End of Moussaoui trial may destroy Bush administration

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I can't speak for what any individual here believes, but IIRC, the popular conspiracy theory for this one is that the building was demolished to better cash in on insurance claims (damaged wouldn't yield as much $ as total demolition). At least, that's the popular buzz.

Originally posted by NeOmega
Also Larry Silverstein benefitted from the insurance, I think, I don't know. I haven't looked into the why much.

Where are the hard numbers showing clear as day he got significantly more money from the insurance deal than rebuilding WTC 7 (the ribbon-cutting came on the news just as I was writing this... weird) costed? Taking into account 5 years of lost profits? I've looked through a few theory sites and found nothing but theory regarding Silverstein.

Originally posted by NeOmega
It was the building that housed the FBI, the IRS and other governmental agencies.

What good would it do to destroy them? I'd imagine their important records were mirrored in offsite databases, so demolition wouldn't cover anything up. Even if these offices were the target, why "pull it" after 7 hours instead of while debris was hitting the building?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega


GO to this link, look at the map

http://www.wtc7.net/location.html

Don't read any of the conspiracy stuff in there, just look at the map.

I've already seen that map a dozen times, what's your point? Are you now implying that debris didn't hit 7 in the first place?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871



Where are the hard numbers showing clear as day he got significantly more money from the insurance deal than rebuilding WTC 7 (the ribbon-cutting came on the news just as I was writing this... weird) costed? I've looked through a few theory sites and found nothing but theory regarding Silverstein.

Silverstein got $871 million out of building 7. If it cost more than that to rebuild, I don't know... (I don't think it did)

What good would it do to destroy them? I'd imagine their important records were mirrored in offsite databases, so demolition wouldn't cover anything up. Even if these offices were the target, why "pull it" after 7 hours instead of while debris was hitting the building?

I don't know, maybe that was where most of John O'Neil's records from his tenure as deputy director of the NY FBI's records were kept.... the ones where whe ranted and raved abotu al Quaeda was tryign to attack the US.

John O'Neill's first day of work at The twin Towers as head of security, Ironically, was on Spetember 11, 2001.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
At the risk of being labelled a tin foil hat wearer, it *does* seem rather....odd that a building with a "scooped out" section would fall straight down, rather than "favoring" its damaged side (in the same manner that a tree falls, favoring the cut side).

Not saying there's a conspiracy, just pointing out that if it fell like the official story said it did, then it's gotta be one in several million....gravity and all that jazz. *shrug*

-=Vel=-

this outcome probably seems counterintuitive because we don't intuitively scale objects up even remotely accurately in our minds. Even though the skyscraper is made of familier materials we forget just how much *vastly* larger the distances and weight loads involved in the skyscraper are than in any everyday object.

It might be better to compare a skyscraper to a house of cards. It won't be at all easy to get a house of cards of any height to fall down in much of any way apart from straight down unless you impart a horizontal force to it when it falls.

Even that comparison is poor because cards are much easier to impart some lateral movement to than would be the case for the skyscraper components.

Far from being "one in several million" odds of such a structure with one side "scooped out" falling straight down, I actually suspect that falling straight down is practially inevitable for any such large structure made of common materials which does not have a *very* strong lateral force applied over a broad area of it as it falls.

The materials are just not strong enough nor put together in such a way as to transfer that much vertical energy into a strong enough horizontal acceleration to heave large portions of the structure in any single direction.

Instead when leverage situtations are encountered that would tend to transfer force in that way, the components simple fail and your left with nothing to transfer the vertical forces to horizontal displacements.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871


I've already seen that map a dozen times, what's your point? Are you now implying that debris didn't hit 7 in the first place?

No, but notice it was 300 yards away, and therefore did not get hit nearly as hard as buildings 3-6, which were all hit hard enough to be total losses.

And all the other buildings, the same distances away, had only minor damage, and certainly did not collapse.

nice coincidence for Silverstein that all 7 of his buildings (insured only 2 weeks earlier) were the only ones that were total losses.

[NeOmega]

Here are the WTC7 tenants

Tenant Square Feet Floor Industry
Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND,1-6,13,18-46 Financial Institution
IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government
U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government
C.I.A. N/A N/A Government
American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institution
Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institution
Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institution
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21 [Insurance]
First State Management Group, Inc 4,000 21 Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institution
NAIC Securities 22,500 19 Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Government
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt 45,815 23 Government

Apparently the FBI was not housed there.

[joncha]

That's what they want you to believe!

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Far from being "one in several million" odds of such a structure with one side "scooped out"

ah ah... one side was not scopped out, 25% of one third , of one side, was scooped out.

falling straight down, I actually suspect that falling straight down is practially inevitable for any such large structure made of common materials which does not have a *very* strong lateral force applied over a broad area of it as it falls.

You suspect? Based on what?

The materials are just not strong enough

But the rest of the buildings within 300 yards were class construction techniques. Just WTC7 was constructed so poorly that a truck bomb on the corner could take the whole thing down?

[quote] nor put together in such a way as to transfer that much vertical energy[quote]

What vertical energy? The energy would not be universally vertical unless the entire structure was undermined. That clearly did not happen.

into a strong enough horizontal acceleration to heave large portions of the structure in any single direction.

Not heave, more than likely, if past examples are any indicator of skyscraper collapse, part of the building would collapse, and that would be it. Not the whole thing, all at once, all straight down.

Instead when leverage situtations are encountered that would tend to transfer force in that way, the components simple fail and your left with nothing to transfer the vertical forces to horizontal displacements.

The horizontal beams, if weakly constructed, would bend, and grab much of the force. Especially if the collapse was started by failure on only 2% of the building.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega



ah ah... one side was not scopped out, 25% of one third , of one side, was scooped out.



You suspect? Based on what?

based on the fact that buildings aren't designed to laterally transfer forces of that size. The vast majority of their strength is designed to counter vertical loads and the ability to transfer lateral forces is limited to the kind of slow acceleration high speed winds would impart.

That kind of accelation might displace the structure a few feet laterally in the time it would take the thing to all fall to the ground but from any distance that few feet of lateral movement would hardly be noticable.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Silverstein got $871 million out of building 7. If it cost more than that to rebuild, I don't know... (I don't think it did)

Could be relevant information.

Originally posted by NeOmega
No, but notice it was 300 yards away, and therefore did not get hit nearly as hard as buildings 3-6, which were all hit hard enough to be total losses.

Sure it didn't get hit 'nearly as hard', that's why it took so much longer to fall.

Originally posted by NeOmega
And all the other buildings, the same distances away, had only minor damage, and certainly did not collapse.

A) This doesn't look like 'minor damage' to me:


B) Keep in mind that's only the southwest corner, and AFAICS there are no available photos of the south face damage, which should have been far more substantial. If you can find me a photo of an unscathed south face we'll be getting somewhere.

C) What other equidistant buildings suffered the same level of damage?

[NeOmega]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Geronimo
based on the fact that buildings aren't designed to transfer forces of that size. [quote]

What size? A little hole on the side, caused no by an explosion, but by falling debris, much of which was buffered by building 3 and 6? Many buildings have suffered much worse, and still stood.

The vast majority of their strength is designed to counter vertical loads and the ability to transfer lateral forces is limited to the kind of slow acceleration high winds would impart.

They are built to be flexible, not to rigidly fall in onestraight downward motion.

That kind of accelation

What kind of acceleration?

Plus, what abot all the other buildings around the Twin Towers, how come they didn't even partially collapse? Was Silverstein just lucky/unlucky enough that 7 was hit hard, whilst all the other real estate all around was pretty much unscathed, nowhere near any structural damage?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Not heave, more than likely, if past examples are any indicator of skyscraper collapse, part of the building would collapse, and that would be it. Not the whole thing, all at once, all straight down.

Think of it this way: say the top of a steel column (|) is pulled to the left by the extreme stress of an unsupported corner, so its top leans to the left (\). Thus the bottom of the steel column immediately above it will be pulled to the left, so its top leans to the right (/). Repeat this process on numerous floors and what do you get?

______________________
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

What do you think happens next? IT FALLS DOWN! Seems very simple to me.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871
Sure it didn't get hit 'nearly as hard', that's why it took so much longer to fall.

The other buildings didn't fall, they were later demolished.

A) This doesn't look like 'minor damage' to me:

Considering the enormity of the building, it looks minor to me. Certainly the engineers did not put all of the weight bearing struts on the outer level, and in the four corners of the skyscraper. If it was constructed WTC tower style, then the "skin" style construction would have held up the rest of the building just fine.

C) What other equidistant buildings suffered the same level of damage?

none of the other buildings 300 yards away from eitehr of the tower collapsed, or even suffered severe structural damage.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871


Think of it this way: say the top of a steel column (|) is pulled to the left by the extreme stress of an unsupported corner, so its top leans to the left (\). Thus the bottom of the steel column immediately above it will be pulled to the left, so its top leans to the right (/). Repeat this process on numerous floors and what do you get?

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

What do you think happens next? IT FALLS DOWN! Seems very simple to me.

Simple? A simultaneous collapse caused by a solitary dmaged corner is simpel?

You know you are trying to find a natural cause for something that certainly appears manmade in it's appearance.

You have to at least admit, on the outside, regardless of what the technicalties may be, that collapse looked just like a rigged demolition.

You have to admit at least that. It did not look like the natural progression of a building with partial damage collapsing.

And as I have stated before, and to which no-one has a good retort, why haven't buildings that have suffered enormous blasts, not collapsed like that? Look at the Kenyan embassy and Alfred P. Murrah. Neither of those had this nice little downward demolition style collpase, and they suffered far greater dmage.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega
The other buildings didn't fall, they were later demolished.

Eh yeah, because there was nothing left:

Originally posted by NeOmega
Considering the enormity of the building, it looks minor to me. Certainly the engineers did not put all of the weight bearing struts on the outer level, and in the four corners of the skyscraper. If it was constructed WTC tower style, then the "skin" style construction would have held up the rest of the building just fine.

1) You seemed to conveniently skip B, which noted that the level of damage to the south side is unknown. The corner is the only damage proven by photographs, not the only damage.

2) See my diagram above; one corner could be more than enough.

Originally posted by NeOmega
none of the other buildings 300 yards away from eitehr of the tower collapsed, or even suffered severe structural damage.

Doesn't that go against your point? If they suffered no damage then of course they didn't collapse.