posted May 15, 2008 01:59 AM            

Replay a few times and notice:

The roofs dips inward
Explosions are visible running up on the right side
Explosions are visible in the front
Simultaneous symmetrical collapse (all joints fail atthe same time)
Falls at free-fall speed
Falls into its own footprint without damagingsurrounding buildings

About Building 7
http://www.wtc7.net/

Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

Halfway through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

NIST released a photograph in 2005 showing a large gouge in the lower portion of the southwest corner of Building 7, and its collapse scenario deviates significantly from FEMA's in emphasizing alleged structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. That photograph is notable for its lack of corroboration, and NIST's claims of other regions of damage to the building's south face lack substantiating evidence. Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely.

The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1 This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.
Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep.
(Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2 ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

References

posted May 15, 2008 02:02 AM            

Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse
The survival of several video recordings of Building 7's collapse, though of low resolution, allow study of the building's motion and the time of collapse.

Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.

video broadcast by CBS - 1.4MB - mpeg
This 36-second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.
video from an NBC news camera - 1.5MB - mpeg
This 9-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.
video broadcast on CBS - 1.7MB - mpeg
This 9.6-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.

posted May 15, 2008 02:04 AM            

Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building

What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

posted May 15, 2008 02:07 AM            

FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6

FACT 3: WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th. It had been evacuated after the planes hit the towers. By the afternoon of September 11th, there were a few small fires of unknown origin evident in the building, and these small fires could be seen in only a few of the hundreds and hundreds of windows in the building.7

FACT 4: On September 11, 2001, at 5:20PM, EDT, World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly and rapidly collapsed. Beginning with the penthouse, all 47 stories of it imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Three different videos of Building 7’s vertical collapse – two from CBS video broadcasts, and one from an NBC news camera – can be seen online at http://wtc7.net/videos.html.

FACT 5: On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.

“WTC 7’s rubble pile continued to smolder for months.”9

FACT 6: Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor’s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence – the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators – is illegal. He also issued a “call to action”. To quote excerpts:

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions … is on the slow boat to China …”

“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”

“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half baked farce [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members – described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’ – no one’s checking evidence for anything.”

“The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

“Firefighters, this is your call to action. …contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.” 10 11

FACT 7: In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time.”12

FACT 8: The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:

It “dropped directly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;

It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;

“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”;

“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and

“WTC 7’s rubble was mostly confined to the block on which the building stood.”13

FACT 9: “Larry Silverstein is a rather large player within the realms of 21st Century real estate, finance, and politics.”14 He “…had taken out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11. In a PBS documentary entitled ‘America Rebuilds’, originally aired in September of 2002, Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:

‘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.’” 15 16

FACT 10: “It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead.”17

FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [Stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

In summation: A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. This was the sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:

posted May 15, 2008 03:28 AM            

I read the page you posted and viewed the videos.

The fires are visible on only two floors, and only on one side of the builing.
I dont see an extensive gauge; just some damage to the southwest corner, which the building's distribution was designed to withstand.
The author of the webpage says: "we can't know how wide the hole is on the bottom floors.."
and he admits that the photo he submits as evidence of damage is being used by conspiracy theorists as evidence that the damage was not extensive.
He admits: "Yes, I can't find a photo which shows more damage to the south side,".

According to Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."
This "bulge" is a far cry from the 20 story gaping hole reported by Boyle, the only witness making such a claim.

Moving on...

The article reads:
"So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above."

Is this the best they've got?

The concentrated fields they draw around the twin towers overlap WTC buildings 4, 5, and 6,
while WTC7 is outside of this direct line, and buildings 4, 5, and 6 did not fall,
despite receiving the most direct hits of the debris.
WTC6 is clearly interposed between the towers and WTC7, though it is shorter.

"Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires probably more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 6 did not collapse.
WTC 6 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. FEMA, the agency charged with investigating the disaster, did not collect any data on this building."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html

The Banker's Trust Building, located within the direct debris zone, shows a superficial gauge.
The damage to WTC7 could not have been nearly so extensive, due to its location outside the direct debris zone,
and the fact that the twin towers fell into their own footprints (a fact which is undisputed).

The tape of the worker talking about pulling building 6 has nothing to do with WTC7.
Silverstein's own explaination of his comment to "pull" was that he meant they should pull out the firefighters.
So the notion that it concerned the method of demolition used to bring down building 6 is plainly mistaken.
Silverstein himself said it was about "pulling" the firemen out, but there were no firemen in WTC7!
So here we see the need to invent some other way to explain his comment.
The quote from Richard Banaciski states that they were not in WTC7, but in the Verizon building,
while the quote from Silverstein's spokesperson refers to WTC7 and "the building"; pressumably WTC7.

Even if the firefighters or others had foreknowledge of the collapse,
and were taken out of harm's way, for that reason,
it does not do anything to help your case, but, rather, just the opposite,
because foreknowledge of the collapse would have been a given if it was an inside job,
and they could easily have made the choice to "pull" the men because they wanted to demolish it,
and they would have hoped to remove possible witnesses in the area, not possible casualties.
And if WTC7 was not pre-rigged for demolition, they would have encouraged its destruction by the means used on WTC6, --
again, not for the purpose of saving lives, but for the purpose of removing evidence.
In other words, one way or another, they knew they were going to bring that building down.

quote:

---

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

---

Indeed.

The most important questions pertain to the 9/11 Commission Report.
Evidence was removed from the site, and the investigation was faulty on numerous levels.
Not only are many of the events of 9/11 unnecessarily ambiguous on account of this incompetence,
but, virtually no investigation was conducted into the events preceeding and following the attack.

posted May 15, 2008 03:30 AM            

Didnt see you there.

You know how it is: man on a mission and everything.

posted May 15, 2008 04:15 AM            

It just could not be any more obvious.

I understand, however, why some are so resistant to what is so obvious, and I can't blame them for it, as I often wish that I could not see what is staring me in the face in this regard. The implications are just too disturbing for the average person to deal with.

So, when is the next game? Who is going to be voted off the island next? Which star is dancing the best? And isn't this election season just fascinating?

Americans just love koolaid.

posted May 15, 2008 08:24 AM              

Short clip- please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZtqKiidlo

In detail:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294

To read:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/240605officialstory.htm