Why would 7 WTC be a controlled demolition?

This claim strikes me as weird for several reasons:

1. Why would Silverstein and the FDNY be able to demolish a building when NEITHER of them are in the demolition business?

2. Firefighters who were at 7 WTC in the afternoon of 9/11 said that parts of the building's side had been hit with debris from the Twin Towers. One firefighter said this:
Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it"
This goes against the whole "7 WTC should not collapsed due to fires arguement. Since there was considerable structural damage.

3. Why aren't insurance companies filing suit against him for fraud, as has been alleged as the intent of his desire to demolish 7 WTC.

4. If MIHOP was conducted by the Bush Administration for the sake of starting a "New Pearl Harbor," why would they let Silverstein in on the whole thing?

5. Silverstein has had financial trouble with the site since 9/11. He still owes monthly rent to the Port Authority even though there are no towers standing. Why do you think that the PA took away his financial control over building the Freedom Tower?

6. Silverstein did not say that the controlled demolition of 7 WTC was under way when he said "pull it." He was saying that pulling back the rescue operation was being done. A timeline of events also corroborates this line.

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

He's ballsy too. He doesn't need to speak in clear precise
sentences when explaining what happened on 911
to a PBS documentary camera crew,
no he decides to speak in his own cool slang:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

So instead of saying "pull them out" or even "pull out" when referring to the firefighters, he says "pull IT"
An ambiguous statement true, but you can't predict a Maverick like Larry.
Then instead of clarifying the first statement he lets loose with a truncated
version of his new slang term (perhaps borrowing from Cockney rhyming slang?)
and he says "and they made that decision to pull" He could have said "they made
that decision to remove their men" or "they pulled the guys out" - something to
clarify the first sentence but Larry follows an ambiguous statement with an even more ambiguous statement, once again showing those documentarians that he is hip.

He could have used "yank" I guess - "We've had such a terrible loss of life
maybe the smartest thing to do is yank it. And they made that decision to yank"
OR "We've had such a terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is dump it. And they made that decision to dump" But I think "pull" has a better ring to it.

It's really just a crazy coincidence that his slang term just happens to also be
a demolition industry term for controlled demolition. It's also unfortunate that
this collapse that FEMA could not explain for two years also looked like just like a controlled demolition. And yes all the steel was shipped overseas before it was tested for explosives but that's the way a FEMA investigation goes you know. And the fact that no one has seen it for 5 years
except for some whack job internet conspiracy theorists can be explained
by the way the media is run - hey if it's not a sex scandal or a missing white girl - why bother? If a few of us said something I'm sure CNN would show all the angles full screen over and over and we could have an open debate with engineers and scientists. And the 911 Commission Report didn't need to mention it. Yeah, so it had offices for the CIA the SEC and the Secret Service - I don't think that necessarily warrants a couple of sentences in a 500 page report. And this speculation that Larry expected some higher-ups in the FDNY to cover for him is just crazy because we all know the police and fire departments of NYC are just not subject to corruption. There are many aspects of the various videos of the collapse of building 7 that make it clear that it was not a demolition. Well OK no one seems to have found any, but there must be right?... Somebody?

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go stick my head back in the sand.

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

Keep in mind we don't know what the reporters lead in question was. It could have been something like...

"Commander Daniel Nigro said he spoke to you about his decision to pull the fireman out. How did you feel about that?"

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Anyway, Daniel Nigro says HE made the decision and Silvertin says he didn't. Silvertin said "THEY" made the decision to "pull", not him.

On that link you can clearly see all the fireman who agree with Silvertin's version. Are they ALL lying? Why would they lie?

They say "pull back" or "pull out". How come they can speak English but Silverstein can't? I don't know how many of them are lying, but obviously Silverstein thought someone at FDNY was going to help him cover it up. The other gross assumption made on that site is that people questioning the official story claim that FDNY actually did the demo, or that Silverstein was coming clean. The suspicion is that Silverstein figured people got wise and was lying to cover up the larger crime of 911 as an inside job. He thought FDNY would back him up. A botched cover up not a full confession. Big chunks of that page try to obfuscate this point that is well know in the 911 truth community.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Might I gently suggest some reinforced tinfoil?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

the tinfoil icons don't erase the obvious.
What do you think?
The MIHOP folks think Silverstein was confessing the whole truth?
We think FDNY pulled it?
Or he thought he could get away with blaming FDNY?
Jeez why waste your time?

Like I said we all know FDNY and NYPD have always been corruption free right?
A couple of FDNY higher ups could never be bribed or intimidated - impossible right? They are not made of flesh and blood like the rest of us.
:eyes:

So tell me...what is it about the collapse videos of 7 that does not look like
controlled demo? There must be something right? If it is so clearly not
a controlled demo there must be something in all the video angles clearly inconsistent with controlled demo right? Can you find something?

It was evacuated much earlier in the day, like 11:30 I think. According to all reports, official and unofficial, they never tried to fight the fire in 7.

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Link to article containing the above.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/330921.html

Though, I agree, it doesn't make any damn sense to me to involve Silverstein in the conspiracy if there was one, it's an unnecessary and irresponsible risk, IMO. If they did MIHOP, and involved Mr. Silverstein, a potential loose cannon on deck, they should be locked up for stupidity alone.

The operation for the first few days after the collapse was "search and rescue" to find survivors. They pulled back from the area near the building, because as Silverstein said, they didn't want more loss of life. And yes I do agree that Silverstein being in the know about MIHOP wouldn't be in Bush's interest, because how did they know that he wouldn't go an babble to the press about it? What about the Port Authority? They are the ones who OWN the site, while Larry Silverstein is just there on lease. Also, when he said "they made the decision to pull," that tells you that "pull" meant to pull back the FDNY. Why would firefighters make the decision to demolish a building when they have NO EXPERIENCE in any kind of controlled demolition.

just as they evacuated the rest of the buildings in the WTC complex early on.

But there were firefighters on the premises of WTC7 throughout the day scoping things out and keeping the collapse zone clear of civilians and others.

The FDNY decided early on not to try to put out the fires in WTC7 because the water mains were non-functional (the mains ran through and under WTC1 and WTC2 and had been rendered inoperably as a result of the collapse of those buildings) but they did continue to monitor the site and kept firefighters on site to keep others out of danger.

I can't give you a link to this because it comes from direct conversation with a battalion chief who was actually there at the time and not from a second, third, or fourth hand internet story, but it you're really interested, you can PM me and I'll give you his name and such - for obvious reasons, I'm not posting his personal information here.

Anyway, as the battalion chief tells it, they knew by noon that the building was not saveable because of the massive fires, lack of firefighting capability (i.e. watermains and standpipes), and they knew by mid afternoon that the heat was so great inside the building that the structural steel had warped so badly that they expected the building to collapse. Not to mention the massive structural damage that the building had sustained from tons and tons of falling debris, which could only serve to accelerate the anticipated collapse.

There was no big secret about WTC7. There was certainly no controlled demolition at WTC7.

Billions of dollers in clean-up pre 911 and then POOF! problem gone...
and of course all that insurance money

It was built from 1984-1987 long after the practice of using of asbestos for fireproofing was stopped.

made a legit demo of this ill designed building impossible unless due to some "catastrophe" that would release the owners, city, state and fed from any financial responsibility. In Fact Silverstein has received a massive bailout so I am not sure where the idea he is losing money on this got started.

Silverstein sure as hell isn't happy about it. It would have cost him less to have the abestos removed with conventional means, than to demolish two revenue-generating profitable buildings and end up having to pay rent for them without their presence.

And he barely invested any of his money in the venture.

Did larry know what he was implying? "Pull it".. without a doubt. World Trade 7 is a "bad loose end" no jet struck the building,some debris caused damage,a few fires yes but none so devastating that it would collapse the building. Secondly, in a short video clip of the south face you can clearly see a "flash" in the upper right hand corner as well as many streamers of "black smoke" the telltale signature of a controlled demolition. I'll post that later or go visit terrorize.dk and view WT7 videos.
Third, old larry closed the lease July 21 2001 and "triples" the insurance,what was he expecting? H'm.. How ironic that 6 weeks later "SEPT.11,2001" Larry cashes in "BIG TIME" another irony,the 200 million used for the down payment wasn't his. Talk about shrewd businessmen. Larry also missed work that fateful morning, why?
More: a guy named Eisenberg (?) Port Authority Director who approved the lease was a "ZIONIST" Larry too was a "ZIONIST" Larry's partner (name escapes me) was a "ZIONIST" ALL THREE had connections to ariel sharon another "ZIONIST." Was mossad involved? Does mossad have the expertise to wire 3 buildings in a short span of time? Would mossad/likuder's kill innocent people?

On 911 across from the WTC 5 Israeli students (mossad spy's) were videotaping the attacks that is CONFIRMED. Why hasn't that video been released? why? I want to know.
Then there are 100 devastating questions that need to be addressed/answered.

"THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" ....

BBL.

Here is a picture of the wtc7 two and a half hours before it fell. There were small
fires on the 7th and 12th floors (the dark area is a shadow from another building).

I have never heard your quote from the fireman, but if it were true, I am sure FEMA would have
gladly included in their report.

On "incentive" for demolition here is an interesting article on a talk at the New York Public Library:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/331483.shtml

"The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure.
This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known
as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air
environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment. On 911 the media neglected
to mention this detail in its voluminous romancing of WTC history.
The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off
and falling into the street, and the corrosive process was weakening the steel structure
itself. You can see these prefabricated aluminum sections falling in the TV demolition
footage ...
That the buildings were full of asbestos became another of the WTC's liabilities, as that
material acquired a bad rep. The towers may have been "sick buildings" in other environmental
ways. They were white elephants waiting for replacement.
The entire WTC complex, including Building 7, had become, prematurely expendable and a candidate for demolition and replacement. Consider that the WTC had already paid for itself, had yielded profit to its Rockefeller and other investors, and had profited various banks and landlords, public and private, over and over during its life. Also consider the pressure on that prime location by insatiable New York developers eager to raze anything in sight on any pretext and to build downtown the latest gleaming office structures for the corporations and new luxury condos for the booming yuppie class. ...

more at link

gain from "demolishing" the site. They didn't tear down the WTC just so they could build a new complex. Why would they risk losing some of their best tenants and billions of dollars? Explain to me why Silverstein has been losing money for the past four and a half years? Also, explain to me why Silverstein would be in on MIHOP? Why would the Bush Administration involve him in it? Wanting to make a insurance fraud profit and wanting to start a new Pearl Harbor are two VERY different motives.

beneficial, obviously.

Really? It's obvious why WTC 7 was supposedly demolished?

Well, I've got news for you, it's not obvious to almost everyone on the planet. Before you answer (if you do) know that the notion WTC 7 was "demolished" as an insurance scam is ridiculous. The sick building balloon is even more ridiculous, so how is it obvious?

money, you have never lived in New York City. It has been happening for decades. The OP said it didn't make any sense that Silverstein would want to destroy the building. I think that billions of dollars might be incentive for him to at least keep his mouth shut about what he knew.
(The various gov't offices in the building were another possible reason to destroy it from the point of view of protecting the agencies and the contents of their files.)

It's not obvious to almost everyone on the planet." Oh well, then you MUST be right. "Most people" thought Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein "did" 911, too.

The reason I don't answer you sometimes is because your responses are predictable and there is nothing to be gained from reading them, ie:
"ridiculous to demolish a building for insurance", for you and me maybe, not in the world of New York real estate.
what "almost everyone on the planet" thinks is sadly irrelevant. Is that the best you can do after all this time?

destroy perfectly sound, profitable commercial buildings for the insurance money?

Dang, I learn something new every day at DU.

I must admit I had no idea getting insurance money when you demolish an income generating asset and sound business was worth the hassles of rebuilding, lost revenue, fighting with the insurance company, legals hassles beyond belief. Who knew this is a sound financial strategy?

After considering this maybe I'll torch my house as a way to make money. Shoot, I'll do my neighbor a favor and burn their home down as well. I can hardly wait to see his face when I tell him how much money I just made him.

Asbestos? Rotting shell? Your assumption is of base. And shelf life for a DT NYC building is not what it used to be. Come visit some time and look at all the buildings coming down and new shiny ones like the "Freedom Tower" are coming up.

Asbestos, Rotting shell?

It is far cheaper to abate asbestos than it is to rebuild a building. BTW, it is rarely required to abate asbestos anymore, since it was realized that it is far safer to leave it alone than it is to disturb it.

Also the rotting shell thing is an internet myth.

has been mentioned by several sources. Just because it is not corporate news does not mean it is not true. I find the person who gave the talk at the NY Library in my previous post to be reliable, and it is not the first time I have read it. Steel and aluminum together cause galvanic corrosion and the aluminum cladding was placed next to the steel columns. Try telling someone in the election fraud forum that their witnesses to fraud are just "internet rumors". You won't make it out alive. It's not all over the mainstream papers for the same reason a lot of 911 stuff isn't-people don't want to get fired, or worse.
The asbestos was a big deal. The Port Authority tried to get insurers to cover it years ago and the judge ruled against them. There were lawsuits from asbestos contact (pre911). Removing all of that asbestos would have been cost prohibitive in buildings that size. (We needed to remove asbestos to get rid of a "popcorn ceiling" some jerk in the 60's or 70's had put on the beautiful plasterwork ceiling on our tudor.. One room, 30 by 20 cost thousands of dollars)

If you can find any credible sources for it being an issue in the WTC, please share them.

If you have any evidence there was galvanic corrosion please share.

If you have neither stop spreading ridiculous theories.

Asbestos litigation is a complicated issue. Do you have any evidence that the WTC's had to remove the asbestos? If true, I would be amazed because the abatement protocols today are to leave it as is in place and monitor. Mitigating only areas that are unstable.

Even if it is true that abatement was required, it is still far cheaper to abate than to remove a building, no matter what size it is, or even if you blew it up so you did not have to abate the asbestos first . It is a simple financial matter. The lost revenue and rebuilding costs are immense compared to the costs of an abatement project carried out over a number of years impacting only a small portion of the building at any given time.

just because you think so. Landlords and real estate people have been destroying old buildings in New York for years. That is a fact. Right now it is happening in Brooklyn in a blatant fashion as per my news article. It's not the world most of us live in so it seems incredible. The World Trade Center was not the wonderful icon of New York that the corporate media is trying to present. There were many empty floors, the NYSE was threatening to move to New Jersey. Wtc7 had been very difficult to fill. New buildings would be hugely beneficial on that EXTREMELY valuable real estate for whatever reason.


SOMEBODY "pulled" them and Silverwhatever knew it. We can only speculate as to why.

I asked you evidence that galvanic corrosion was a bona-fide concern. You have none and blame me for your lack of knowledge. Nice try.

And you provide no evidence that WTC7 was worth more as a heep on the ground than standing. There is a big difference in present and future values of rent controlled apartment buildings that are frequently worth more if burned down, and commercial real estate in downtown Manhattan.

Instead of your incessant illogic of "obviously some pulled them" try looking at the reality of the situation.

can cause galvanic corrosion. The Statue of Liberty was reworked because of this. The WTC placed aluminum and steel together and as I recall there was corrosion found on the steel in the debris. I have no proof, but it is a good possibility. Several individuals have said that this was happening at the wtc, there was a lecture at the NY library on the topic, google it yourself. If it's true it has been covered up.
There is something called "stray current" which seems to indicate galvanic corrosion , this is also a problem when there is salt and water and as you know wtc was built on fill over sea water. Here is a mention that indicates there was corrosion at the wtc as that could have started with the rail tracks underneath and the currents mixed with salt water.
"Some concern was expressed for stray current influencing corrosion of steel reinforcing
bars in concrete structures, such as the World Trade Center where PATH maintains a station.
The basis for the concern stems from corrosion seen on some steel components of station
fixtures (e.g., station door frames, outside
containing walls, and platform roofs and floors). The problem could not be quantified"
http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/projects/stray2_int.html#Port%20Authority%20Trans-Hudson%20Cor

When galvanic corrosion occurs between steel and aluminum, which metal is the one that would actually be the one to corrode. And based on the type of aluminum and steel used, how fast would the corrosion occur?

- Make7

aluminum would corrode because it is less noble than steel in such an environment. However, oxidation of either material would inhibit corrosion as would any type of protective coating (such as galvanizing of steel or alumizing of aluminum) or sacrificial protection (sacrificial anodes or cathodes).

Oxidation forms pretty frequently for aluminum; less so for steel, except in alkaline environments such as rebar in concrete.

and the aluminum would have oxidized , I suppose, if it weren't protected from the elements. So is it the less noble that becomes corroded? I didn't really understand that part and I don't pretend to be a scientist. The steel did become corroded from one source or another, because it was corroded in the debris and in my post below you can see that the findings were unsure whether it happened before or after 9-11.

The aluminum would have oxidized even in the elements - oxidization occurs pretty quickly and will happen anywhere aluminum is exposed to air.

The corrosion/current thing is not as complicated as it sounds - it is the same process that drives batteries. Ions go one way (from the less noble metal to the more noble one) and electrons go the other (creating a current). This has to happen through a special kind of medium (like salt water) and that medium dictates which metal is more noble (it changes depending on the medium).

If you're really smart you hook up this think called a "sacrificial anode". It is generally made of something like zinc (less noble than aluminum in salt water) and supplies the ions for transfer (in lieu of the aluminum ones) until it gets used up (then it's time to replace the anode). That way the less noble metal doesn't corrode.

"Aluminum alloys have a strong resistance to corrosion which is a result of an oxide skin that forms as a result of reactions with the atmosphere. This corrosive skin protects aluminum from most chemicals, weathering conditions, and even many acids, however alkaline substances are known to penetrate the protective skin and corrode the metal.

Aluminum also has a rather high electrical conductivity, making it useful as a conductor. Copper is the more widely used conductor"
http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/aluminum.cfm

Is that a misprint that oxidation is corrosion? If they cleaned the oxidation off the aluminum, they would have a problem, if that is doable. Could it have passed to steel even if it is the less noble?
It also says it conducts electricity which would contribute. Salt is alkaline, isn't it?

Can I ask you a question? Based on your discussion about galvanic corrosion to date it is clear you have at best a marginal understanding of the process. Those with working knowledge have tried to "talk you down" to no avail.

It's encouraging to see you ask questions about it, but why do you insist upon advocating a theory you don't understand?

I'm just being honest about what I know or don't know. Your posts only consist of one liners where you attempt to intimidate people, although your archived posts show that you used to post extravagant mathematical formulas that you had cut and pasted from somewhere else.

I can't figure out how to answer you. You lack knowledge about corrosion phenomena and explaining it would be difficult. You have missed the point that aluminum would corrode preferentially over the steel, yet you keep pointing to the WTC steel specimen that saw eutectic corrosion as if it is meaningful in in your argument.

Eutectic corrosion and electrochemical corrosion are entirely different. I know that, folks that have been kind enough to provide information know that, yet you stick to your story. I've spent over twenty years working as a mechanical engineering in various capacities in chemical manufacturing plants. I know corrosion, I've seen different types in many different forms. I am not an expert, but I can assure you this notion that the WTC was demolished because there was galvanic corrosion is so idiotic it does not even warrant a discussion.

Why?

1. The potentials indicate aluminum should corrode.
2. Aluminum oxidizes (good corrosion) so the potential between it and steel will vary considerable.
3. Meaning one spot may corrode one spot may not assuming there is a conducting electrolyte.
4. The air in NY is not considered to be a good conducting electrolyte.
5. There is ZERO let me repeat ZERO evidence there was a corrosion problem in the structure. You found corrosion problems in the sub-basements of a building surrounded by water. That's like finding sand at the beach and yelling eureka. Water is an excellent conduction electrolyte.

A link

http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-c02-corrosion.htm#galv


Also those formulas I posted were mine and they are hardly extravagant. They were quite simple actually. Basic algebra at best. Try the mathematics engineers have to master and you get close to extravagant.

http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/

This is typical course work for fourth year control course. BTW, when I took this course computer programs available to students were not sophisticated enough to directly solve these types of equations. You had to do it graphically. Now Matlab or similar program solve them in seconds.

Aluminum gets this very thin layer of oxidation on exposed surfaces that then acts to protect the rest of the aluminum from corrosion, kind of like a scab. There are, of course, other ways to protect an aluminum surface. Anodizing not only prevents corrosion but hardens the outer layer of aluminum. Aluminum is susceptible to scratching or nicking so anodizing is popular for asthetic reasons (it can also be colored).

Salt water has a higher pH than fresh water (~8 vs. ~7, respectively).

I didn't think aluminum was a very good electrical conductor (no free electrons) but I'll check. It has a high thermal conductance though. That's why aluminum frame windows have "buffers" - to prevent aluminum from acting as a thermal short-circuit in a wall.

... I wasn't asking those questions merely because I am too lazy to look them up - I have already done so on a previous occasion. I was suggesting others might want to do at least a minimal amount of research to determine if the theories they run across are even plausible.

- Make7

Carry on.

involving the train station underneath wtc. From what I gather one type of metal which is already corroded sends the current to the other. The original corrosion could have come from "below". Electricity + salt water + 2 types of metal is a recipe for corrosion and that describes the situation underneath the wtc, it definitely was an issue. But what I don't see is the connection between the galvanic and the stray current corrosion. Here are some articles mentioning the existence or the concern for the existence of corrosion, one of them says that it is unknown where the corrosion on the steel found after 9-11 was from and that it could have been from BEFORE the building fell, now that is the same corrosion some speculate came from the sulfur in thermite.

From "Engineering News Record"-
"The high unit stress required in the small wires, says Kennedy, creates
a sensitivity to loss of metal through corrosion that needed to be counteracted
as easy and inexpensively as possible. Groundwater at the site is brackish and
only 1 ft below grade. This, plus stray electric currents flowing through the site that originate in subways and power stations in the lower Manhattan area,
make corrosion a real threat. "
May 9, 1968
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

"Although the design of the tiebacks was supposed to protect them against corrosion from
the stray electrical currents that always seem to be present in city ground, corrosion
occurred anyway, mysteriously beginning with tiebacks on the third level below the surface.
This was serious: if the corrosion persisted, and a substantial number of
wires in the tiebacks failed before the inside floors were in, the walls would collapse. "
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content?010924fr_archive02

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 constitute an
unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this was the result of
long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also
possible that the phenomenon started PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE and accelerated the weakening
of the steel structure. ..." (my emphasis
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf

involving the train station underneath wtc. From what I gather one type of metal which is already corroded sends the current to the other. The original corrosion could have come from "below". Electricity + salt water + 2 types of metal is a recipe for corrosion and that describes the situation underneath the wtc, it definitely was an issue. But what I don't see is the connection between the galvanic and the stray current corrosion. Here are some articles mentioning the existence or the concern for the existence of corrosion, one of them says that it is unknown where the corrosion on the steel found after 9-11 was from and that it could have been from BEFORE the building fell, now that is the same corrosion some speculate came from the sulfur in thermite.

From "Engineering News Record"-
"The high unit stress required in the small wires, says Kennedy, creates
a sensitivity to loss of metal through corrosion that needed to be counteracted
as easy and inexpensively as possible. Groundwater at the site is brackish and
only 1 ft below grade. This, plus stray electric currents flowing through the site that originate in subways and power stations in the lower Manhattan area,
make corrosion a real threat. "
May 9, 1968
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

"Although the design of the tiebacks was supposed to protect them against corrosion from
the stray electrical currents that always seem to be present in city ground, corrosion
occurred anyway, mysteriously beginning with tiebacks on the third level below the surface.
This was serious: if the corrosion persisted, and a substantial number of
wires in the tiebacks failed before the inside floors were in, the walls would collapse. "
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content?010924fr_archive02

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 constitute an
unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this was the result of
long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also
possible that the phenomenon started PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE and accelerated the weakening
of the steel structure. ..." (my emphasis
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf

I wonder what research would turn up. If the galvanic corrosion was covered up, I wonder if there would be any record anywhere.

Seeing as how the tiebacks were not a part of (or even connected to) the towers, I don't see what that has to do with possible galvanic corrosion of the towers.

I also fail to see how galvanic corrosion would cause sulfidation of the steel in the towers.


Perhaps doing some research instead of just wondering would be the proper course of action. Maybe some research into galvanic corrosion will show that it was not even an issue for the WTC.

- Make7

The major elements are all there.

If it wasn't there, then there IS proof that corrosion existed underneath.
There is also the "official" opinion that the corrosion on the steel
members in the debris was possibly from BEFORE 9-11. If corrosion was not a possibility,
then they would have ruled that out. You debunkers ignore all this and instead focus
on my admitting that I am not an expert on corrosion. I'm just admitting my shortcomings,
instead of pretending to be an "expert". Experts don't spend 24/7 for 4 years on 9-11
message boards arguing with people.
There is at least one witness
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/331483.shtml

There is "official", pre911 recognition of corrosion in the station under the towers.
http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/projects/stray2_int.htm...
(also many more)
the "ingredients" for galv. corrosion are there:
1There must be something that corrodes (the metal anode),
2There must be a cathode (the opposite pole in the circuit),
3There must be a continuous conductive liquid path (the chemical “electrolyte”)
usually from salt or other contaminations, and
4There must be a conductor (the metallic path) to carry the flow of electrons
from the anode to the cathode.

Attacking me personally doesn't make any of that less true.
The corrosion could have been passed by other sources than the tiebacks, I was trying to be
conversational when I said "I wonder", I didn't know you were being an asshole,M7, sometimes
I try to be "friendly" to you guys and you turn out to be jerks after all.
Also, even without corrosion, the brand new shiny wtc buildings and the war in
Iraq are good enough reasons for 9-11 for those without scruples.

Nobody loves a 30-year old building, especially when the smart money's on midtown.

From the post that I originally replied to:


And from a few posts before that:


You seem to be suggesting that galvanic corrosion could have been the cause of corrosion found on the steel of the towers. I had assumed you were talking about the aluminum facade and steel perimeters columns. (Mostly because you had mentioned that specifically.) It is not difficult to research which one of those metals would be the one to corrode if galvanic corrosion actually took place - I thought you might want to look into the matter to see if it was indeed an issue in the case of the WTC Towers. My belief was that you would be more inclined to believe the answer if you researched it yourself.

So is it your opinion that galvanic corrosion between the aluminum and steel caused corrosion of the steel? Or do you wish to discuss other areas where corrosion was occurring? Perhaps from some other cause.

- Make7

BTW - calling me names and claiming that I am attacking you personally will likely only encourage me. And for the record, I am not exactly clear how my making a suggestion that you actually research galvanic corrosion is a personal attack. It's not like I called you an asshole, or jerk, or something...

Port Authority had lost a 10 year asbestos abatement lawsuit shortly before the deal with Silverstein. The building needed major revamping which would mean they would need to pay for removal of asbestos which is outlandishly expensive. Plus, the problem of the exterior corrosion, and the impractical elevators,which you had to get out and change and were known even before 911 to cause 2 hours waits in the case of fire. Plus, if the wtc were so 'sound" how did they "collapse' so easily if they were built to withstand hits from a 707 Boeing?
In 2001 many of the wtc floors REMAINED EMPTY and several of their major tenants & anchor tenants had legal and bankruptcy problems. PLUS, the NYSE was threatening to move to New Jersey in 2000. http://www.sfbg.com/nader/136.html This would have been devastating to lower manhattan and the WTC.
In any case, holding the lease on the NEW wtc's would be a far better circumstance for Silverstein and it would not have been possible without 911.
No one is saying that Silverstein is the "mastermind" as the OP suggests. But there is incentive for him to keep his mouth shut about what he knew. And how did Silverstein executives know to cancel the terrorism risk meeting on the 88th floor (according to NY Times) because only one person couldn't attend on 9-11? Was that just another coincidence?

It was a very risky venture for him, apparently. He's an optimist, though, gotta love that. No optimists and we'd still be reading by candle light, right.

His acquisition of the trade center, six weeks before the towers collapsed, was seen as a gamble in the development world.

The trade center "wasn't considered the most desirable office space in the world" because it went years with high vacancy rates and was bombed in 1993, said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business leadership group.

After another developer dropped out, Silverstein led a group of investors with a $3.2 billion bid; "they thought he overpaid," Wylde said.

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=326223

I don't personally believe he was "in on it," to my mind that's a logical leap I can't make, but the buildings were not all that profitable, and the need for asbestos abatement is a fact. After the '93 attack it really became apparent, apparently.

As I understand it, there was a need for asbestos work after the 1993 bombing because the bombing caused the asbestos fireproofing in certain areas to be dislodged and exposed. As I further understand it, there was extensive asbestos remediation done at that time. I have been peripherally involved (i.e. not as lead counsel but in various and sundry legal research and such) in asbestos litigation and, generally speaking, there is no requirement to remove asbestos unless and until it becomes exposed, unstable, or dangerous. Usually, the answer is to leave it alone as long as it is contained.

It appears that at the time the towers were being constructed, the builders started with asbestos fireproofing on the structural steel, but stopped using it part way through construction and switched to a non-asbestos fireproofing because it was at that time that concerns about asbestos were coming to light and it became apparent that the use of it as a fire retardant was likely to banned in the near future.

So, it's not as though the entirety of the towers contained asbestos fireproofing (and by the way, WTC 7 was constructed with only non-asbestos fireproofing).

The fireproofing was contained within what was considered to be state of the art containment as part of the unusual central core design, so it strikes me as unlikely that there would be any need for asbestos remediation any time in the near future unless and until that containment was breached, the asbestos dislodged or dispersed, therefore posing a health risk.

I have never seen any evidence that there have been any kind of asbestos removal orders or asbestos remediation orders or any evidence of asbestos contamination or risk of breach of containment and risk of contamination in relation to the towers (aside from the cleanup after the 1993 bombing, of course), nor have I seen any evidence that there were any other issues about the viability of the towers.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain any credible evidence to the contrary and revise my opinion if the evidence warrants it, but I haven't seen any here or elsewhere.

Thus, it would indeed seem quite preposterous for a leaseholder to wilfully allow or wilfully be complicit in the destruction of viable, multi-million-dollar-annual-revenue-generating, prime properties in the circumstances.

I don't think that it is safe to rely solely on that one web link as the basis for asserting that it was a particularly risky venture. There was more to it than one other developer dropping out - there were also others competing with him and there's a long and enduring saga of bitterness between Silverstein and another bidder whom he beat out. Many think that he "stole" it at the price paid and that it was worth at least double what he paid, etc.

profitable are not a given. To "assert" that he overpaid/was losing money/the buildings were rotten, etc, I would certainly have to give facts from many sources, including property values, building inspection reports, his records, you know. Pardon me if I wasn't clear. :)

Honestly, I don't think he had anything to do with it. Intentionally, destroying his own buildings would not have been advantageous to him, IMO. I'm not an insurance investigator, but on the surface it certainly strikes me as ludicrous. However, I do think he'd have a good reason to STFU. Screaming at the top of his lungs regarding what happened would certainly not behoove him.

Silverstein had nothing to do with it.

Their marketability correlates with the city and country's economy. In the early 1990's NYC's economy was shit, especially their office market. In 2001, the towers were more than 90% occupied, and I think that the number is in the upper 90's, but I can't remember the article I read.

and still live near it. I have yet to hear of an office building demolished for insurance. Sure some small homes are burned as in most cities and towns but not the way you characterize it. Office buildings have not been completely demolished for insurance money "for decades." And certinly not in NY. You don't even hear of office fires very often. That would be major news.

not for insurance, but for the opportunity to build "upscale" buildings. Surely you do not deny that this is happening?

I do not have the links (sorry, I am not lazy, but, I am waiting for word about something pertaining to one of my children), but I felt the need to respond because in just the last few days, we have been hearing about suspicious fires in the NY area. This has been posted on DU recently.

I will try to get links for you when I can.

Video:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:12:49)

Do tell.

And again: what makes you think MIHOP claims Silverstein was in "on the whole thing"?

like people don't destroy functioning profitable businesses to so they can wait to collect insurance money for years.

I applaud you for stating the obvious, but around here it just will never be obvious.

You seem to think you know a lot about things that from your posts it is obvious you know very little about, yet you insult and bully. I have met some people like that in my lifetime. I find generally they are not well liked or respected people and are generally made fun of and avoided by more humble and thoughtful people who actually do bother to learn about things they don't understand.

Have you ever lived in NYC? Have you ever worked as a real estate agent or developer in this city? It is clear that you have not from what you have posted but please correct me if I am wrong.

In general I don't personally profess to know what happened that day. I think the majority of those who do (on both sides) are equally deluded in their self righteous proclamations.

established you how little you know about me, perhaps you can tell me why one would need to be a real estate agent or developer in NYC to understand that WTC7 was not supposedly demolished for the insurance money.

to rebuild something more profitable. ie:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=3939440

Burning down rent controlled apartments to build something more financially attractive cannot be compared to destroying commercially viable commercial building.

How is a building a new WTC7 going to be more incrementally profitable to make it worthwhile to destroy it? It's not.

Why not find some articles on commercial office space in downtown Manhattan being burned down to make more profit. Let me know when you find something.

Where in the article does it indicate the building was burned down to for insuance money. It easily could just be a fire bug.

You are putting words into my mouth, and if you don't think billions of dollars would be an incentive to certain people, then I can't help you. Is this the best you people can do after all this time?

And if the larger operation of 9/11 was MIHOP, logically we can deduce that Silverstein had to have been in on the whole thing, which in reallity is bullshit.

Stick to the facts on this stuff. I am just here to learn more, either way, the truth is the truth. I can handle it whatever it may be. People here that pretend their assumptions are fact are not adding anything to the discussion.

Do you have any fucking clue how hard investors in NYC try to clear buildings to make new ones? Their is no danger of not finding enough tenants for DT NYC. There is however a danger of high profile tenants leaving a building falling apart with toxic materials.

People jumping out of the building to escape fire and dying. Three or four buildings on the same block. It is considered suspicious, although the landlord is denying wrongdoing. It is an up and coming historical area where luxury high rises are interested in moving in.
Oh, and BTW, the flames were for 24 hours and the BUILDING IS STILL STANDING, imagine that. Read all the parallels. Yeah, it was making money, but not as much as a luxury high rise will!

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=3939440

And it says absolutely nothing about the landlord.

Five minutes of Googling indicates a serial arsonist is suspected of starting the fires.

Care to explain how that supports your claim that it proves landlords are destroying old buildings?

I see someone is drooling over the possible "error". here is the one from May.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060504/ap_on_re_us/warehouse_fire_23

http://www.ufalocal94.org/news_stories/amny/amny_05_03_06.html

a quote says how much he is going to save on demolition.

just goes to show how often this happens.

There were no controlled demolitions. There was no conspiracy.

WTC7 simply didn't and doesn't register much on the collective knowledge base because it was, in relative terms, a mere footnote to much larger and more tragic events that day. The twin towers were full of people when airplanes hit them and ultimately caused their destruction and the deaths of nearly 3000 people. In contrast, WTC7 was evacuated early on (as were all of the other buildings in the complex) and didn't result in mass casualties, thanks to those who were on site and gave the orders to evacuate early on.

Much like WTC3 (Marriott), by the way - vacuated early on, subsequently destroyed by falling debris. Sadly, there were around 50 deaths in WTC3, almost all of them firefighters, because even though they evacuated the building early (saving the lives of a thousand guests and all of the staff), WTC3 was utilized as an evacuation route for those escaping the towers so firefighters were still in place to direct the people evacuating from the towers, and died as a result when the towers collapsed and debris devastated the building.

WTC6 was also destroyed by the fallout, but had also been evacuated early on.

Numerous other buildings were destroyed by the fallout, but had also been evacuated early on.

No conspiracy, no controlled demolitions.

Except in the minds of the tinfoil hat brigade.

but WTC1 and 2 "fell in their own footprint" or so we've been told, over and over again. If they did, how could they have demolished other buildings?? </sarcasm>


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

</sarcasm>

Yeah, go figure.

:rofl:

MIHOP doesn't claim Silverstein was in in the whole thing. He might have known something but for him to do his part (if he did play a part) he would not need to know the whole thing.

Where's the evidence for the 20 story tall hole in WTC7? Why did other buildings that had suffered far worse damage not collapse?


"Fires on several floors":


More importantly, your questions don't change anything about the curious circumstances of the collapse of WTC7.

The site you link causes my browser to act up.

Go straight to the asylum.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

Why not just change your screen name to "Big Nurse",
that would seem much more appropriate.

As in ... one flew east, one flew west,
one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

With your perfect blackbox disaster
and your anonymous bluster ....

Why should anyone question the rantings of the Great Decider?

I am sure that you are ready to swear by your chromium testicles all about your iron will and your itch for money;
after all the mass killing is just so damned difficult to pre-visualize, isn't it?

We are lucky to have those who remind us, as you yourself, that in a fascist state it is never fashionable to question the media stories, the veracity of wealth and the power of myth.

The bodies are gone .... like cows struck by lightning .... just one of those things about life ... we might as well sob filing razor blades .... As souls are melted behind the dancing pixels like so many foggy visions .... like so many indecisive votes ... like wow and holy cow!!

TIME TO PULL IT .... NO USE TO QUESTION NOW ... THE BULLET IS MAGIC, SEE! IT'S JUST LIKE SOME CORNY BOARD GAME. PARK PLACE & BOARDWALK ARE LOADED WITH CHEAP ROOMS, SAGGING MATTRESSES AND CORPSES THAT WON'T STOP BURNING.

THIS IS THE HIGH RENT DISTRICT ... there is no universe next door!!! The bodies have been counted.

Well, t'is all dust in the wind, ain't it?

Well, a big secret anyway: the dust of this universe is very, very old.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

made up points? They are always asking us to prove/disprove stuff that they just pull out of a hat. I've never read that Silverstein and "the govt" were "in on it together".

In fact I never heard of Larry Silverstein until I saw this Alex Jones documentary that showed him making the statement first quoted in post #1 and said he bought the two towers a couple months before 9/11. Turns out he just leased them, but I'm still wondering about the owner of this mysteriously collapsed building that contained all these government offices moving to gain control of the towers shortly before they were hit. How is anyone able to blow that off? Someone please explain it to me, and keep in mind I'm new to this forum and haven't been here reading for months or years.

Maybe not, but he sure has a huge motive not to get too curious about it.

"These debunkers" are the ones who fight fair the vast majority of their time here. They're typically the ones who acknowledge and respect the rules of logical debate.
You're the one who once ridiculed "critical" thinking.

those who think Silvertein was in on it. So it's not a staw man for everyone. Some here are sugesting his "Pull" quote means demolish. Some MIHOPers do think he was in on it as well.

"Where's the evidence for the 20 story tall hole in WTC7? Why did other buildings that had suffered far worse damage not collapse?"

This is not true at all. The bankers trust building was about as far away and and had a large hit. Other buildings just as far away and further were hit. The difference is in it's construction and the fire. Like the towers building 7 had a much different constrution than the typical building.

As for the size of the fire I'll let the fireman who were there tell you how bad it was...

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Showing you a photo of the east side fire early on is geared to confuse. The building was on fire for hours and showing you the fire at the begining means nothing. What it does prove was that there WAS a fire under the side where the penthouse fell first. This only helps prove collapse by fire.

If you mean "Photo of a 20 story hole" as evidence all I have to say is show me a photo of the south side without a 20 story hole in the center of the south side. If you mean evidence in general I already showed you but let me write it here...

"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned."

"Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

That's eye witness evidence.

Here ya go - south/southeast views. It is damaged. Just not that damaged looking.



Another one


Yet another one


You can really see the damage up close on this one -- wait, are you sure that's 7? Can anybody confirm?

. . . and that's definitely the Banker's Trust a.k.a. Deutsche Bank building.



more photos here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/130liberty/default.htm

The building looks like it's been "unzipped" down the middle ;)

I wonder what is holding the building up?

as usual.

p.s. the truth it would take twenty times that much damage to produce so much as a partial collapse. In fact they've been trying to pull that sucker down for the last year. Don't know how far they've gotten.

otherwise?

Not going to happen without explosives of some sort.

A combination of those two is what brought it down. I do agree that fire by itself did not bring it down. Also, fire doesn't melt steel; it warps it.

I would love to see the damage that brought down the building but some how there is no footage or evidence of it. Yet I look at the building and it looks intact? Hmm. would really like to see this mystery solved. And your word just won't settle the issue for me any more than any other faith based explanations of the meaning of life make me stop wondering about that topic.

of the fires which brought down the building. The conpiracy sites would have you believe that it takes more than one floor to bring it down. Thats like saying chopping a tree all the way through in only one place wouldn't bring it down. When chopping a tree down you don't have to cut more than at it's base. That's just absurd. The same thing with the building. You only need to weaken a 47 story building on the 5th or 7th floor to bring everything above it down.

The biggest problem is the smoke from all the fires in the building which covered the back of the building.

Show me a photo from the 20th floor down of the middle on the south side of building 7 which doesn't have smoke from heavy fires.

However, I can show you a video of the fireman showing the heavy smoke and talking about the decision to pull the fireman out...

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

You shouldn't need anything more than that. The fireman themselves saying on camara they should pull the fireman out of the area.

an anonymous domain?


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

Why else?

but..
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm

it seems to me that the McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are hardly comparable to WTC. Would be interested in information regarding the thickness of the steel used at all 3 site and more importantly the thickness of the steel involved in the structural failure at all 3 sites.

911truth.org - registered via proxy
physics911.net - registered via proxy
loosechange911.com - registrant company name only
fromthewilderness.com - registrant company name only
st911.org - private registration

the sites u listed do provide contact info

http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=about#steering
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/contact.shtml
http://st911.org/
loosechange911.com - no response

Right?

edit: btw, 911myths.com does have contact info. Maybe you just haven't found it.

Of course, your intention wasn't to contact them, was it?
It was to attack their credibility based on having their domain registered anonymously, rather than offer any rational arguments about what the site actually contains.

meh

Sorry, but you didn't edit your post in time. I'm reproducing it here so that you may point out anything resembling a reasoned rebuttal to my reply, which was on the subject which you originally brought up, rather than on you as a person.

obviously you take this a little more seriously than i.. lol

which results in giving them too much credit, which leads to me being blindsided by someone who only wants to have a bull session, rather than a meaningful conversation. I won't make the same error with you again.

Strange

the page. It fell backward and the evidence is on the bottom.

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

Watch the video debunker. Watch it again, and again, and again and......... It fell straight down.

The fact that the remains ended up within the building's foot print is further evidence.

Not once

Not twice

But three times it occurred on 9/11.

with passengers totally disintegrated.

Some examples are the McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and
Sound Theater in Pennsylvania. The theater was fire protected using
drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse
after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a
pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-
framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20
minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's
largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses
to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were
unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection
due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the
original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in
Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small
electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a

WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the
fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure
to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not
only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire
Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also
discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than
Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer
who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in < >
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of
the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and
resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for
the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns...
The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance
building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on
all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-
hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which
was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment,
was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a
height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall
to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine
offices core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator
that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the
sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the
stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was
hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead.
The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal
of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved
striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on
protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the
storage area. modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If
striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it
imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500°
F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and
hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into
the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby
fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the
elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in
the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the
storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection
during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to
continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area
beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation,
leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered
unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten
minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are
susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant
extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams,
the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and
contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story
office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the
same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's
steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were
worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours
of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a
structural engineer and structural damage observed by units
operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors." http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed
building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse
entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in
in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4
volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed
about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

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

over 10 stories tall? What's that you say? One, and it didn't collapse. OK got it, thanks for the waste of bandwidth.

The keyword here is partial. Why not point out a real example that involves a full symmetrical collapse without explosives?

Can't find one? Gee, I wonder why.

THE LEASE HAS AN ALL-IMPORTANT ESCAPE CLAUSE: IF THE BUILDINGS ARE STRUCK BY "AN ACT OF TERRORISM," THE NEW OWNERS' OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE ARE VOID

If it is, it seems Silverstein isn't taking that option. Odd clause, IMO, if it is in the lease Larry was more aware of, or at least more concerned about, the threats to his newly acquired (leased) real estate than our own government.

Paul and Hoffman add that "Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that 'THE LEASE HAS AN ALL-IMPORTANT ESCAPE CLAUSE: IF THE BUILDINGS ARE STRUCK BY "AN ACT OF TERRORISM," THE NEW OWNERS' OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE ARE VOID. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings...destroyed and damaged in the attacks.' " (The American Reporter's article was titled "No Fraud, but Huge Profits Seen in World Trade Center Attacks.") <8>

Link here, you have to scroll down to "THE WTC'S CHANGE TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP--JUST WEEKS BEFORE 9/11 "
http://newjersey.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/10242.shtml

So, I think it is real. I saw that when I was hunting around, too.

"By Norma Cohen, Property Correspondent, in London - Sep 14 2001 19:18:26
>FT.COM
>
>The owners of the demolished World Trade Center in lower Manhattan
>acquired the buildings just two months ago under a 99-year lease allowing
>them to walk away from their investment in the event of "an act of terrorism".
>...
>Neither of the buyers would comment on terms of the lease, but such a
>clause would be considered reasonable for the purchase of a building that
>had already seen a terrorist bombing and was considered a possible future
>target.
>The lease document is understood to spell out certain conditions under
>which the lessees could walk away from their obligation to spend $200m in
>capital improvements and pay annual rental charges.
>It is understood that the buildings are insured for more than $3bn, enough
>to cover rebuilding costs.
>However, an executive connected to the buyers said: "Ultimately, the
>decision will be made by politicians. It is a state and federal government
>decision about whether or not to rebuild on the site..."
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00162.html

especially since the WTC had already been a terror target in 1993.

What's appalling is how they write these clauses, allowing everyone to escape responsibility, but unfortunately it is perfectly legal.

What is interesting is the timing of when the transfer of ownership occurred. Very convenient it seems? I'd love to know more about the circumstances surrounding this 'deal' because everything about 9-11 stinks.

considerably. They would not be liable for many things that they would otherwise be liable for had the tragic "terrorism acts" not occurred.
And, yes, I agree the significance is the time factor and that they chose Silverstein for the lease over someone who was actually more qualified stating "complications".

Instead, the insurance pays him $5 billion, more than the cost of the building's lease for the next 99 years, which was $3.2 billion. IOW free rent. I'm not sure about the loss on WT 7, but I'm certain he's compensated for the loss here. He only put down $14 mil of his own cash, BTW.

"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history. <2>"

The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money <3>. Silverstein was also given the right to rebuild the structures, should they be destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein


There are $8 billion in bonds sold to pay for part of the rebuilding, Silverstein will get a chunk of this "cheap financing", because he gave up rights to two of the five planned buildings. He's keeping the more profitable sites.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm

They re-negotiated his lease. In the new lease contract the government (fed, state, and city) has promised to occupy 1 million square feet of office space. He agreed to pay more for this privilege.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003331273

Only a fool would have involved him, and I have to give more credit to the only people capable of MIHOP than that. (I have to hold on to this belief or large parts of my personal world come crashing to the ground :P) But, I must say, that man has damn good reason to keep his mouth shut, smile, and say yes.

He was paid $861 million for the lost building. The debt on the property is around $383 million.
Yeah, I agree on his "involvement", but I can see why he didn't want an investigation and just quietly cancelled the 9-11 meeting that his company was planning without asking too many questions.
There might be more to him than meets the eye, and i've read about "connections", but I don't want to get into that and the accusations that go along with it.:eyes:

He'll be lucky to make 3 billion. Especially since he is in ver heavy court cases with the insurance complany.

And why would the insurance company fight him so hard on to save 3 billion and not want to save the other three? That doesn't make sense either.

But even if he mad a profit on the attackes why would the fireman lie for him? Why would they put a transit on the building and say they knew from that test it was going to fall?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041206-103129-7334r.htm

situation now than he could have ever been without 911. There is no way he could be the leaseholder on brand new buildings on some of the most if not the most valuable property in NYC. Let's say the old WTC was demolished by conventional means and the brand new buildings were up for sale. There is no way Silverstein would be a contender.

I'm not sure if the rest of your post is directed to me. Fireman? I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you meant this for someone else.

Maybe this is old news, but I didn't know any of this:
(I think Silverstein's close relation with Israeli politicians is interesting because the US was warned about 9-11 from Israel, could they have warned him too? I can't imagine they would not have unless intelligence doesn't communicate with politicians. And, of course, Silverstein did cancel the 911 meeting in the WTC at the last minute.)
Excerpts:
"...Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this
week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster."

"Many Israeli politicians are acquainted in one degree or another with
the 70-year-old Silverstein. For 10 years, he tried to bring
about the establishment of a free-trade zone in the Negev,..."
"Harry Miller, a Vietnam War veteran, sued Silverstein, who owned the
Runway 69 dance club in Queens, for his alleged involvement in the
trafficking of heroin."
This is the lawsuit: http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/miller.htm
it was dismissed as "frivolous", but you got to wonder what Silverstein
was doing with a dance club called "Runway 69"? In the suit Captain Miller, says that they
were using Runway 69 as a MONEY LAUNDERING joint for heroin from Laos.
Money laundering comes up again with Silverstein in something else from the article.
It was dismissed and it also included Clinton and Nixon (!), but if you've
read Michael Ruppert then it really isn't that unbelievable. I'd guess something was going
on at "Runway 69".

The article emphasizes how eager he was to get the wtc contract.

"The Israeli political world got to know Silverstein when he tried to create a
free-trade zone in the country. He became friendly with Yitzhak Rabin,
Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon.
Ahaz Ben Ari, ..., remembers Silverstein as being "not easy to deal with,
a hot-tempered type who spoke aggressively to the prime minister...." (How did a guy who was born into a lower class sounding family and owned a dance club called "Runway 69" have this kind of clout with these guys?)

Criticism of "free trade zones":
"...Peres and Beilin objected: Free-trade zones of the kind envisaged were usually created
in the Third World and had the reputation of being slave markets. The local workers
earn starvation wages, while the entrepreneurs enjoy full tax exemption and make high
profits. "
..."I told them that in the end, the zone would become a MONEY-LAUNDERING center and that
no one apart from lawyers would make a profit from it."

So, what kind of guy is Silverstein?

More at:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

He could be the antichrist himself but that isn't evidence the buildings were brought down by explosives planted by him.

Obviously anyone can sue anyone for anything. What happened to the case is what's important.

"Because Miller's appeal is frivolous, we affirm the decision of the district court."

This guy could be just another in a long line of nut cases/con men conspiracy theorist rely on for evidence. If you have money you usually get sued for something.

Even the story you linked to calls this a "bizarre suit".

One of the wealthiest Jews in America knows Netanyahu. This doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me if he didn't.

I see nothing which ties him to explosives or conspiring with fireman to blow up the towers.

I think a more reasonable response would be to want to know more.

"I see nothing which ties him to explosives or conspiring with fireman to blow up the towers."
Who said he "conspired with firemen to blow up the towers"? Another straw man and YOU are always talking about "faults in logic". I'm sure he didn't have to get his hands dirty at all on the demolition.
I thought it was interesting in the article when the employee said Silverstein was "shaking" after 9-11, then two days later he was pushing for the new buildings to be built, hmmm..fast recovery. Shaking sounds like something people do when they are scared of getting caught, IMO. Not the typical response for 911.
This article is "pro Silverstein" and he still comes out looking suspicious. I wonder what a "real" investigation would uncover. He's gone from a strip club owner to a mover and shaker in Israeli and US politics and the owner of buildings on the most valuable real estate in NYC. Chutzpah? or something else?
I stated that the lawsuit was thrown out. But did the guy who brought the suit pull Silverstein's name out of a hat? I'm sure there must have been some connection of Runway 69 to heroin or drugs. There is a lot of information connecting the US involvement in the middle east to heroin, if you have ever read Michael Ruppert or the pulitzer prize winning Gary Webb whose career was destroyed for his expose on the CIA and heroin. There are also connections to the Florida flight schools and heroin,and money laundering, hmmm, where have we heard that before? It's not the kind of news that shows up on cable news channels. Lots of coincidences, lots of coincidences...

I've noticed you do that a lot with others as well.

I did want to know more...

"I see nothing which ties him to explosives or conspiring with fireman to blow up the towers."

Do you have something?

sold the buildings. They were full and Trump would have sold his mother for them. He still wants the property today.

When a married person dies and they just finished getting life insurance the year before, do you automatically suspect the spouse is a murderer? I usually need much more than that.

"When a married person dies and they just finished getting life insurance the year before, do you automatically suspect the spouse is a murderer
Actually it does go through my mind until I see evidence to the contrary.

in your eyes before they are proved innocent?

suspicious circumstances warrant investigation, 9-11 should have a "real" investigation.

3) It wasn't on fire. 4) It wasn't damaged. 5) It was loaded with asbestos like the Twin Towers. 6) The insurance companies would rather pay to replace it than pay untold billions in individual asbestosis awards. 7) Larry is just a middleman but he's still guilty of letting 3,000 WTC tenants fry on 9/11.

1) It wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by heavy columns from the north tower which left a 20 story hole in the south side and the building visibly tilted.

2) He wasn't talking to a demolition expert, he was talking to a fire commander and in the interview larry said "THEY" and not HE made the decision. So at best you can say the fire department made the decision to blow up the building but why would they do that?

3) As I said it was VERY damaged. Fireman on the scene say there was a 20 story hole about a 3rd of the building wide in the south side. There was so much smoke from the fires you couldn't see the south side. Evedince here:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

5) Why couldn't he protect his investments by simply going bankrupt like everyone else? Trump did it and look at him now. Why would the government let Silvertein in on it? Why would Silvertein let the government in on it? How in the world could they have otten together on this? Why would he have to be so dramatic and risk going to jail for life? This isn't like insider trading...

6) See above

7) See above.

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

any more than the WFC, Banker's Trust, Liberty Plaza, Millennium or any other building in the area, including the Verizon and Post Office buildings on either side of it.

In fact several buildings sustained more damage. That "hole" for instance was in the Banker's Trust building, not WTC-7.

Just some questions... Do you think the fireman on the scene were lying? Did they just get lucky by pulling everyone back? Did they ask for a transit to be put on the building and didn't know how to use it? Do you have proof the other buildings had more damage than the south side of 7? The south side of 7 is covered in smoke. How would anyone tell how bad the damage was? How would anyone know more than the fireman who were there and on the job? Are the fireman in the video saying building 7 was going to collapse lying? Why would they lie for Silvertein?

I have searched the internet for the images which back up the claims you are making and I just can't find any.

The building had no visible damage and suddenly it's flat as a pancake. Meanwhile other highrises all around it sustain much worse damage (go look at Banker's Trust a.k.a. Deutsche Bank, which as far as I know is still standing and was never repaired) do what steel-frame buildings are built to do, which is stand.

:shrug:

that you think that because you don't have a readily avalible photo of the south side damage on the internet that it wasn't damaged enough. That's a leap of logic. As if the photo had to be on the internet or it never happened.

You haven't provided evidence that the bankers trust sustained more damage. It sounds to me like you read an internet web site saying so and you believed it. They showed you the north side of B7 while telling you there was no real damage on the south. Why do you think these sites make the claim without showing you photos of the south?

Evidence:

1) I have shown you the firemans quotes saying there was a 20 story hole and the building was tilted.

2) fires on a number of floors visible on the south side (Obviously the building hit on the south so why should anyone expect the north side to show damage?)

3) a firemans video made at the time while fireman were saying the building was going to come down.

4) Other steel framed buildings which fell due to fire (Other high raise buildings conspiracy theorist show are not built the same) http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm

5) There was so much smoke on the south side you can't see it.



That's not a small fire.

Here is a screen shot from the video.



Here is another video...

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

I am showing you evidence, not just making statements. Again, do you have any evidence to back up your statements?

is not a fallacy. Drawing preposterous conclusions from invisible evidence is.

which you haven't provided.

is so silly. They say how ridiculous it is to compare the wtc to the windsor building in Spain, but then they go on to compare the wtc collapse to a theater and a building with no sprinkler system.

which you are leaving out. If someone says they did "what steel-frame buildings are built to do, which is stand" then in that context other steel framed buildings, even theaters or buildings with no sprinklers fits that context. It's dishonest to characterize my post in the context you did.

BTW. the top floors of the towers also didn't have sprinklers. The water main broke which is one of the reasons building 7's fire was left to burn.

In context no other high rise built like the towers was ever hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour, agreed? In context other steel frame buildings besides the towers fell due to fire. STEEL isn't impervious to fire which is why they must be incased in concrete or have fireproofing blown on.

towers' collapses as smoke from WTC7.

The FDNY brass's statements about the structural damage were mutually contradictory,
and unsubstantiated by any photographic evidence. Presumably that's why the FEMA/ASCE
report chose to ignore them and state that the collapse was caused by fire.

If the collapse is so easily explained, how come NIST's final report is six months
overdue?

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html

Why did the buildings of equal or less distance to the towers than building 7 not sustain the same degree of damage?
Do you know for a fact that heavy columns hit building 7? You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you require of everyone else.
If columns did hit it , you have to wonder how they were ejected that far without help of explosives.
Weird how only the wtc buildings were totally demolished.

the amount of damage. It shows what buildings fell and which had damage. It doesn't say anywhere that B7 had more of less damage, only that it collapsed.

Look at this photo. Look at how far the south tower leaned over. It's well over the 400 ft distance B7 was.



Again, B7 was NOT built like bankers trust or any other building in the area other than the towers. There was also a core and perimeter column setup for B7.

None of the other buildings caught fire expect for the short WTC buildings. They don't have the load of a 40 story building over it. Remember that the fires were low.

Also, fireproofing is not rated for more than 3 hours when it's NOT blown off by an airliner. B7 was on fire for 6 hours. I'd say she did a hell of a job standing as long as it did even without the impact.

As you can see from the above photo, the columns LEANED over like a stack of dominos. The building was 1300 ft. B7 was only 400 feet away. Those columns simply peeled open like a banana skin lying on the ground the way you see above. The columns COULDN'T fall straight down because there were standing on other columns. They could only LEAN/pivot out.

Do you think that the OCT is accurate in it's entirely?

It's created by Conspiracy theorist who don't like the fact that they are REAL conspiracy theorist.

But as for building 7 there IS no NIST report yet so I can't comment on it. There is only preliminary reports which are almost always wrong. That's why they are PRELIMINARY and not FINAL.

conspired to crash airplanes into buildings on 9-11 and it is just a "theory" because I haven't seen any one charged in court with the crime except someone who wasn't even involved.
conspiracy +theory= conspiracy theory. Oh, plus it is written up by a government agency that makes it offical, an official conspiracy theory.

and didn't "collapse". Yes, it seems that only the wtc was built to "collapse" that day.
Column damage would not cause a building to fall straight down. wtc7 showed no sign of that kind of damage prior to it's collapse, you are just speculating.

it was "Built to collapse that day"? I know the construction was very different from the average building built at that time but it wasn't built to get hit by a falling building and be on fire for 6 hours. That's the thing about innovation in design. Sometimes it gets tested in ways you don't plan.

If they WERE built to collapse that way, then that would be a feather in the debunker's cap, but I don't know if they were.

they were built to collapse in anyway. According to civil engineers they collapsed the only way they could have.

"some people say"...,"it's common belief that..."

1) It wasn't hit by a plane. - That's the one you got right. It was hit by debris from the towers that were hit by planes.

2) Larry admitted it on TV. - Nonsense. The FDNY knew early on that they could not save the building due to lack of firefighting capability (broken water mains after the planes hit the towers) and they saw the damage to the building and knew by noon that was so badly damaged that it was going to fail.

3) It wasn't on fire. - It most certainly was. There were fires raging through the building for several hours. Most of the television and news photos are taken from the side of the building where it was safe for them to film from, and on that side, the extent of the fires and damage was not visible, but there are many accounts of firefighters on the scene that attest to this.

4) It wasn't damaged. - It most certainly was. See #3. There are various accounts of firefighters on the scene that attest to the extent of the damage and the instability of the building.

5) It was loaded with asbestos like the Twin Towers. - No, there was no asbestos used in the construction of WTC7. It was built between 1984-1987 long after the practice of using asbestos fireproofing had stopped.

6) The insurance companies would rather pay to replace it than pay untold billions in individual asbestosis awards. - Nonsense. There was no asbestos in WTC7, the building was only 14 years old.

7) Larry is just a middleman but he's still guilty of letting 3,000 WTC tenants fry on 9/11. - Do you have any evidence for calling the man a mass murderer? I haven't seen any so far.

By some accounts there was no asbestos left in the twin towers, either, but private testing tells a different story:

A private scientific firm hired by elected officials found up to 79,000 of the most dangerous types of asbestos fibers per square centimeter in the dust in an apartment near Ground Zero. "These dust numbers are extraordinary," says Richard Lee, president of RJLee Group, a materials lab and consulting firm.

--USA Today, 02/06/2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-02-07-usat-asbestos.htm

If you can prove there was no asbestos in WTC-7 go right ahead. :)

When they started building the twin towers in the late 60s, they used asbestos fireproofing. They actually stopped using it partway through construction and switched to non-asbestos fireproofing because it was apparent that it was about to be outlawed for use.

It was, in fact, banned from use in NYC in or around 1971 (the exact year escapes me, but it was definitely early 70s.)

This is not contentious. You can easily look this up yourself.

I don't know where your "By some accounts there was no asbestos left in the twin towers, either" comes from. It has always been there. Sure, they did a big clean up after the bombing in 1993 but, as always with asbestos remediation, the conventional wisdom is not to disturb that which is not exposed or dislodged, but to remediate the exposed areas, etc. They certainly did not tear the building apart to get at all of the still-contained asbestos.

I can't imagine anyone saying that there was no asbestos in the twin towers, because that would be patently untrue as it is a matter of public record.

But just as certainly, nobody would or could construct a building in the mid-late 80s using asbestos, and WTC7 wasn't completed until 1987.

The problem isn't that asbestos was prohibited, it's that they used it anyway in various "reformulations," which helps explain why all that asbestos-coated steel disappeared so fast.

As I say, if you can prove there was no asbestos in WTC 7, go right ahead.

Do tell what those "reformulations" were, and do tell where you get that info from.

Asbestos-free reformulations that weren't so asbestos-free after all. Use your attorney skills to find out all about it.

How about providing some backup for it for a change? Or for once.

Your initial assertion was that WTC7 was full of asbestos (which it wasn't). Now, you say there was an asbestos substitute and you seem to be conceding that there was no asbestos in the building but you haven't come out and said so.

Now you say that there was some other substance used that was equally carginogenic but you haven't identified it or provided any support for your bald assertion/fallback position.

Do you have anything in the way of facts or evidence whatsoever to support your assertion?

I suspect that the answer is "no". So, go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd be delighted.

(We'll get to the to the rest of the 6 of 7 points that you got wrong later)

Prove it and we'll take it from there.

ear, along with the rest of the points (1) through (7) points that you pulled out of your ear in your post #76

I merely responded to your unsupported allegations for the first time in my post #106.

You claimed that WTC7 was full of asbestos. It clearly wasn't. Look it up. Start here: www.google.com

You have yet to provide a scintilla of backup for your assertion.

So... show me what you have that backs up your assertion and I'll show you mine.

Then we'll move on to the rest of your unsupported assertions in points 2 through 7.

a negative. You said there was asbestos or a substitue so logic dictates that you have evidence to back up the statement. Having him prove asbestos wasn't in B7 if it really wasn't is like you trying to get proof the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

Even with damage and fire, buildings made of concrete and steel do not simply collapse completely in seconds. A partial collapse should have been the worst case scenario. The firefighters expected this along with many engineers. Partial collapses are normal. However, for a complete collapse all support columns would need to be affected for it to occur. This principle applies to any structure.

Simple physics.

The great part about these freepers is that they believe reality can be molded by their desire. Their biggest mistake was ignoring the laws of physics and reality. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. If it wasn't for their self-destructive greed or delusions we wouldn't be chatting here.

I have seen the arguments that building damage along with fire caused the collapse. But if you read the reports from the NIST and FEMA the cause of the collapse was a failure of truss number 2. Specifically a splice joint in truss number 2. If this was the case we would see a asymmetrical collapse beginning at that point and leading away from it. This did not occur. The collapse was very symmetrical and your conclusions are correct.

equilateral way. There's no reason for it, especially building 7 when that didn't happen to any of the other buildings which were of a similar distance to the towers.

Depending on your wieght (Say 200lb) and if all 4 wheels are on the ground you may be able to sit on this grocery cart.



However, if you tilt it on it's front or rear wheels and try to sit on it with the same wieght it will collapse. You will fall straight down because one side of the cart can't hold you up long enough to pivot al the way over. As soon as it tilts it becomes unstable.

The building can NOT pivot on just one wall of columns. This is simple physics. You can't expect the columns on the bottom floor on ONE side of the building to hold the wieght of a 47 story building. That's just plan old physics which not even rev Jones can get around. That's why his paper doesn't pass peer review. He has no physics to back up his claims.

The photographic evidence shows the building pivoted to the south.

The Seismic record shows the building took over 17 seconds to fall completely. The building was falling apart from the inside. The actual time my be even longer because some of the building would have absorbed some of the shock.

http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

You are funny.

I wish you were..

The floors were made of steel pans with concrete or possible concrete aggregate poured in.

You know what I mean. The CORE was not concrete steel reinforced as in the madrid tower. It doesn't matter to this discussion what the exact makup was because it doesn't change the outcome either way.

but the only way to figure out what caused the outcome is to understand how the building was designed starting with the core. Which apparently you have some misconceptions regarding the construction of the WTC?

it will pivot on those wheels until it's sitting on four wheels or it will
fall over.

There are NO civl engineers who believe the towers could have tilted that way and all the bolts and connections would have survived. NONE.

"A partial collapse should have been the worst case scenario."

If that would have happened it means the tilt to the south should not have collapsed the whole building. It means the bolts should have held. So while he did not say it in so many words he did create a senarios which needs the bolts not to fail when the buildings tilted.

and whould have fallen off the top of the building.

Conservation of angular momentum.

WTC 7 took much less than 17 seconds.

how long B7 took either. It's only relevant because it couldn't have been LESS than 17 seconds. B7 could have taken 20 seconds for all we know. How many floors could have fallen before the seismic equipment could have recorded it. How many floors could the towers have absorbed before they built up to a point where the seismic equipment could register it. All the videos and such show 14 - 16 seconds for the whole event of a tower. We only had videos from the north of B7 so we don't know exactly how many floors collapsed before the seismic equipment picked it up. It could have been progressively collapsing on it's south side. We both don't have recordings of the south side during collapse so we can't be sure. We can only be sure it was not less than 17 seconds.

So the question is more valid for me to ask you. If B7 took 5-6 seconds what is the 17 seconds of continuous seismic disturbance? Why use the seismic record to prove the towers collapsed (As some conspiracy sites have) at free fall yet dismiss the seismic record when it comes to B7?

Double it. The unreliability of the nearby seismic observations has been much discussed.

the south, We don't know if the building was collapsing on the south side away from the cameras. We don't have south side cameras because everyone was forced out of the area and to the north. The south was to dangerous because they knew it was going to collapse.

I doubt anyone would see much through the smoke anyway.

So it doesn't matter what videos taken to the north show. You are only seeing half the building. The side which wasn't hit and didn't have a 20 story hole.

north. Interesting theory. Since there's no eyewitness testimony to that effect, I
consider it unlikely.

The "smoke" you're talking about was the dust from the collapses of the towers.
I don't believe there's any large amount of smoke at 5:25 when the collapse takes
place.

I can find out how long. I have video that shows the full collapse, rather than the the half-collapse where it falls behind the other building. I will happily get a time-coded video together for it, then we can see precisely how long it was, and disabuse ourselves of these questions. Perhaps we can find something to agree on there. ;)

I have still photos of 7 before collapse, and after it was struck and on fire, from the south side. There was not enough damage to cause floor collapse, and the building falls from the bottom down by the video, very cleanly, it doesn't tilt backward at all.

Even if the south side was completely gone, the north side wouldn't fall symmetrically down like that. What kind of magic are you working here? If it's south side was completely gone, it would fall backward, not straight down. Don't let your search for truth cause you to lose your commonsense, good sir.

I think FEMA actually was the first to use the seismic records to try to come up with a fall time. I guess they should have used the video, too. There were apparently other seismic events going on that day, as well. If you look at all the records you will find them, other than the plane crashes which registered seismic data, that is.

Do you know what happened to building 6, BTW? Can you enlighten me?

See for yourself.

http://s74.photobucket.com/albums/i273/sintisoul/?action=view¤t=wtc7-time.flv

There is a great deal of smoke at the base of the building, notice it's coming only from the bottom, not covering the whole thing. You can clearly see the entire building at the beginning. The penthouse falls in, and shazaam, the whole thing comes down like pick-up-sticks.

As far as the south side -- posts 156, 181, and 182 in this thread clearly show that there was just not that much damage to the south side.

So what is that 17 seconds of seismic disturbance? It's obviously not this building falling, as it's intact to flat in 6-1/2 seconds.

I thought I read earlier that you had a video of the WTC7 collapse that actually shows the bottom of the building but that you had to do some work on lightening it, etc.

Have you finished with your work on it yet? If so, can you please post it here?

I thought I could see the street on the right hand side, it was a good angle, you know. It's close, but not quite. I will have to keep searching. :shrug:

It is not surprising to me that there aren't compelling videos from the other side of the building or that there aren't any showing the bottom of the building, in light of the realities of that day.

I mean by that, that the scene had become a search and rescue scene long before WTC7 fell, so expecting "film at 11" style footage of it would be unexpected, to say the least.

That said, though, you've indicated that you have in your possession some footage that hasn't been seen before ... or at least has not been seen here on DU before.... so can you send it by email, perhaps, if you're not comfortable posting it here?

(Edit: Sinti, you're not suggesting that those posts just above with their cute little fast tracked bits are proof of anything, are you?)

I was hoping some hand-cam, not news ones would be better. But they're wiggly, don't begin at the beginning, and such.

My point above was actually that the fall was faster than 17 seconds... further than that the debris rises above that short building in front at 6-1/2 secs (a little less). I suppose one could argue that the bottom of the building took MUCH longer than the rest of it, but given the speed of descent when it falls behind the others, 6-1/2 is what it's looking like to me. Reasonable men could argue a a couple of seconds, but definitely not 17.

Any idea what might have caused seismic activity for 17 seconds around the time of the fall of 7?

in your #184 which seems incomplete as it does not appear to show the beginning or the end of the collapse; it has no time stamp; it has no sound; and there is no indication whatsoever as to its providence in order to assess its veracity.

That said, I realize that there is a paucity of video out that there is verifiable, so the above is not meant as a criticism.

But I do think that to draw the conclusion that the building fell in 6.5 seconds on the basis of it somewhat dubious.

As for the 17 second seismic activity, I haven't researched that at all, sorry.

Why did the 9/11 Commission completely ignore WTC 7? This was a glaring omission, and it speaks volumes to their real agenda.

investigate the attacks. WTC 7 was not attacked. I don't beleive the 9/11 commission reviewed the collapse of any of the towers.

A steel framed building. This is typical of building impact-collapse behavior.



Another steel framed building, exposed to a lengthy hot fire. This is what we would expect from a steel-framed building. Look at the bend and sag in that one.



WTC 3: Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch3.pdf

OTOH WTC 7: A steel-framed building, Falls to the ground in the style of a controlled demolition?

This is the south-east side that everyone says was so damaged and on fire.



At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed, sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time.

Figure 5-14 is an aerial photograph that shows the debris clouds spreading around WTC 7 just after the collapse of WTC 1. Figure 5-15 is a photograph of WTC 1 debris between the west elevation of WTC 7 and the Verizon building. Figure 5-12(B) shows a plan-view diagram approximating the extent of this debris just after the collapse of WTC 1.

It does not appear that the collapse of WTC 1 affected the roof, or the east, west, and north elevations of WTC 7 in any significant way. However, there was damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 at approximately floors 8 to 20, 24, 25, and 39 to 46, as shown in Figure 5-16, a photograph taken from West Street

:shrug: I guess some of us are just skeptical on this one.

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

though, unless it was "typical" that large jetliners plowed into buildings, caused said buildings to spew all manner of debris over a huge area, damaging them in the process, cut off firefighting capability, etc. etc. etc.?

See the obvious logical disconnect between the words used and the reality of the date in question?

In your post, you included a photo with the caption "This is the south-east side that everyone says was so damaged and on fire."

My understanding, however, is that the damage people have been describing was on the southWEST side.

For instance, further down in that same post, you quote this: "However, there was damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 at approximately floors 8 to 20, 24, 25, and 39 to 46..."