From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S.
Engineering Disasters: World Trade Center Building 7
by The History Channel
Sunday Apr 9th, 2006 4:48 PM
Engineers give their theories on the collapse of the WTC7 building. This is an 8 minute segment from one episode containing other unrelated engineering disasters.
Copy the code below to embed this movie into a web page:
The clip summarises the following:

- WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane, but still collapsed after fires burned for 7 hours.
- It was engineered to cantilever over the Con Edison electricity substation.
- Debris, falling from tower one, caused damage and subsequent fires.
- Diesel fuel for emergency generators was stored in the building.
- Initial failure occured somewhere between floors 5 and 7.
- Floors 5 and 7 housed the transfer trusses for the cantilevers.
- The remains of WTC7 were quickly removed to aid rescue.
- Sprinkler systems were damaged.
- Fireman were pulled from the building to help with the rescue of people from the twin towers.
by Veteran
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 6:00 AM
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.
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 9:30 AM
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:
by Veteran
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 6:20 AM
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.

by TheDossier
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 12:46 PM
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.
by Veteran
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 5:52 PM
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.

by TheDossier
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 6:05 AM
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:

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.
by TheDossier
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 6:07 AM
by Thomas
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 3:34 PM

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

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 !.

by TheDossier
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 5:43 PM

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.
by TheDossier
Sunday Apr 23rd, 2006 5:55 PM
by Thomas
Monday May 1st, 2006 5:51 AM

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:
by Thomas
Monday May 1st, 2006 10:56 AM

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.
by X
Sunday May 14th, 2006 9:51 PM
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.
by TheDossier
Thursday May 18th, 2006 9:06 AM
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.
by TW
Thursday May 18th, 2006 12:01 PM
...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.
by TW
Thursday May 18th, 2006 12:39 PM
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.
by TheDossier
Thursday May 18th, 2006 4:38 PM
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:

Why would it be essential to collapse 7?
by TW
Thursday May 18th, 2006 8:43 PM
"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!





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: ). 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 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
by TheDossier
Saturday May 20th, 2006 6:26 AM
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?
by TW
Saturday May 20th, 2006 5:49 PM
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.
by csloane
(csloane [at] Sunday Jun 4th, 2006 7:32 PM
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
by TheDossier
Monday Jun 5th, 2006 3:15 PM
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?
by Bookwerm
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 6:20 PM
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.
by Bookwerm
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 6:26 PM
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.

by bernarda
(medioreal [at] Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 7:28 AM
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.
by ?
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 7:39 AM
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.
by TheDossier
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:34 AM
You've failed - Jimmy Walter is a nut.

by Bookwerm
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 4:32 PM
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.
by TheDossier
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 8:56 AM
Okay Bookwerm,

the pull it comment by Silverstein is dealt with here:

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.
by i told you so
Tuesday Jun 13th, 2006 8:50 AM
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.
by Bookwerm
Tuesday Jun 20th, 2006 2:07 AM
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.
by TheDossier
Tuesday Jun 20th, 2006 2:48 AM
This report gives you some idea of the construction of WTC7. Not complete plans/sections, but it should help you understand what happened:
by Bookwerm
Tuesday Jun 20th, 2006 3:43 AM
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?
by TheDossier
Tuesday Jun 20th, 2006 12:26 PM
That and other media sources, but also my knowledge of building and the video evidence.
by damo
Thursday Jul 6th, 2006 4:06 AM

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?
by TheDossier
Thursday Jul 6th, 2006 9:16 AM
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.
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 2:39 AM

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
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 4:12 AM
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.
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 4:41 AM

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)

by TheDossier
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 7:14 AM
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!"
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 11:34 AM

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?
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 12:53 PM
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.
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 2:55 PM

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?
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 3:37 PM

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
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 6:26 PM
You have just provided a good example of the kind of mistake the demo crowd constantly make:

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.
by damo
Monday Jul 10th, 2006 1:10 AM

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
by TheDossier
Monday Jul 10th, 2006 9:21 AM
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.
by damo
Tuesday Jul 11th, 2006 1:18 AM
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?
by Puller
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 5:29 AM
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.
by Puller
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 5:32 AM
TheDossier Friday Jul 7th, 2006 4:12 AM: <i>"steel frames can't topple</i>.
by TheDossier
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 1:32 PM
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.
by damo
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 1:57 PM

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
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 .
by damo
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 2:08 PM

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
by TheDossier
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 3:07 PM
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.
by damo
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 5:50 PM
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?


by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:10 AM
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: 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: 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.
by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:18 AM
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.

by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:24 AM
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????
by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:27 AM
"It's not surprising that seven looked like controlled demolition (CD) because" let me interrupt... "becasue it WAS a controlled demolition." See shortlist above.
by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:40 AM
Yet again your thought "logic" reveals the flaw.

# CD's involve the sequential destruction of supports
# 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!
by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:45 AM
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."


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.
by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 1:02 AM
The remains of WTC7 were quickly removed to aid rescue.


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!
by Puller
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 1:10 AM
The page below shows that the murderous actions of that Bush cabal, safely clear any burdon of doubt.
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 9:53 AM
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 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 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: and here:
4) explosions here:
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:

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.
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 9:54 AM
something's wrong with the page coding - everything is underlined
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 10:30 AM
I do believe the truth about 9/11 has been covered up, see my website:

But, I don't believe explosives were used to bring down the buildings. The evidence simply does not show this.
by it's one of theposters
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 11:25 AM
gotta proofread your html before you click publish.
by TD
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:43 PM
i am not posting in html format
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 14th, 2006 3:52 PM
Let's examine Steven Jones and the Scholars group:

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?
by damo
Thursday Jul 20th, 2006 2:37 AM

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 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
by craig
Thursday Jul 20th, 2006 11:39 AM
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?? 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 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..
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 21st, 2006 9:08 AM
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.
by Puller
Thursday Jul 27th, 2006 3:19 AM
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 by the plane.
Even the firemen reported explosions on unaffected floors, and the said the fires were small.
Colombia University has undisputed seismographic evidence showing a series of explosions of significant magnitude.

5) You said "airline stock trading does not prove explosives" Yet I never said "airline stocks prove explosions."
You are creating false arguments and present it as if that is my claim.
Then because the argument is false, you are easily able to trash it.
Why do you report to this childish method of trying to diminish my point?
The fact about the airline stocks is that those that are involved, have connections to those in positions
of power who could have prevented 9-11, and ti those that were involved in report the official version of events.
The put options were highly unusual. They were so unusual, financial institutions were obliged to launch an investigation.
Project Bojinka clearly shows information about flying planes into buildings was known to the US government.
The book "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001"
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is jam packed with official records detailing that the planes-buildings plan and
the subsequent warnings of an imminent attack were well known. Read it you might learn something.
People who were able to have access to that knowledge, financially gained from it. Now all this put together
gives a strong suggestion that there is something rotten going on. But you again accept a less plausible explanation
that there is nothing shady going on. A similar thing occurred with the London 7-7 bombing. There was unusual
currency speculation. How many times do unusual things have to happen until you smell something rotten. with 9-11
there are probably about a hundred strongly fishy things, and in fact, some are provable lies such as the
9-11 commission report. It contains provable lies.

6) You said "warnings do not prove explosives" but again
 I do not say they did. Taking point 5 and 6 again, highly unusual speculation and warnings do not
disprove a conspiracy, but they give the stronger implication that there is a conspiracy.

7) Again. Hijackers not on lists do not disprove that 9-11 was a conspiracy. But it certainly proves
the 9-11 commission report is a lie. 7b) Yet again, Hijackers not able to fly does not disprove a conspiracy.
It also shows the official story of 9-11 is a lie and that means that the foreign policy constructed upon it is also

8) One more time, Bush reading goat stories do not disprove 9-11 was a conspiracy. Therefore your dismissal
from a false argument is idiotic. Because all these things do not disprove, one must be willing to accept that there
could be evidence to prove it. Much of that evidence was destroyed (of course, which parties guilty of mass
murder wouldn't want to hide their crimes so they can enjoy the fruits of their crimes, and its provable that Bush
and his cabal broke the law in destroying the evidence of a crime scene without investigation.) but hasn't thermite
been forensically analyzed in the debris of WTC 1 and 2? As for Bush reading a story book upside down about a
goat when he says that he saw the plane hit the building. This means Bush can alter the very fabric of space-time,
because there was no footage of the plane hitting a tower when the was waiting to go into the classroom to read
upside down books and not do anything while innocent people were being killed. As such, the president he failed
in his duty to act in the interests and defense of the American public. As such, he is guilty of negligence, dereliction
of duty, and manslaughter. He is also likely to be guilty of conspiracy and homicide as well as of perjury
(unless of curse he rally can bend the space-time)

9) As usual, your sloppy reply does not mean cell phone operation
does not mean there was no conspiracy. Official purporting of cell phone operation shows the official story of 9-11
is a lie if one takes on board the almost metaphysically impossibility for those cell phone calls to have been made.
The inductance, resistance, capacitance of those phones plus the physical absorption of cellular phone wavelengths 
by the atmosphere, The distance from the transmitters and receivers, the vertical orientation of the plane with 
respect to the horizontally biased ground RXTX masts are a damning evidence that they were faked, therefore 
9-11 is a conspiracy.

10) WTC-7 was not hit by a plane. Jet fuel cannot be used as reason for its collapse. 
w.r.t. The north and south towers, There is no scientific proof that hydrocarbon fuel (a huge majority of which 
would not have come into contact with the steel in the first place) can weaken steel to the point where its load 
bearing properties alter resulting in collapse. Construction steel is covered in materials to stop its corrosion by
acids or oxidants etc for longevity of structural integrity. It is also covered in fire retardant materials for additional
safety protocols. So no, concrete isn't covered in these materials for asthetics.

10b) You adopt the baseless opinions of others obviously little or no science knowledge of your own.
Show me the science that says hydrocarbon fuels can weaken steel to the point where building collapse can

10c) You say What you're saying is that, steel should maintain strength right up until it turns to liquid
- softening is enough.
But again you make a false argument. I am not saying steel maintains rigidity and
mechanical strength at the kinds of maximum {being generous} temperatures hydrocarbons burn at.
The numerous physical properties of steel can be tabulated against a range of temperatures. Contact
the authors of Experimental Studies on the Properties of Constructional Steel at Elevated Temperatures
J. Struct. Engrg., Volume 129, Issue 12, pp. 1717-1721 (December 2003) Guo-Qiang Li et al. For their data
or Shurygin Alexandr Vladimirovich at Moscow State University Phone:7(8202) 56-47-84 Fax:7(8202) 56-53-87
for their data on the properties of steels at various temperatures. Alternatively look at at previous steel
constructions that were exposed to intense PROLONGED fires and did not collapse. I am saying its undisputed
that the temperatures involved we so high that steel had melted. This means there was something present that
could have produced these temperatures, and of course, the temperatures this something could ACTUALLY CAUSE
solid steel to fail. What is that something? It is also undisputable that it is chemical in nature, yet there is no chemistry
that could explain these temperatures based on the materials in the WTC towers. A foreign agent must have been present.
From the color of the smoke, the temperature the reported residues of steel columns, the oxidation and discoloration
in the steel, the physical sparks, it points to sulfur induced thermite. Yet again. the burden of evidence implies
incredibly strongly (as it does with just about EVERY topic of 9-11) that there IS a conspiracy. But
nonetheless, you refute the strongest evidence and settle for ideas an alcoholic turnip would.

If such odds were put in front of an impartial jury, combined they leave only one conclusion that 9-11 was a set up.
Bush better hope u get on that jury. Perhaps you deserve a pay rise?

11) I did not say "Preservation of evidence issues prove explosives."  and gain what you spinfully call
"Preservation of evidence issues" more correctly "destruction of evidence from a crime scene" is a criminal offence.
At best, those law breakers must be prosecuted. 

Here again you mention "Slenderness" is that from the same flash-boom science mag you have? Tell me how the
architects of geodesic buildings, such as the one in Ogdensburg, would incorporate "slenderness" parameters
into their buildings, or how in vertically constructed buildins such as WTC-7 different construction materials
are a function of "slenderness". Slenderness. LOL. 

"Trees are not comparable to steel frames." I made the comparison because you have little or
no knowledge of the scientific principles at hand here. Am I wrong? You could post your CV right?
But perhaps from the following extract from one of your posts...
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 1:32 PM: "I, like all structural engineers, see no evidence for explosives."
I do not have to prove Michael Lovingier's credentials, seeing as you are in the same field as him, contact
him yourself and ask him. Here's some help:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth - CONTACT US
James H. Fetzer
(218) 726-7269 (office)
(218) 724-2706 (home)
(218) 726-7119 (fax)
jfetzer@d.umn.eduSteven E. Jones

I mentioned him in response (as my Friday Jul 14th, 2006 12:24 AM post shows, - thankfully undeleted!)
to your false claim that there were no structural engineers in scholars for truth. And the rather obvious way you
don't acknowledge that the fundamental science knowledge - principally physics,  being of any importance to
you is also rather revealing about your position. You say "why isn't he more prominent in the movement
using his qualifications as credibility?"
I don't know. Perhaps he's busy or people arn't that hung up about
about listing their professorship and degrees? Maybe they dont want to boast? I dunno, ask him! I'm not his poppa. 

I'm curious to know why you don't ask about Ted Muga??

Gold dust to the scholars is the physics (and chemistry) as they are fundamentals. anyway, the Govt. is hiding the blueprints
to the 9-11 buildings

Refs: (NB: pay careful attention!)

You say dont misunderstand me. I dont think I misunderstand the radiance you project here.

If you really believe that there is a 9-11 cover up, but that WTC-7 was genuinely brought down by 'innocent; means' you seem surprisingly keen on attempted character assassination, which avoids the scientific principles Jones and others use. Proof by character destruction is a very dirty method I have seen other dark groups use which oozing their through society these days.

Let me quote from the 'Steve Jones / Scholars for truth' assassination attempt link you happily supply.

Quote: "So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. "

I think that's quite telling and I had only been reading that site for a number of seconds.

by Puller
Thursday Jul 27th, 2006 3:40 AM
''By taking opposing views, we are keeping the focus on demolition instead of proper research." Entertain us some more oh "TheDossier", jest with me for longer, and let us know what exactly is the focus you are distracting us from.??
by Puller
Thursday Jul 27th, 2006 9:34 AM
The bandwidth for your website must be huge. Tell me, who pays for your expenses?
Where do you manage to secure your information from?
How can you afford to spend so much time on this issue?
Who else works with you?
by TheDossier
Thursday Jul 27th, 2006 11:00 AM
I don't know if you've seen this thread: it answers your points on the towers. This thread is for wtc7 only. On that link you can find the HVAC layout for the towers ( Also there is an explanation of Kevin Ryan's misunderstanding about ASTM E119 certification.

Please read through this page

Quote: "So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. "
They mean the investigation documents are all in English, hence he won't be able to read them thoroughly (unless he speaks fluent English) - it's not a racist comment against the French.

UKonline host my site - it's based in London and is a free service. If you look closely, you'll see that I don't actually host any streaming media - I just link to others.

I operate on my own.
by Puller
Friday Jul 28th, 2006 3:36 AM
The other URL doesn't answer what I say about the towers. It debates against what other people say about the towers. Thanks all the same for bringing it to my attention. The molten metal factor is present in the 2 towers and WTC-7.

The comment from the debunking site was racist. That French people have a disadvantage with reading english documents. There is no reference to an assessment of this mans ability in English and therefore, wraps his Frenchness is a one size fits all wrapping. Thats called racism.

Also noted in that site you freely make reference to without caveats, is the cheap attack on Mr. Steve Jones mentioning research he did into cold fusion. There were thousands of research teams across the world that attempted to reproduce that Ponds and Fleischmann reported. Some research teams persisted with research just in case there was some peculiarity with the experiments that needed to be overcome in order for cold fusion to work. There is nothing 'crackpot' about it as the character assassination attempt tries to portray. Read the short post at and notice a possible and understandable reason for problems with cold fusion.

I admire the amount of time and effort you put into developing a link site. But by hosting links to many documents and videos that involve many conspiracies, such as Bilderberg groups (presumably heading towards illunimati and/or New World Order). I am therefore even more surprised that you reject the collapse of WTC7 as being a part of the 9-11 conspiracy, when there is much science backing behind it, backing that is gapingly missing from conspiricies like illuminati/CFR/HAARP/Trilateral commissions etc. You mention Gary Webb also, who was said to have committed suicide by shotting himself in the head TWICE! said to been assassinated becasue he was going to blow the lid on some kind of Zionist Israeli cum CIA Drugs scam.
While what you touch on is completely away from what sites like cover, they are both highly conspiratorial. Thing is where is a strong reason for anything that is so serious, all evidence must be weighted up. When you weight things up it appears like your scales are severely broken.
by Puller
Monday Aug 14th, 2006 1:54 AM
by p
Sunday Sep 10th, 2006 5:59 PM
by Puller
Monday Sep 11th, 2006 8:52 PM
Extract from "Interrogating 9/11" (article on From Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's blog. Date Monday, September 11, 2006)
Quote: The scientific validity of Jones’ line of inquiry has been supported by several other experts, such as Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University; and Charles N. Pegelow, a 30-year veteran structural engineer.
by Puller
Monday Sep 11th, 2006 8:56 PM
by p
Sunday Sep 10th, 2006 5:59 PM

Your point is?
by Chainsaw
Tuesday Oct 10th, 2006 6:26 PM
<B> Building 7 had both Diesel generators which were running, and high sulfur diesel fires, Has anyone thought to subject the steel to the vibrations of diesel engines, or any other common reactive compounds in the buildings.</B>
<font color "red"> Oh ya I did that was a blast to when the vibrations removed the oxide layer and the steel was left more reactive.</font>

<strong><u><font color="#ffcc00" size="+2">The trouble with Dr Jones</font></strong></u>
<img src="">
<img src="">
<img src="">
<img src="">

<a href=",1249,645199800,00.html">Dr Jones BYU!

Also High sulfur diesel creates Sulfuric acid when it burns, I have found a bunch of chemical reactions that are highly interesting, and could have done a lot of damage to the building that would have went unseen.
by Anonymous
Wednesday Oct 11th, 2006 2:08 AM
I have listed the best 9-11 related info sites that I know about here. You will find a lot more info and more 9-11 sites if you follow the links.

Great Videos / Movies:

News and Information: -- Read this about depleted uranium!!!!,1249,635160132,00.html

by TheDossier
Thursday Oct 12th, 2006 8:45 AM
Draft report expected Spring 2007. Blast events to be considered:
by Annie
Sunday Oct 15th, 2006 10:15 PM
9/11's KEY PLAYERS Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein Excerpts: "You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership. Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec." "Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."
by Puller
Wednesday Oct 18th, 2006 10:07 AM
A good point. But if the sulfur is found WTC1 and 2 debris, the conclusion is that the sulfur isn't from diesel fires. It is chemically verifyable if sulfur from burning diesel would make the sulfur compounds it is said was found in the WTC steel. Not only the identity of the coumpounds but the concentrations at which they appear at.

Infact the collapse of the towers could be proven or otherwise by scale models. I wonder if anyone could fund such a project.

Then after the sulfur aspect yields conclusions, we can then analyse the thousand other falsehoods the commission put forth.
by Puller
Wednesday Oct 18th, 2006 10:13 AM
To some though, this will be of no unusual coincidence. To any rational person, it is an incredibly serious set of circumstances which sould see alarm bells ringing. If there was an actual criminal investigation on 9-11 right now, such a 'lead' would be herelded by detectives as a breakthrough in the case.
by Alfie
Thursday Oct 19th, 2006 8:31 AM

Why in the few days prior to sept 11 did building 7 have a total power out for "emergency cabling work" to be carried out. Never before had this happened though much work had been done requiring only partial power shut downs.

Why was it for the first time since it was installed, the camera on the roof of the wtc displaying live internet images over NY 24/7 was switched off on sept 11.

In the video Engineering Disasters WTC7 it states that building 7 caught fire as a result of the collapse of Tower 1 at approx 10:30am, but on news footage from CNN, as seen on the Power Hour video 911 - In Plane Sight, we can clearly see a huge cloud of smoke rising from building 7 before either of the towers collapse.

Eyewitnesses recall how there were may "explosions" and what seemed like a series of explosions when the buildings collapsed. One firefighter describes it as "boom boom boom boom floor by floor like a series of detonations as if they meant to blow the building"

I could go on and on....

Too many un-answered questions, and too many maybes and coincidences for this to have simply been a random act of terrorism flying planes into the twin towers, even down to the planes themselves.

I for one don't trust The Bush administration and truly believe there has been a massive conspiracy to facilitate "The war on terror", we will probably never know the real story, and we can all speculate as much as we like. One thing is certain though, there will always be differences of opinion, whether they be just gut feelings or scientific explanations, there is always someboby out there that will challenge an opinion.
by ptaka
(ptaka71907 [at] Saturday Mar 24th, 2007 12:28 AM
Dossier needs to provide empirical proof that the cantilever structure he repeatedly cites as the cause for a symetrical collapse, was indeed actually compromised. Is this documented in the NIST report? The fact the building collapsed in just a little over 6.6 seconds or free fall time indicates all the floors gave way simultaneously without having to pancake through lower floors. How does Dossier explain that anomally?
by Wargeb
Thursday Apr 26th, 2007 10:51 PM
How would the conspirators know that WT7 would be hit with falling debris, and catch fire at all, in order to provide cover to "pull" the building with their pre-911 planted explosives? Hmmm?
Why wouldn't they have simply "pulled" the building during the dust storm that covered downtown Manhattan instead of waiting til 5 in the afternoon when the dust was settled and everyone could get a clear view of the


Idiots. All of you.
by N.Golias
Thursday May 10th, 2007 3:59 PM
Question there were other buildings on fire besides WTC 7 some of them had a mix of steel and wood construction. and were much closer than building 7. So why didn't they collapse? One other puzzling question the Empire State building was struck by a B29 bomber in the 1940's there were still a couple bombs on board that did explode and a raging fire, the blast from the bombs apparently put out the fire. to date the Empire State Building hasn't collapsed yet. Where do they get these guys that work for NIST anyway?
by Anonymous
Wednesday May 16th, 2007 4:34 PM

( I spent a long time compiling this list. Please take the time to share it with others. )

If the U.S. Government REALLY wanted us to have free energy then they wouldn't continuously sabotage every free energy related invention! IT'S THE TRUTH ! ! ! Watch these movies and video's to learn more!

Stan Meyer - Water Fuel Cell - News Story

Water Car Inventor Murdered

Stanley A. Meyer - Teaching Water Power!!!

Stanley Meyer - Water Fuel Injector

Free Clean Burning Energy

Who Killed the Electric Car

Who Killed the Electric Car Wikipedia

thousands of years in four mins

Sign Petitions

** MOVIES **

Bush Link to Kennedy Assassination


911 Mysteries - Demolitions


Oil, Smoke and Mirrors

911: Press For Truth

Martial Law 911: Rise of the Police State

911 EyeWitness

Loose Change 2nd Edition

9/11 Revisited v.2

9/11 The Road to Tyranny

Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers

** These movies were only a partial list of movies and videos. You can learn a lot more from the videos and information listed on these sites:

Forget Bush, Over ONE MILLION Iraqi's Want Americans to Leave Iraq NOW!!!

Majority Of Iraqi Parliament Calls For Timetable For U.S. Withdrawal

America: From Freedom to Fascism

Why is it ILLEGAL to Grow the Number One Biomass Producing Plant for Biofuels?

North American Union


CNN: Lou Dobbs - North American Union

Gaza's Reality

Bush Sr. New World Order Speech

What does the NWO call themselves?

War On Terror Fear Campaign (montage)

Bush "truly not concerned" about bin Laden!

Free Speech Police - Spying on Protesters - Bill Moyers - FBI speech

Big Brother is watching you!!

BIG BROTHER (of emergency) Be Afraid

Britney Spears Topless or America - which matters most?

Covert Actions Against American Citizens Living in America

"Buying the War"

More FOX News Whistleblowers Fess Up

Bill Maher Bush F**k Ups-Fake Commercial

Bill Maher to Bush admin: Don't question my patriotism, traitors!

PBS tells the truth about Bush & Company's LIES!

Music Video: Happy Springtime (Bush Is Over)


IRS Commissioner Dodges Income Tax Question

Bush's Brazilian Welcome

The New World Order illuminati - music vid

The Kitchen Killer

John F Kennedy's bodyguards being told to stay away from JFK

Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet ?


by Dr Maria Musgrove
Thursday Aug 16th, 2007 11:29 AM
Had the building failed as suggested in the film, above the substation, the building would have likely toppled forward towards the rubble of the twin towers. From all the footage I have seen this is clearly not the case. The rear of the building falls straight down on both corners. This in itself suggests external forces at play rather than structural failure.
by Larry David
Sunday Aug 19th, 2007 7:13 PM
Steel framed buildings generally don't topple when they collapse because the structure is not rigid. Reinforced concrete or masonry structures on the other hand, can topple.
by henkgrui
Thursday Aug 30th, 2007 3:08 PM
Has Silverstein been questioned about what he ment with "pull it" If not, why do'nt we ask him???
The evidence for the Enron and Worldcom scandals was inside building 7.
The scandals meant that $87 billion (Off the top of my head) of debts had been hidden. No building, no evidence, no prosecution. The CEOs of Enron and Worldcom have still not been prosecuted, I'm pretty sure that a few billion would cover the cost of bribing Larry Silverstein to destroy his building. This has also meant that further investigation into how much money that Enron and Worldcom owed is now impossible.

The fire protection on buildings 1 and 2 was Asbestos and Larry Silverstein had been told to replace it when he bought the buildings, several companies didn't give him a quote because they said replacing the fire cladding was impossible, the cheapest quote was apparently $1 billion.

Larry Silverstein bought the WTC complex for $100 million. His insurance paid out for $7 billion. I'm not too sure how insurance works in America, but I was under the impression that you could only get back the value of the property that you insured.

So thats roughly $100 billion of profits for a group of people who invested somewhere between a $100 million and a few billion.

I can't actually believe that anyone denies that thermite was used in the building, it is an established fact that the steel supporting columns that were unearthed underneath the rubble were still molten two weeks after the attack. This information can be found in the official report and has been reported by almost every news station/website.

Regardless of whether the steel structure was able to collapse due to fire, the evidence is there that the columns melted. Steel melts at 3000 degrees, Hydro-Carbons don't burn hotter than 1600 degrees. If the steel columns were molten then they were heated to 3000 degrees or more, therefore the building didn't collapse due to aircraft fuel, there must have been something else.

I haven't heard one decent explanation as to how a 500-1500 degrees fire can be at 3000 degrees two weeks later, I'm all ears though.

I don't know anything about building structures, but its meaningless because if the evidence is there that aircraft fuel wasn't what brought down the two towers, its pretty obvious that building 7 wasn't brought down by the aircraft either.
by subversemon
Thursday Jan 24th, 2008 3:06 PM
The NIST story doesn't pan out worth a damn. The damage from the collapse was seemingly localized to one corner of the building (as to not downplay- it looks severe). I can find no pictures(or witness accounts) that back the claim for severe fires to have attacked integral support collums.

It seems many believers rely on the idea that when the initial metal column was heated it's failure was defined by shearing. Subsequently that same failure was transfered through the core structure which in turn must have also sheared. I'm not in the business of commercial steel construction but this seems way out the realm of typical steel behavior (i.e. it usually bends).

I simply was wondering how else could the building have fallen in on itself if the core structure was not compromised and segmented thoroughly? Unless there were no vertical supports within the entire building.

The damage to building 7 is repeatedly cited, but hardly fits in with the NIST theory. Despite the visible damage to nearly ten floors in the corner of the building, the building's facades all fell inward.

So, in what world do two completely asymmetrical catalysts(debris damage and fires) produce a symmetrical collapse of a steel high rise building?

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 157.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network