunker and the previous one was located in WT 7. Think about that. That means, the structures base, which holds up all of the buildings weight, is not an ordinary base. Also note that WT 6 is directly in between WT 2 and WT 7 but yet, WT 6 was hit the hardest from the debris from WT 2 and 1, but yet it still stood.
And also the planes werent going at top speed. The planes are only able to reach their top speeds at cruising altitude - which is really high in the sky.

The 'base' as you put it, was actually cantilevered. Look it up, then look at the design of the trusses. This is not a good base - hanging over another building (sub station). When these steels were compromised by damage and fire, the whole lot came down like conrolled demolition. The steel was 'cooked' for 7 hours.

...that building 7 was blown with explosives. There's no other explanation that makes sense, GIVEN THE BUILDINGS BEHAVIOR DURING COLLAPSE (go back and read that last clause a few more times, CD dweebs. Maybe you'll finally get it.) Where you CD dweebs get obnoxiously stupid is when you USE this as yet another excuse to leap to your favorite conclusion about the towers, pontificating as always from the garbage pit of your severe ignorance of civil engineering and what constitutes "scientific proof." You're exactly like the "chemtrails" crowd, who also don't understand jack shit about scientific reality -- but hey, they can't be definitively refuted (that's impossible) so therefore they can't be wrong, right? Total raised-by-TV know-nothings, the lot of you.

Unlike for the towers, the case for CD here is actually empirically strong. The building fell too perfectly for what you're describing, which is a localized initiation / messy collapse scenario that should have looked more like what happened to the towers. In fact the building should not have collapsed in its entirety at all, either from the fires (localized, right?) or from failure of the cantilevered structure, which was also local to one part of the building was it not? Rather it should have only partially collapsed like what was seen at Oklahoma City. In any case, the collapse would not have been this perfect lowering of the building, which is consistent with every pier on the ground floor getting blown in half simultaneously. This, by the way, could have been done quick and dirty with overkill charges versus tuned & sequential charges. By-the-book controlled demolition involves the production of one or more vertical creases through the center of the building so that it collapses IN as well as down, thus minimizing spillover into neighboring buildings. No such vertical crease is in evidence during building 7's collapse. There's also the Silverstein quote on nationwide television, which is strong confirmation. It's like one of the neocons saying on PBS "so as we were writing 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' we realized we had to commission a big splashy "Arab terrorism" psy-op in order to provide that "catalyst" we mentioned." That would pretty well hang them.

The Alfred P Murrah building was a reinforced conrcete design, not steel framed as the WTC7. The two behave differently during collapse.

see here for you're other points about 7:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

Why would it be essential to collapse 7?

"You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone."

The scenario described in this "debunking 9-11" page sounds much like that for the south tower, Dossier, where the plane did very asymmetric damage by vectoring into a corner of the structure. When the top broke away, it TIPPED because the collapse initiated on that side. Now you're talking about very similar asymmetric damage combined with raging fires -- an all but identical scenario -- and yet you're totally jumping around my point that the collapse should have been a splattery mess instead of this perfect vertical free-fall. You're being as willfully selective with your attention as Thomas. You're also and once again siding with people who have nothing but scorn for the 9-11 Truth movement, who are themselves offering a very imperfect anecdotal argument, which you seem to be buying into whole hog.

I believe what I see and what I can determine from that for myself. I don't take anybody's word for anything anymore. This culture's too packed with congenital liars and mental weaklings who have inner motivations and outer realities hopelessly jumbled up in their little TV-raised goo-goo heads.

Look Dossier, this whole debate is a stupid black hole for useful energy. Both the CD fanatics AND the anti-conspiracy gatekeepers are being retards about this whole subject, which just ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT. No CD freaks, it's NOT the "big smoking gun." Even if you're right about Silverstein having 7 "pulled," it doesn't prove shit about CD for the towers or US involvement in false flag operations. This is BOGUS LOGIC! You're being sucked into a goddamn dead end! You're armchair technical amateurs whose minds are completely swamped by the mind-boggling complexity of the tower collapses. At the very least, you would need a supercomputer running a simulation using carefully constructed virtual models to discuss the collapses with the predictive assurance you're presuming. So would I. You seem to think you've got that going on in your heads! What typical American dick-headed arrogance!

YOU!

DON'T!

FUCKING!

KNOW!

Just admit it!

What do you do when you can't know a thing for sure? You move on. Some time ago, theDossier dropped a whole list of other holes that deserve equal time. It was very good (see it here: http://indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813619_comment.php#1815346 ). The bunch of you need to stop jumping up and down on top of controlled demolition like a mob of barking baboons and get back to the ORGANIC skeptical arguments that got this movement charged up to begin with. I know: I became a skeptic on 11 September 2001 and then a whatreallyhappened.com devotee the following winter, when that was THE cutting edge site. It had some cockamamie stuff, but mixed in were lots of excellent arguments from ALL KINDS of angles. It was an overwhelmingly convincing mix. The movement is losing that vision, having become entrenched around this particular bullshit dead-end "smoking gun." CUI BONO??

In another five years, after I've been proven right about your little "Apollo was filmed in Hollywood" self-marginalizing act, you're gonna be darting around furtively pretending I never said this, so consider your noses rubbed in this shit as of this moment

I'm tired of this now. You're right, we're just wasting time with these demo freaks. I've got other things to be getting on with. I'm through with the loose change forum, they're just constantly going in circles over there.

If the demo stuff is disinfo, it's certainly doing its job of distracting and dividing people.

With WTC7 though, do you really think Silverstein would make such a cock-up and admit blowing the building? I doubt it. Also, why would seven have to be demolished? Why was it essential to the plan? Please don't say the spooks were there, radio control units in hand with radio beacons to guide the planes in. Okay, there might have been valuable evidence for the SEC pending cases of fraud, but usually they just shred things they want to get rid of.

Did you watch the short film at the top of this page? What did you think?

No, I didn't watch it and I can't right now, busy doing a job. That's also why I didn't jump into the Loose Change forum, for which I apologize. I'll get back to you later about this video. Chin up, mate.

It amazes me how we let our ego's take over in situations such as this and own the knowledge that we expound and when challenged put our backs up against a wall like a wild dog. As a Canadian citizen looking from the outside i have some observations i would like to share.

To often in the united States a person's own self worth and value become so interconnected with the government that they serve (sorry strike that last comment) it should read serves them. This point is very evident in the previous comments. If someones whole belief system is challenged they put on ear muffs and yell lah lah lah lah. Sounds very childish doesn't it? But in a country where being patriotic, supporting the president and a good christian are the hall marks of a healthy and thirving person any departer from this is frowned apon or self cencorship.

I would challenge anyone that has made the above asertions about this happening or that happening to leave thier loyalties their presupations and ego's at the door.
The only thing you should be considering when looking at the colapse of building 7 are the empirical laws surrounding gravity, the law of falling bodies, inertia and any other laws that can't be changed by the US Congress.
I would ask this question to the dossier if you really believe that a steel structure would fall from a simple fire do you have a office in a high rise building ? Because if you do i bet you feel fucking scared to death.

Yours Truely and happy to live in Canada
csloane

There'd be nothing to fear unless, say for example, the 110 storey neighbouring tower collapsed into it, causing damage and fires on multiple floors that burned for hours, slowly "cooking" the cantilevered steel that wasn't protected with concrete.

I'll ask you a question now:
Why is it that building codes/regulations require fire protection/insulation to structural steel?

It is not beyond the realms of possibility to suggest the Shanksville plane (UA Flight 93) was supposed to hit WTC7.
Silverstein may have said the 'pull it' (obviously which references an object not personnel) as an emergency measure to explain the explosives that were left in WTC7 which were to aid the buildings collapse like people say happened in WTC1 and 2.

Another possibility is that Silverstein, not being a demolitions expert, never realised the work and planning that goes into a controlled demolition, thinking that a building could be rigged in a very short period of time.

Overall, it seems like the conspiracy debunkers are jumping through much more hoops than the conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists have hundreds of hugely important questions which are seemingly deliberately avoided by the authorities, likely becasue, the lies of 9-11 are impossible to cover.

is that these matters are discussed. It is perhaps telling that its the "amateur" conspiracy debunders and conspiricists that are advancing the debate and trying to solve the questions but NOT the government.

I've not heard anyone ever mention this before but one could create a scale model of the towers and WTC7 and under controled, monitored conditions simulate the fires on that day. Perhaps Jimmy Walter would do well to fund some of this research?

Would WTC7 collapse under these conditions? Personally I doubt it would. Then one can go on to explain the just as ragged story of the Pentagon attack ad infinitum.

The WTC 110 storey tower did not fall into WTC7. It fell straight down and dust clouds spread outwards. How hot were those dust clouds? Debris from the collapse is said to have caused the WTC7 fires. What debris? What, if any, was found at the WTC7 site that could have caused the fires, or at least fires hot enough to cause such structural damage?

Everyone saw the videos and pictures of dozens or hundreds of people fleeing the dust cloud of the twin towers. If it was so hot, why were apparenty none of them burned? Has anyone heard reports of firemen who were closest to the scene being burned? I saw several interviews with firemen who ran from the collapse and the oncoming dust. None of them spoke about high temperatures.

Small amounts of burning dust was spread all over the city and is a cause of many health problems in a large number of people who were nearby and exposed. If you have ever see a fire in a city spread from house to house the amount of actual burning stuff needed to spread the fire is pretty small. That doesnt mean this caused fires in neighboring buildings but it seems strange to so casually dismiss it.

Bookwerm,
You've failed - Jimmy Walter is a nut.

bernarda,
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a959wtc7damaged

My point has nothing to do with Jimmy Walters. My reference to him was simply as an financier. It matters not a jot if your opinion of him is that he is mad. And so, to dismiss everything I say on that basis is childish.

Ad hominem attacks are quite revealing, but third party ones, well, I'll let the good folks here script that one.

Okay Bookwerm,

the pull it comment by Silverstein is dealt with here:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

You also fail to grasp the importance of seven's location - cantilevered over a substation. A sophisticated arrangement of steel beams and trusses were designed to cope with this. It turned out to be the building's weak point. Once this area of the building (low down) was compromised by damage and fire it came down in what appeared to be controlled demolition. The building was allowed to burn for a long time without water. The steel heated and failed because fire insulation was either knocked off, or it burned longer than its certified time.

News was coming in left right and centre, people could not digest all the information and then we had the anthrax news to contend with but eventually people started to analyse what the mass media had told them and started to spot inconstancies and although it is hard to change ones first impressions, this is exactly what at least 40% of the public have done to date.

6” Steel beams do not melt if you poor all the fuel in the world on them and that’s in open air and yet molten metal was being pulled from the basement of the towers days later and if the WT7 could come down so easily, so perfect then where is the investigations into sky scrapers being un-safe.

Sorry but some people are born sheeple and all the truth in the world will not help them escape as they like the warmth of the flock even if it is getting smaller by the day.

Where can one obtain Archetects plans of WTC-7 to examine for structural frailties?
I'm asking you becasue you seem to have knowledge of these weaknesses and therefore must have seen the plans.

I submit that the building should be modelled and tested.

This report gives you some idea of the construction of WTC7. Not complete plans/sections, but it should help you understand what happened:

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

Thank you. Is that the document that you used to ascertain that the construction of WTC-7 was such that caused the building to collapse in the manner it did?

That and other media sources, but also my knowledge of building and the video evidence.

there are certain points of the official theory that i can understand even regard as plausable even with regard to WTC7
the fact that seven burned for a number of hours without any fire fight also the fact that it susstained damage from the fall of the north tower. the extent of both of these is very hard to determine from all the various media i have seen . i can also belive the weakness was the staddle of the substation but what i do have considerable trouble with is reconciling this to how the building collapsed. had WTC7 toppled over or crubled away on the inside (a bit reminisent of the oklahoma building) leaving an intact shell on the undamaged side i could belive it .but how do you explain the TOTAL disintegration of the buiding into a pile of rubble?

I'm glad you are grasping the points you have mentioned - others seem to think they are irrelevant. People go on about "toppling over", but how does gravity act? sideways? no, straight down. The building was 47 stories, the lower supporting members were compromised so the weight/load above just falls down. Remember, the building was a steel frame, not reinforced concrete. Structural concrete could topple over, but steel frames behave differently. Concrete is superior in a fire situation compared to steel.

yes my years reading physics at university were not wasted gravity does work straight down

what we have with seven is damage to one side caused by the north tower falling on it,ive seen descriptions of floors "gouged out" and fires causing the failiure of the cantelever arrangement.
what we see is no damaged and limited fires (perhaps they had burned all the way from front to back) at the other side

ths simpliest analogy is chopping down a tree if one side is compromised ie chopped the tree(or building) will topplle over due to that "straight down" force of gravity.

what i have said about both 7 and the towers is that your (or NIST's) decriptions of what happens up to collapse could be plausable but how that results it the total destruction of the building is the real issue . IT IS NOT A SUPRISE TO ME THAT THE NIST REPORT STOPS WHEN GLOBAL COLLAPSE BEGINS AS THE RESULT ARE FAR FROM WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES

You cannot compare a tree with a steel framed building, or any building for that matter. A tree is an organic flexible structure, with different load characteristics.

Look, you are doing well. You've acknowledged the unfought fires burning for seven hours and the cantilevered arrangement. Plus the falling tower damage.

You keep going on about toppling, steel frames can't topple - they break at the weak points ie. the connections between members. Only reinforced concrete (or masonry) will topple, because it is rigid.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=827

i was not saying wtc7 was like a tree i was just illustrating that the force of gravity( that straight down force!) can make things topple

anything can topple if the supports are not broken simultaneously,
Even if all the base supports failed at the same time at all corners of the building i still maintain that this would not lead to the total destruction of the building into its footprint
what i would expect is pehaps the top of the building to "sit down" onto the failed floors and maybe some floors crumble on the north tower side leaving a large number of entact floors and the undameged face (ESPECIALLY AS YOU SAY STEEL BUILDINGS WILL SNAP AT THE WEAK POINTS)

You have to realise that with steel frames, everything is braced and tied to other members. Virtually all members are reliant on others to distribute the loads. When one fails, others go, then others, etc. The loads are still there, they have to go somewhere. Surrounding members can try to take the extra load, but if the design capacity is exceeded then collapse occurs. In the video, you can see each penthouse fail independently before entire collapse starts. This is the chain reaction of events. The cantilevered setup is a key point to note.

But let's look at this from another angle. We'll assume for a minute that explosives did cause the collapse. Why was it essential to the 9/11 planners that WTC7 had to come down? After all, not much was made of it in the media. People are still unaware of its collapse. It couldn't be for propaganda purposes, ie. "See the destruction the terrorists caused, let's go bomb 'em!"

yes i do get all that but i still contend that the outcome as i witnessed it does not really fit as a probable outcome from the conditions you describe
i can agree with the chain of events but i would expect that if a collapse followed it would look very different to the one observed(which looked to me like it COULD be a controlled demolition)

as to the why? i have no idea .i think the towers had to come down as that was and still is a very potent symbol(reminder) of the events, it just wouldnt have the impact if the towers could have been rebuilt

what we can often assume with conspiracies is a level of competence of the perpetrators which they may not have. perhaps they thought they could get away with it,outside the "truth movement" how many poeple actually know about 7?

dont you think it odd that the only buildings destroyed on 9-11 were all owned by silverstein?

It's not odd that all buildings destroyed were owned by Silverstein, because I think he owned the whole complex of WTC buildings, which he purchased a couple of months before 9/11.

silverstien already owned seven and then leased the rest (only a matter of weeks before 911) of the complex which had until then been the propety of the port authority. he also (as you would expect) insured the complex for 3billion dollars (which included a clause,again not a suprise after 1993, that covered terrorist attack)
the point i was making that none of the surrounding buildings NOT owned by silverstien were destroyed, many were sevearly damaged and burned but all the same stood and still stand today. that does not strike you as interesting in the slightest?

both sides seem to want to hold up madrid as support,

the non demo people as some of steel collapsed

the demo people as the building stood (well the core did)

how fair is the comparison?

madrid was subject to an undobted raging inferno over a prolonged (19 hours) period over many floors 32 down to 12

the real intensity of the fire in the towers and 7 are much harder to determine, black smoke no visible fire(at times especially in the south tower, more visual evidence of fire in the north tower but not comparable to madrid). the damage to the core and the theory that the fire protection was knocked off are hard to verify as (with much haste it seems ) all the physical evidence was removed( dont give me the rubbish about FEMA and ACE having acess to ground zero i have read they were recovering samples from land fills!)

the conclusion
well my conclusion is that the us government has done enough to make it impossible to ever solve what happened to the towers .the evidence is long gone the offical enquires did what they were set up for (here is the answer panes and fire brought down the towers and seven you just tell us how,if you can ,dont worry if you cant just ignore it) now just declare anybody who ask questions about the official line as "conspiracy nuts",thick ,talking out of there arse dont worry the coporate media are 100% behind you.

if after 40 years the government cant come clean over something like oswald (when probably 90+ % of the WORLD believe he was just a patsy) what chance is there that the truth about 5 years ago is ever going to surfice

You have just provided a good example of the kind of mistake the demo crowd constantly make:
http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

The building was a reinforced concrete structure, unlike those of the WTC, which were steel framed. Some of it did collapse due to the fire, leaving the concrete core standing. It wasn't cantilevered, nor did it suffer damage from falling debris. Concrete is superior in fire. compared to steel.

i dont doubt that elementary knowledge of themodymnamics tells us that and i dont doubt that fire COULD have cused severe damage at the impact sites although the physical evidence ,as it all been destrored, and visual evidence makes that asumption very difficult to make what i have a problem with is how these initiall conditions lead to the total destruction of the towers,as i have reiterated plenty of times NIST DOES NOT PROVIDE A MECHANISM NOR HAVE I SEEN A CREDABLE ONE ELSEWHERE. what do you think?

ps i extent and intensity of the fires at madrid are not comparable to the towers as far as i can tell that to me does not seem like an unfair comparison

Do you understand the difference between reinforced concrete and structural steel in a fire? If the WTC buildings were constructed from reinforced concrete, it's quite possible they would still be standing.

http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?ArticleID=2511

yes i do understand the difference
what i dont understand is how the impact plus the fires(the intensity of which is hard to detemine,dont forget the STEEL temperature has to get up to 500c ,NIST report staes that raging fires of 1800c would only last20 min before all fuel (NOT the plane fuel) would be consumed,) how do these things lead to the destruction of the building?

how do you explain what happened after initial collapse conditions were reached?

TheDossier Thursday Jul 6th, 2006 9:16 AM: "People go on about "toppling over", but how does gravity act? sideways? no, straight down." yet, "Structural concrete could topple over" According to you. gravity is acting differently on concrete as it would steel. A logical contradiction. Furthermore, you have no proof that fire weakened any cantilever. You also have no proof that the structural integrity is exclusively dependant on any 'cantilever'. Proove it. You do the very thing you accuse others of.

TheDossier Friday Jul 7th, 2006 4:12 AM: <i>"steel frames can't topple</i>.
neo-physics?

The topple comment was made in the context of partial collapse. Damo was questioning why 7 didn't collapse (topple) partially in an uneven manner. If 7 had been a concrete structure it may have toppled unevenly, if at all. The Madrid building being an example, with its concrete core. Reinforced concrete provides more resistance to falling debris and heat, because of its mass.

It is you that must provide evidence of explosives. I, like all structural engineers, see no evidence for explosives. Why are there no structural engineers in the scholars for 9/11 truth group?

Assuming the earth and moon were static, building a tower to the moon would run into 'slenderness ratio' problems, regardless of material used (the height versus width would not work).

I want you to list, bullet-point fashion, the evidence for explosives - clearly and concisely. I don't want to hear how NIST are part of a cover-up or whatever. I want clear observed evidence.

why dont you give us a point by point explanation of how WTC7 came down i have never mentioned evidence of explosions what i have called for is an explanation of how fire caused what we all saw happen two seven what was the mechanism of the collapse. WHAT I DO CONTEND IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE A PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM THAT WOULD DESCRIBE THE COLLAPSE OF SEVEN IN THE MANNER WE ALL SAW ON 9/11
what i have also stated is that i would concede that perhaps the fires were more extensive and that the building was even severaly damaged by the collapse of the north tower but i cannot see how this would lead to a collapse of the style we saw a different collape maybe
THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN INDEPENDANT INQUIRY INTO THE COLLAPSES THAT HAS STARTED WITH THE PERMISE OF "LETS LOOK AT THIS THING FROM THE START WITHOUT ANY PRECONCIEVED IDEA,LETS GATHER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND PUT FORWARD A THEORY "
what we have had is an inquiry that has the premise fire and planes/damaged brought them down. NO OFFICIAL INQUIRY HAS EVER LOOKED FOR EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE (WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE FOUND ANY IS A DIFFERENT POINT)

It is the mechanism of collapse that is the key as fire/damage only provides (perhaps) the conditions for collapse the only other driver is gravity .

what if we were too find someone who had never heard of 9/11

what if we were to show them a montage of videos from the many controlled demolition sites

lets be sneaky and slip footage of WTC7 in the middle

do you really think they would spot any difference?

BEFORE YOU GET ON YOUR HIGH HORSE what would this prove?

well not a lot really,i have said before im not a structural engineer or a demolitions expert but even DAN RATHER licken the fall of seven to a CD ,and to me they look comparable ,could you give me an account of how the video footage is DIFFERENT to a demolition

It's not surprising that seven looked like controlled demolition (CD) because CD involves taking out key structural members in a sequence usually starting from the bottom. Gravity then takes over. Now, if falling debris and fire compromised KEY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS in WTC7, the effect is the same as controlled demolition. Do you get it?

Things may appear similar; it does not follow that they are the same.

so you are saying 7 has the look of cd (although you say i was not ok)

yet if all the structural members did fail simultaneously at the base ,due to the fires, and gravity then took over i still contend that it would not collapse in the way it did

as you say CD destroys the structural support in a sequence but as i understand it is not just the base (you have to compromise more of the structur than that)

the sequence usually starts with the centre at the base pulling the sides in and then second and third waves at the ends and higher up so that the building collapses in on itself onto its footprint

does that description remind you of anything?

what is the licklyhood in purely probability terms of your damage/fire(a random occurance) replicating so perfectly a CD

or to look at it this way if you were planning a CD of seven you couldnt have done it better!

on what basis are you saying WTC7 was not a CD? how do you know wether it was or wasnt,you can have an opinion as i do .you have said it looks like a CD (although you dont think it was) so what is to say it wasnt? because NIST ,bush ,the fbi ,fox news et al say so?

IAM NOT ACTUALLY SAYING IT WAS OR IT WASNT IM JUST LOOKING AT THE "SCANT " EVIDENCE WE HAVE AND COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THER ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY AND THAT A PROPER INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION IS CALLED FOR.(something that aint gonna happen plus gosh all the evidence has gone! so we are all just left with opinions)

What??? TheDossier said: "Damo was questioning why 7 didn't collapse (topple) partially in an uneven manner" - Yes of course he was, he was questioning it becasue it shouldn't have happened that way. It did happen that way becasue it was pulled. Whether he asks about it or not has nothing to do with whether the building topples or not. What is your knowledge of physics and civil engineering to assert what you do? What deep knowledge do you possess to categorically negate ALL the evidence? That explosives have been used is already proved. collectively w.r.t. all WTC buildings: 1) Symmetrical destruction 2) Squibs seem in aprts of the building TOTALLY unaffected by the plane and fires. 3) Firemen reports only small fires were present. 4) Explosions in areas not affected by the plane crash 5) Massive short selling of airline stocks. 6) PROVEN warnings to the US govt that an event like this was going to happen - Project Bojinka being a good example. 7) The hijackers were not on the pasenger lists - they could NOT have boarded the planes 7b) The supposed hijackers couldn't fly airplanes. 8) Bush knowing of the crash before it his advisor whispered in his ear while being involved in goat stories. 9) The reported cellphone calls were virtually impossible. 10a) Jet fuel does not sufficiently weaken structural steel. 10b) No jet fuel was present in WTC7 10c) Jet fuel or temperatures from ordinary fires DO NOT MELT STEEL. Molten steel was found in the WTC rubble. 11) The Law was broken when destruction of evidence of the WTC crime scene too place. Quote: "In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased." from: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm Quote: "The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from?" and, "Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: "The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." from: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html If those conditions relating to pulling the building were presented to an impartial jury in a case, which say, was alledged to have been done by some muslim terrorists to demolish some US municipal steel building, the jury would have no hesitation at all to deliver a guilty verdict, as would any ordinary person with the most meager quotient of intelligence. But the collossal ignorance shown by denying these circumstances just becasue the US government's conspiracy is fingered, really is vey revealing.

Whats this? Slenderness problems? Slenderness you say? LOL. Since when has slenderness been taught in the classroom? LOL.

The new engineering axiom. "Slenderness". LOL.

ANY building too tall will topple if it's tall enough becasue the load force would be too great for the substructre materials and secondy becasue it is practically impossible to ensure perfectly even load distribution. The failing structure would topple due to the uneven load distributions present as the building cascades.

Slenderness.

Who says there are no structural engineers in scholars for truth? Even if there were no structural engineers members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, it doesn't mean the laws of physics can be broken. Structural engineering IS applied physics. There is no structural engineering without physics.

Anyhow, your claim is a falsehood.

Michael Lovingier (AM)
Information technology manager , Structural/Environmental Engineering
Ted Muga (AM)
Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering

Why are you reporting falsehoods? Why are you checking the members lists to for structural engineers? Something worrying you????

"It's not surprising that seven looked like controlled demolition (CD) because" let me interrupt... "becasue it WAS a controlled demolition." See shortlist above.

Yet again your thought "logic" reveals the flaw.

If...
# CD's involve the sequential destruction of supports
and
# WTC7 collapse looked like it was a CD
so what you call
# 'fires' took out the building in a sequential manner.

What fire spread in such a way as to allow the instantaneous sequential failing of the lower structure?

Boy I hope they are paying you well. P.S. also see the shortlist above! Those issues are still there!

TheDossier. Friday Jul 7th, 2006 7:14 AM said "You have to realise that with steel frames, everything is braced and tied to other members. Virtually all members are reliant on others to distribute the loads. When one fails, others go, then others, etc."

Wrong!

A structure only fails if the increase in load on the remaining structures is above or equal to the point of load criticality. As someone mentioned, the tree analogy. [I'll talk about trees as obviously, you have a poor idea of structural engineering] You can hack a wedge out of tree and the tree can remain standing.

The remains of WTC7 were quickly removed to aid rescue.

So

1) the weeks/months after it collapsed the evidence had to removed and destroyed without analysis contravening law to resuce people? LOL.

2) Relevance of Diesel fuel? The greater the molecualr mass of hydrocarbons, the less cleanly they burn. Diesel fuel could not cause temperatures high enough to compromise the quality controlled passed steels used in the WTC.

3) How can sprinkler systems be damaged to such an extent that fires (not hot enough to weaken steel remmber) could have destroyed a steel contructed building.

why cant you just admit it?
(Rhetorical Q, I know why you can't),
WTC7 was Pulled!

The page below shows that the murderous actions of that Bush cabal, safely clear any burdon of doubt.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Puller's List:
1) Symmetrical collapse does not prove controlled demolition, if at all they were symmetrical. The towers' exterior walls peeled outwards spreading debris some distance onto surrounding buildings http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg This is not "controlled" demolition. It's a mess. But then if they really used explosives, they'd want to make it appear "uncontrolled". With WTC7, the south side failed after the penthouses dropped, leaving the north side (undamaged side) to fall last onto the debris pile http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7pile.jpg The south side suffered the most, as it was facing the tower that collapsed into it. The building was steel framed, not reinforced concrete, so of course it collapsed into a pile.
2) The so-called "squibs" are more likely to be debris being ejected from vent ducts as the building progressed down like a huge plunger compressing the air. The debris is flowing out at the same rate as the building is falling. They aren't explosions. Anyway Steven Jones says thermate was used on the columns - the squibs aren't consistent with this theory. Why blow small holes in the outer wall for everyone to see? Holes in the walls would do nothing to the load bearing capacity of the whole building.
3) see here for the fires: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm and here: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
4) explosions here: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/explosions.htm
5) airline stock trading does not prove explosives
6) warnings do not prove explosives
7) hijackers not on lists do not prove explosives
7b) hijackers' unable to fly do not prove explosions
8) Bush goat story does not prove explosives
9) cellphone operation does not prove explosives
10) Jet fuel ignited the hydrocarbon contents of the offices, starting fires that could weaken the steel causing collapse. After all, why do codes require fire protection to structural steel? For aesthetic reasons?
10b) Jet fuel isn't required to weaken steel. The office contents (hydrocarbon) are sufficient once started by the falling debris. There was also emergency diesel fuel generators with pressurised feeds.
10c) Melting is not required for steel to fail. What you're saying is that, steel should maintain strength right up until it turns to liquid - softening is enough.
Aerial heat images show the WTC rubble site reaching high temperatures over the weeks following. But you say molten METAL - what type of metal? What temperature does this unidentified metal need to melt?
11) Preservation of evidence issues do not prove explosives. Hydrocarbon office content fires can reach 1300°C. Molten metal: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

The case for explosives is very poor at best. Collapse due to damage, fire and unique designs is the more plausible explanation.

This is irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway. Slenderness ratio - look it up. Interestingly you say: "The failing structure would topple due to the uneven load distributions present as the building cascades." You mean like, say, the WTC buildings?

Michael Lovingier. Prove to me his credentials. Does he still work as a professionally qualified structural engineer? Is he professionally qualified as such? Let's assume he is, why isn't he more prominent in the movement using his qualifications as credibility? Having a genuine structural engineer on board, would be like gold dust to the scholars.

Trees are not comparable to steel frames.

something's wrong with the page coding - everything is underlined

I do believe the truth about 9/11 has been covered up, see my website: http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk

But, I don't believe explosives were used to bring down the buildings. The evidence simply does not show this.

gotta proofread your html before you click publish.

i am not posting in html format

Let's examine Steven Jones and the Scholars group: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm

At the bottom of the page is something interesting to note. Scholars are appearing on fox quite often - this whole thing is a set-up! They always bring up the demolition theory, why?

i go away for a week and your back on your familiar ground of promoting "debunking 9/11" its a good site and would recomend it to anyone

but to get back to WTC7 i did not see what you describe,i saw the penthouse(in the middle of the building )fall, i also saw what looked like a "crimp" in the middle . i saw the building come straight down into its footprint.
you describe the view from what would be the opposite angle to all the footage i have seen and would love to see it
i still contend that if i take it as true that the penthouse fell the tower side of the building crumbled away and the cantelivered supports failed this would NOT lead to the style of collapse we saw .the analogy i would give is of a pencil standing on its lead . the one side of the building would have toppled over onto the debris pile of the tower. WHAT MECHANISM DO YOU HAVE THAT DESCRIBES HOW THAT FACE OF THE TOWER WAS BROKEN UP INTO PIECES.

the only force YOU have to work with is GRAVITY . I DO NOT KNOW WETHER EXPLOSIVES WERE USED ,WHAT I DO SUSPECT IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MODEL(IN A MANOR THAT WOULD REPLICATE THE OBSERVATIONS) THE COLLAPSE OF 7 USING FIRE/DAMAGE AND GRAVITY.
THIS UNDOUBTED DIFFICULTY LEADS YOU INEXORABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME EXTRA FORCE IS NESECERY

the position composition placement of the providers of this force i admit i do not know,and it would be very (i think impossible) to find out but its basic science cause and effect, what we are doing is working backwards. we know the effects what was the cause ITS UP TO YOU TO CONVINCE US THAT YOU CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE EFFECTS NOT UP TO US TO PROVE EXPLOSIVES, PROVIDE THE MECHANISM FOR THE COLLAPSE USING ONLY FIRE/DAMAGE AND GRAVITY

ok I am convinced that dossier is a CIA agent.. why else would you be pushing such bullshit thin theories on these subjects..

this video is a complete farce... you left out larry silverstien saying "pull it" which is massively important... and I will tell you why...
in this video, it clearly states that the fire fighters left building 7 to burn in favour of helping people escape from the towers.. and its a likely excuse.. I would have made that desision too with half the fire fighters KILLED already by the CONTROLLED demolishion of the 2 towers...
but totally makes a liar and fool out of you...because the theory of leaving it to burn contradicts what Larry has to say..." the fire fighters said we couldnt contain this and I said why dont we go ahead and just pull the building.. and they made that descision to "PULL IT" it makes NO mention of the fact that the building might or has even started to collapse... light a fire and watch how things collapse around it... nothing just falls like a brick mate.. it sort of crumbles slowly.. if fire collasped those buildings it would have taken a lot longer thatn a few seconds for them to fall
so you see there must have been fire fighters in the building trying to contain the fire...if they had of known they couldnt contain it??..how long do you decide to fight a fire before you let it burn??? then theres the fire fighters evacuating the area saying to the people "you need to clear the area we are going to PULL the building....witness statements... also left out.. how much did they get paid to make this crap...
also there must have been fire fighters fighting the blaze becuase your own words.. maybe larry ment to pull the fire fighters out of the building... what fire fighters??? in the doco it says the left it to burn because they were rescuing survivors from the towers...no fire fighters in the building??? or fighting the fire for that mater... orcording to the doco...
as I said before in a nother thread... to pull a building takes weeks-months to set the charges so they MUST have already been set, how do you just pull a building with only a few hours to set them up..

Nearly right, I work for her majesty's MI6. Steven E Jones has got your side of the pond covered in working for the CIA. We're both operating in tandem to create confusion and distraction around 9/11. By taking opposing views, we are keeping the focus on demolition instead of proper research.

You see, the US were involved, with help from its usual partners, but you won't find their fingerprints anywhere because they contracted out the 'op' to Saudi Arabian intelligence (also a partner). They, in turn, used islamic extremists to carry out 9/11 (the extremists did not know they were helping the US). This way, the US could always claim perfect plausible deniability (two layers). With Saddam gone, the Saudis could relax and get rid of the US bases, there-by pleasing its restless population.

You know the Bushes and the UK are in bed with the Saudis. The corrupt Saudis have always helped, because they need the US to maintain their privileged position. The CIA like the Saudis because they are Wahabis. The Muslim Brotherhood also feature here.

The CIA like to maintain strict governance in other countries because the west gets the natural resources, and the puppet dictators live like kings.

The perfect plan, and it didn't require spooks running around placing explosives.

TheDossier
I notice one or two of my posts have been deleted. Strange that. I also note you fail to answer key issues.

1) Re: Symmetrical demolition. You said "Symmetrical collapse does not prove controlled demolition {CD}"
yet because of the symmetrical collapse, the suggestion of CD is still greater than that of non-CD. What's more,
you say the building was brought down by fire and damage, yet there is not proof for your 'defense' that
fire and damage brought down the building.

2) Your suggestion that the squibs were caused by air vents is easily determined by examination of the plans of the building.
If you can get the Govt. to release the plans that is. wonder why they are tight lipped on that? But in the meantime,
what other building that has collapsed has shown 'air vent squibs' ??? Even those building that have undergone CD,
do not show 'air vent squibs' but rather explosives squibs.
What you are blatantly guilty of, is what Tony Blair did. He "fixed the intelligence around the policy" and so are you.
Your policy is that WTC-7 was not brought down by conspiratorial means, and to support that
fact, you'll make and accept the most absurd suggestions. You've corrupted any objectivity, as is plainly obvious
to all in the way you consistently accept weaker of all cases. Automatically you dismiss the possibility that it was an inside job.

3) Conventional fires cannot weaken steel structures to the point of collapse.
Is that not a fact by virtue of well documented cases of steel structures having been on fire and not collapsed?
Yet you believe fires are responsible for the collapse without precedence. There has never been a steel
construction that has collapsed due to fire. A few hours of heat of this magnitude seen in WTC-7 is not
possible to cause the steel to subside to failure. Once source I know of, says "steel starts to weaken at 200°.
Steel loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°". This is unreferenced and does not mention the alloy involved.
But still, even if failure was because of heat AND/OR damage, the temperature gradients factors from the
construction and materials used in WTC7 would NOT cause symmetrical collapse. P.S.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the
World Trade Center, certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires. Steel, depending on the allow
melts between 2010°F - 2910°F (1100°C to 1600°F). The construction steel is usually on the high side
of that 2732°F (1500°C). jet fuel burns at only 1,517°F (824°C).
This means that the source that says "Steel loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°". is obviously
not referring to structural steel. Firemen have reported seeing steel from building with fires as sagging and
warping but never collapse. For WTC-7, WTC-1&2 to collapse, they would be the only buildings in history
to do so. Building which were subjected to perhaps the most stringent construction rules in the world.

4) There are reports of multiple explosions in parts of the towers in places unaffected b