WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/126978082/911-Mysteries-Part-1-Demolitions-2006-Transcript
Scott Forbes, an IT specialist in a firm that had leased space in the South Towersince its erection, reported an unprecedented “power down” in his building foralmost the whole weekend prior to 9/11.Scott Forbes: “We were notified three weeks in advance of the power down bythe Port Authority. That was relatively short notice to plan to shut down all of ourbanking systems. It was a big deal. It was unprecedented. We had a datacenter on the 97th floor, so our originating servers were all there. During thatweekend, the power down meant there was no security. The doors were allopen, basically. And also, the security video cameras were all off. But, there were guys in overalls carrying huge toolboxes and reels of cable ... walkingaround the building on that weekend.”1:06:35Employees were notified that Internet cables were being upgraded. But whowere the strange workmen and what were they really doing?1:06:49William Rodriguez: “All the power was shut down. If there was a power down,that meant that everything was gone in terms of security -- in terms of access tothe building -- so anybody could have come there and done any kind of set-up.”1:07:07Having worked overtime to get his company’s servers back up, Scott took theday off on September 11th. As he watched the towers collapse from New Jerseythat morning, he was sure this had been the purpose of the mysterious weekendwork. Scott notified many authorities, including the 9/11 Commission, about theunusual and lengthy power outage, but was ignored. 1:07:34Ben Fountain of Fireman’s Fund spoke of unusual evacuations ordered at the Twin Towers during the weeks before September 11th. Others reported that thesecurity alert was inexplicably lifted five days prior, and bomb-sniffing dogs wereremoved. What would the dogs have discovered had they remained on duty?

URBAN RENEWAL
1:08:03Not long after the disaster, Lower Manhattan saw banners like this one:1:08:11Although they were idolized as cathedral-like symbols of power and triumph thatpierced the New York skyline, the Twin Towers were big money-losers for thePort Authority of New York. They cost millions a year to equip with the basics –electricity, water, heat, air-conditioning, sewage and even oxygen -- beingairtight. As modern communications connected traders from all corners of theglobe, tenancy in the Twin Towers continued to drop. Text: ... a financial misfit, unsuited to fiber-optic and Internet technologies ... analbatross – John Perkins, Author, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man1:08:44The towers presented another problem. Decades ago, their steel beams hadbeen sprayed with fireproof asbestos -- a cancer-causing material banned fromuse in building in the mid-1980s. Although the World Trade Center complex wasgiven several waivers, it was expected to “clean up its act.”1:09:05But to remove the asbestos from every supporting beam in the Twin Towerswould have been almost undoable. Quotes for this clean-up ran over a billion,and no insurance company was willing to bear the cost. An urban renewalproject of unfathomable proportions
Content from External Source
 
You would not have to do any explaining if the official explanation was solid.

No matter how obvious the situation there are always people who don't believe. I give you the Flat Earth Society. The majority believe the official explanation of the world being round is solid but they insist it isn't. According to some and despite the official explanation, Elvis is still alive. The world s 6000 years old. Planet X is hiding behind the sun......

Need more examples?

Changing ingrained beliefs has very little to do with the logic of ANY conflicting explanation presented as long as people are predisposed to not believe that explanation for whatever their reason may be. Those reasons include, but are not limited to, religion and distrust of whichever entity is offering the explanation.

In the end no matter what, in my opinion the whole thing boils down to what one is willing to accept based on their system of beliefs. Presenting facts and explanations is secondary to whatever that system dictates to the believer because everything is tainted by that system.
 
I think it's pretty solid now. But I fear no matter what, some people would not be satisfied.

Mick, I think there's such a pervading distrust of government, that many embrace anything contrary to what the government purports. Alex Jones has been proved wrong time and again, yet his following continues to increase. Why? Because he's very adept at exploiting the anti-establishment sentiment. If people utilized the same tools and initiated the same effort to debunk Jones' conspiratorial theories as they do to the shoot holes in the party line, I think many would wake up. They've drastically lowered their level of scrutiny because they WANT to believe Jones and company. It fits their paradigm. And we all know that when hardened conclusions are imposed on the evidence, truth will be almost impossible to locate.
 
Mick, I think there's such a pervading distrust of government, that many embrace anything contrary to what the government purports. Alex Jones has been proved wrong time and again, yet his following continues to increase. Why? Because he's very adept at exploiting the anti-establishment sentiment. If people utilized the same tools and initiated the same effort to debunk Jones' conspiratorial theories as they do to the shoot holes in the party line, I think many would wake up. They've drastically lowered their level of scrutiny because they WANT to believe Jones and company. It fits their paradigm. And we all know that when hardened conclusions are imposed on the evidence, truth will be almost impossible to locate.

Bravo!
 
The total Iraq war casualties range in the 100 000's.
The US leaders before the war knew that would be the probable outcome casualty wise.
I know Saddam and his regime were beasts and it's good they are gone but try to remember that figure
when you defend the Bush administration from any 9/11 involvement.
 
The total Iraq war casualties range in the 100 000's.
The US leaders before the war knew that would be the probable outcome casualty wise.
I know Saddam and his regime were beasts and it's good they are gone but try to remember that figure
when you defend the Bush administration from any 9/11 involvement.

Nobody is trying to defend anyone, least of all defend Bush. I'm seeking the truth.

The Bush administration obviously used 9/11. That does not mean they caused it. Lots of people used it.
 
The total Iraq war casualties range in the 100 000's.
The US leaders before the war knew that would be the probable outcome casualty wise.
I know Saddam and his regime were beasts and it's good they are gone but try to remember that figure
when you defend the Bush administration from any 9/11 involvement.

A) I'm not defending them at all. Becoming involved in Iraq was stupid. Of course you never actually asked me.....
B) Afganstan was the result of 9/11, not Iraq, and you'll remember after the initial Afghan war was over and the Taliban routed it became largely forgotten until President Obama decided it was the REAL war during the 2007 campaign.
C) We didn't go into Iraq until 2003 and that was supposedly because of WMDs.

Therefore, based on the facts, your linkage statement is generally incorrect.
 
Nobody is trying to defend anyone, least of all defend Bush. I'm seeking the truth.

The Bush administration obviously used 9/11. That does not mean they caused it. Lots of people used it.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste!" Rahm Emanuel COS to Barack Obama. Should we defend him too perhaps? Or not?

Does this show that the present administration has,in this case, essentially the same philosophy as the one it replaced?
 
It's hard to see all the trillions being thrown around nowadays...
And to know that the answers to all 9/11 questions would only cost 3 billion a desolate test range and a few planes...
It would seem a small cost given how the event shaped the world.
 
It's hard to see all the trillions being thrown around nowadays...
And to know that the answers to all 9/11 questions would only cost 3 billion a desolate test range and a few planes...
It would seem a small cost given how the event shaped the world.

But it would not satisfy everyone, so what's the point?
 
But it would not satisfy everyone, so what's the point?
It would remove many doubts . . . prove to many doubters that the government cares and is tarnsparent . . . have you looked at their approval ratings lately . . . I guess they would rather hire a PR firm for a couple billion . . . ;)
 
It would remove many doubts . . . prove to many doubters that the government cares and is tarnsparent . . . have you looked at their approval ratings lately . . . I guess they would rather hire a PR firm for a couple billion . . . ;)

It would also make millions of people very angry that they would waste $3 billion on something where the science is essentially settled.
 
The thought of the twin towers standing there for 30 years only 2 airplanes strikes away from
total disintegration somehow doesn't ring true to me.
 
The thought of the twin towers standing there for 30 years only 2 airplanes strikes away from
total disintegration somehow doesn't ring true to me.

Because it is not. They withstood the plane strikes. The fire is what brought them down after being weakened by the plane strikes.
 
It would remove many doubts . . . prove to many doubters that the government cares and is tarnsparent . . . have you looked at their approval ratings lately . . . I guess they would rather hire a PR firm for a couple billion . . . ;)

Nope. Given the CT mindset all it would do is engender more anti-government conspiracy theories about faked tests. Face it and accept it, it's gone as far as it's gonna go. It's over.

However......It has been suggested that myth busters take a whack at this. Of course no one who really believes has bothered to get off their tails and actually contact them about it, so just as a favor to all of the armchair believers out there, I will. I'll keep you informed.
 
The thought of the twin towers standing there for 30 years only 2 airplanes strikes away from
total disintegration somehow doesn't ring true to me.

It's not like fully loaded planes slamming into them both at full speed on the same day was something that was just waiting to happen at the drop of a hat. A single plane hitting by accident would be extraordinarily unlikely.

Yes, they were vulnerable to those specific events. Yes, there are design changes that could have made them safer. But it's not like they were these fragile things just waiting to collapse.
 
Nope. Given the CT mindset all it would do is engender more anti-government conspiracy theories about faked tests. Face it and accept it, it's gone as far as it's gonna go. It's over.

However......It has been suggested that myth busters take a whack at this. Of course no one who really believes has bothered to get off their tails and actually contact them about it, so just as a favor to all of the armchair believers out there, I will. I'll keep you informed.
I know . . . I made the suggestion . . . It would be best coming from a pilot . . . go for it . . .
 
I have already shown you verified WTC 7 steel. I would expect an investigation into the total collapse of a building to find and test the structural steel.

So what exactly is your explanation for this omission? And why?

The limited metallurgical examination was not completely sure the metal was from WTC-7

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.
Content from External Source
NIST apparently had higher standards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thought of the twin towers standing there for 30 years only 2 airplanes strikes away from
total disintegration somehow doesn't ring true to me.

They didn't disintegrate!

"
They collapsed in an​
uncontrolled
[emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site."​
 
It would also make millions of people very angry that they would waste $3 billion on something where the science is essentially settled.
Yeah . . . Like they don't waste billions every day on worse . . .
 
I know . . . I made the suggestion . . . It would be best coming from a pilot . . . go for it . . .

OK but before I do I'd like some input from any interested parties at to what criteria the yet should have such that if they do undertake the test there won't be any protestations of "But they didn't......"

You have 24 hours people.
 
OK but before I do I'd like some input from any interested parties at to what criteria the yet should have such that if they do undertake the test there won't be any protestations of "But they didn't......"

You have 24 hours people.

1) for safety reasons 1,000 feet above ground is probably too low . . . but need it credible, say 2,000 to 3,000 feet . . .?
2) light beams or laser columns with equipment capable of detecting a hit, speed and altitude . . . spaced at same dimensions as the towers . . .
3) need to hit three of four passes . . . at 500 plus mph . . .
4) pilot needs adequate skill not to kill themselves and others . . . maybe two sets of four approaches . . . One set with experienced pilot and on set with right seat . . . with 767 or 757 . . .
5) Total of eight pilots (8) . . . only one try per pilot . . . no more . . .
 
The limited metallurgical examination was not completely sure the metal was from WTC-7

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.
Content from External Source
NIST apparently had higher standards.

I posted a link to confirmed WTC 7 steel which you've quoted back (at 671) but evidently didn't bother to click on.
 
1) for safety reasons 1,000 feet above ground is probably too low . . . but need it credible, say 2,000 to 3,000 feet . . .?
2) light beams or laser columns with equipment capable of detecting a hit, speed and altitude . . . spaced at same dimensions as the towers . . .
3) need to hit three of four passes . . . at 500 plus mph . . .
4) pilot needs adequate skill not to kill themselves and others . . . maybe two sets of four approaches . . . One set with experienced pilot and on set with right seat . . . with 767 or 757 . . .
5) Total of eight pilots (8) . . . only one try per pilot . . . no more . . .

Will you accept a simulator?
 
Will you accept a simulator?
If that is all I can get . . . it is at least a start . . . but I would prefer of course The Real McCoy . . .

I guess if it is good enough for NIST . . . It must be as good as reality!!!!:)
 
I posted a link to confirmed WTC 7 steel which you've quoted back (at 671) but evidently didn't bother to click on.

I clicked on a link in #671 which took me back to #489.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that FEMA identified steel from WTC 7 and tested it, including recommendations for further testing?
Content from External Source
I clicked on the link you provided and got the link I posted with the introduction I quoted.
 
I posted a link to confirmed WTC 7 steel which you've quoted back (at 671) but evidently didn't bother to click on.

I'm not sure what the dispute is here?

There are thre pieces of steel that FEMA said were from WTC7.

The "Eroded A36 wide-flange beam" is only THOUGHT to be from WTC7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

The other two were photographed at the dump site, but seem to have been disposed of. They did not look like they had similar effects though.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf




 
Last edited:
If that is all I can get . . . it is at least a start . . . but I would prefer of course The Real McCoy . . .


I guess if it is good enough for NIST . . . It must be as good as reality!!!!


Remember: Last I looked a 767 costs about 3k per hour to operate wet and fifteen or so thousand to rent for a few hours. The big problem is insurance. My guess is that no insurance company is gonna let their Baby Boeing scream in on the deck over the desert at 500 knots with a rookie at the stick to prove someone's pet CT.


Best you're gonna get is a sim.......
 
Remember: Last I looked a 767 costs about 3k per hour to operate wet and fifteen or so thousand to rent for a few hours. The big problem is insurance. My guess is that no insurance company is gonna let their Baby Boeing scream in on the deck over the desert at 500 knots with a rookie at the stick to prove someone's pet CT.


Best you're gonna get is a sim.......
Well maybe we can do simulators and suggest a trial with an experienced pilot in a gulf stream and a smaller target . . . or old 707 . . . etc . . .
 
Well maybe we can do simulators and suggest a trial with an experienced pilot in a gulf stream and a smaller target . . . or old 707 . . . etc . . .

Insurance companies will be insurance companies no matter what they're insuring but we'll see,
 
FEMA investigation said:
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event... It is... possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed

but...

Mick said:
The... [two] pieces of steel that FEMA said were from WTC7... seem to have been disposed of.
Mick said:
NIST did not seem to have those two pieces of steel.

Too bad about that detailed study then, eh Mick?

Ah well, it's not important really.
 
bad about that detailed study then, eh Mick?

Ah well, it's not important really.

I think they still have the bit of steel, it's just not entirely clear which building it came from.

Regardless, they don't need the steel for a detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon. I don't know if any more study has been done. I think most people assumed that damage came from the month long fires that burned on the site after collapse.
 
Regardless, they don't need the steel for a detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon.
That's right -- who cares what FEMA said about the steel? I mean, they said it needed further study, but I think we can safely ignore that don't you?

I think most people assumed that damage came from the month long fires that burned on the site after collapse.
Yes, that's what I said earlier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignore it? No. But they said "A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed"

That's not quite the same as saying the steel itself needed further study.

Ah -- well when you put it like that, I see exactly what you mean Mick -- no reason to analyse the WTC 7 steel at all.

Ha ha. Silly old FEMA and their recommendations about the weird steel that NIST lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top