End of Moussaoui trial may destroy Bush administration

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Any level headed, sane person could see it was demolished. You are looney to try and believe it was some kind of natural collapse.

See, you have some kind of demented hysteria that causes you to laugh when faced with facts. Any link to your popular mechanics
article that explains the collapse of 7? I'd love to see it.

Tell me, how does an office fire, with no jet fuel as accelerant, on the far end of a huge building, on 3 only three of it's dozen or so stories, bring down the entire complex in one quick, clean, collapse?... and, and, only after 10 hours or so?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Building 7 is just unbelievable. There is no reason the whole building would have collapsed like that unless it was rigged.


It was not hit by a jumbo jet full of fuel, so it did not have the widespread fire, nor did it have the impact that was blamed for knocking off the fireproofing, which was what was blamed for the weakening of the steel in towers 1 & 2

furthermore, many skyscrapers have burned much more for a longer period of time and did not collapse.

Only a corner on building 7 was on fire. Any level headed, sane person could see it was demolished. You are looney to try and believe it was some kind of natural collapse.

Originally posted by NeOmega

Building 7 didn't get hit by a 200,000 pound object.

Originally posted by NeOmega
See, you have some kind of demented hysteria that causes you to laugh when faced with facts. Any link to your popular mechanics
article that explains the collapse of 7? I'd love to see it.

Tell me, how does an office fire, with no jet fuel as accelerant, on the far end of a huge building, on 3 only three of it's dozen or so stories, bring down the entire complex in one quick, clean, collapse?... and, and, only after 10 hours or so?

Actually, PM responded to WTC 7 claims directly. The 'official' story doesn't hold that fire brought down the building as you assume, but that the seismic shock of debris from the twin towers falling around WTC 7 (and a considerable amount that landed on WTC 7) simply weakened its structural integrity enough for hours of uncontrolled flames to deliver the coup de grace.

Edit:

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Likewise there is a body of mounting evidence of the strutural steel analysis showing that the microcrystalline strucutre of the steel was indeed changed by excessive temperatures consistant with the prevailing theory that the 40000 gallons of burning diesel fuel in the building might have been the contributing culprit.

[Darius871]

That's just what 'they' want you to think Ogie.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'ld wear my tinfoil hat but it appears that actually enhances mind control rays. What to do what to do?

[Jaguar]

None of the buildings in the entire complex survived. Three collapsed, and four were damaged beyond any hope of repair. It's not as if the other buildings went unscathed while WTC7 mysteriously collapsed to the ground.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by oedo



Oh, my, I haven't had a belly laugh that good in a while! Americans are so gaga!

Ahem...

SPONSOR: 911truth.org

Need I say more? Aren't you aware that Zogby already has a notorious reputation for (and financial interest in) making its sponsors (on both sides of the political spectrum) happy with skewed results? Some bedtime reading for you:

John Zogby's creative polls, and a closer look at his methods
(But obviously the "authoritative magazine of liberal ideas" determined to "challenge the conservative views of policy and politics" and that derides the right wing's use of "stealth, fear-mongering, and a massive propaganda apparatus" is just another mouthpiece for the Bush administration and their corporate handlers, right?)

For an example of the sort of laughable pushpolling that has traditionally tainted Zogby's credibility, I offer Exhibit A:

25. World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?

Or for some strikingly ambiguous questions that post facto interpretations portray as definitive, Exhibit B:

24. Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?

25. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

It's also particularly amusing that 911truth has only posted the results of questions 23-27, and leaves us to wonder whether 1-22 'influenced' those polled in any way. Also amusing that Zogby has not posted this poll on its site, nor reported it to any major news sources (so far all we have is a PRWeb posting by 911truth).

[St Leo]

How is Slaughtermeyer managing to use the Nazi Iron Cross as his avatar despite being a settler and a non-supporter? Are we actually offering that as one of the built-in ones? Ugh.

[Darius871]

IIRC the Iron Cross existed a century before the Nazis...

[Jaguar]

The juxtaposition of the iron cross and the sig isn't pretty, though.

[NeOmega]

25. World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?

Hmm, and what are the anti-conspiracy theorists answer to this question... should it have been investigated?


The story:

A bunch of hypothesis, and revised statements by FEMA and the NIST, (both governmental organisations, BTW), is proof?




furthermore:

On about a third

.33

of the face

0.33 x 0.25 = .0825

about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

25% = .25, x .0825 = 0.020625 = about 2% of the building was damaged, but surprise, surprise, the NIST report tried to convey it as about 25%, and only the most discriminating of readers would notice this.


This quote is a deliberate attempt to mislead the amount of damage caused by the towers' rubble.

also note, 10 of 47 is closer to 20% than 25%..... hmmmm

NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

I wonder, was that almost 50% of 10 offices on 5 floors on the southwest corner? You know, a whole .025% of the 47 story tall building?

So what you underlined, is trying to convince me, a hypothesis formulated by the NIST, based on facts and figures from FEMA, that the 2% of the building that was damaged brough the whole thing down?

Preposterous!

[Darius871]

Read my post again homes, I only said the official story wasn't what you thought it was. I can't comment on how the building came down as I wasn't there.

[NeOmega]

deleted...

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871
Read my post again homes, I only said the official story wasn't what you thought it was. I can't comment on how the building came down as I wasn't there.

I know what brought it down... it wasn't no fire, and it was no damage to 2% of the building, the whole thing collapsed all at once, like it was rigged to blow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh noes! They are related!! It's a massive conspiracy! The Illuminati must be configuring all of this!

Please.