Quantcast

STFU 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts!!!!!!!

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
This settles it! (NOT!)

Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, August 21, 2008

(08-21) 15:10 PDT Gaithersburg, Md. (AP) --

Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006.

A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."

___

On the Net:

National Institute of Standards and Technology: www.nist.gov/

9/11 Truth: www.911truth.org/
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.
The building fell at free fall and directly on to its footprint, I find it hard to believe that falling debris could cause a building to collapse like that at that speed. You also don't need much at all in the way of explosives to take a building like that out, blow out 10 or so critical beams and bingo there goes the building
Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.
The government would never put diesel fuel in a building like that, there were IRS,secret service, and CIA offices. I call strait up bull**** on that claim that there was gas in the building.
 

Straya

Monkey
Jul 11, 2008
868
3
Straya
The building fell at free fall and directly on to its footprint, I find it hard to believe that falling debris could cause a building to collapse like that at that speed.
Falling debris did consist of a world trade centre building, its a fair amount of debris.

You also don't need much at all in the way of explosives to take a building like that out, blow out 10 or so critical beams and bingo there goes the building
Yeah agree with that, it is easy to control demo a building like you mention. But the question I ask is if it was a conspiracy why bother with taking out a pissy little building like that when the 2 towers are what are going to achieve your aims? More risks (seen putting the explosives in etc) for bugger all gain if the two towers go down anyway.
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
Yeah agree with that, it is easy to control demo a building like you mention. But the question I ask is if it was a conspiracy why bother with taking out a pissy little building like that when the 2 towers are what are going to achieve your aims? More risks (seen putting the explosives in etc) for bugger all gain if the two towers go down anyway.
I think they took out that pissy little building because there were some files that the government needed to get rid of.

They also pulled security at world trade center 7 in order to do some "maintenance" a month before 9/11
 

Straya

Monkey
Jul 11, 2008
868
3
Straya
I think they took out that pissy little building because there were some files that the government needed to get rid of.

They also pulled security at world trade center 7 in order to do some "maintenance" a month before 9/11
So they can sneak the people and explosives into the building and mastermind the entire 9/11 thing but they cant remove some pieces of paper from the same building and destroy them?

(I hope that doesn't come across as rude, if you believe in this stuff but I'm sceptical as you can probably guess)
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
The building fell at free fall and directly on to its footprint, I find it hard to believe that falling debris could cause a building to collapse like that at that speed. You also don't need much at all in the way of explosives to take a building like that out, blow out 10 or so critical beams and bingo there goes the building.
I love how everyone is an expert in building demolition on the Internet. It's one of the more obscure areas of explosives employment.

The best is when people talk about squib signatures (ie, dust blowing out of vents) or thermite used to cut columns (which can't cut horizontally). And I'm nowhere near an expert , mind you. I have, however, been trained a lot of stuff, including basic employment and detailed post-blast investigation, so I have enough experience to call out uninformed opinions when I see them.

But we've all seen pics of buildings being brought down, and this had a similar appearance, so it's gotta be it!!

The government would never put diesel fuel in a building like that, there were IRS,secret service, and CIA offices. I call strait up bull**** on that claim that there was gas in the building.
Now I need to straight, flat-out call you an idiot.

You know NOTHING about which you speak. You're simply inventing bull**** to blather about on the Internet.
 

J-Dubs

Monkey
Jul 10, 2006
702
0
Salem, MA
Diesel fuel is an essential part of emergency backup and support systems.

I work for the EPA Emergency Planning and Response Branch.

Diesel is used everywhere it is permitted by building codes.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
I would like to go on the record as stating that I believe 2 planes hit the twin towers. Nothing struck WTC7, except debris from the other 2 buildings.

I am glad that NIST spent almost 7 years investigating the WTC7 issue. 7 years to determine that FIRE caused the collapse. 7 years to learn that a relatively low temperature fire could cause a symmetrical collapse due to thermal expansion.

That is 7 years that has gone by where a fire in any other large span building could have caused a similar collapse. Aren't you glad your government is working so hard to protect you?

Then again, such a collapse has never occurred before, and hasn't happened since... :bonk:

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event...
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Then again, such a collapse has never occurred before, and hasn't happened since... :bonk:
so your argument boils down to "event X has never happened before nor since, therefore we have evidence of a shady gov't"?

would you feel better if more buildings before or since have fallen?
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,789
1
Claremont, CA
Then again, such a collapse has never occurred before, and hasn't happened since... :bonk:
Does that mean it never happened? I don't think I've heard about the government planting bombs in office buildings since then either.



I can't believe how many otherwise reasonable people believe this conspiracy nonsense.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
so your argument boils down to "event X has never happened before nor since, therefore we have evidence of a shady gov't"?
It's not an argument. Simple statement of fact.

would you feel better if more buildings before or since have fallen?
Nope. I'm just saying that if the government was actually concerned about human life they might have investigated this admittedly extraordinary event in a more timely manner.

IF it could be proven that explosives were involved it would be excellent evidence for MIHOP.

Personally, I lean more toward the LIHOP theory.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
I've heard from several different sources the same thing. Kinda makes you wonder though............
i've also heard from several different sources our gov't gave blacks syphilis in tuskegee, staged the moon landing, and put tracking devices in our currency.

it does indeed make you wonder.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
It's not an argument. Simple statement of fact.
and this is the fly in the ointment w/ you types: there will be a preponderance of a body of (unrelated) evidence, with maybe a dash of sensationalism & "what if" thinking that misguides otherwise (and still) intelligent thinkers into being wooed toward a grander invisible hand at work. a hand which relies heavily on the intractable nature of the human failing to be able to STFU about what must be described as "juicy gossip"
Personally, I lean more toward the LIHOP theory.
is there anything else the gov't let happen before or since? i'm not talking about the overwhelming presence of abortion clinics in urban areas to eradicate minorities. just slightly less ridiculous claims.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
I would like to go on the record as stating that I believe 2 planes hit the twin towers. Nothing struck WTC7, except debris from the other 2 buildings.

I am glad that NIST spent almost 7 years investigating the WTC7 issue. 7 years to determine that FIRE caused the collapse. 7 years to learn that a relatively low temperature fire could cause a symmetrical collapse due to thermal expansion.

That is 7 years that has gone by where a fire in any other large span building could have caused a similar collapse. Aren't you glad your government is working so hard to protect you?

Then again, such a collapse has never occurred before, and hasn't happened since... :bonk:
Yeah because of all the times two 110 story buildings fall after airliners explode into them across the street from a collapsed building, this is the first time there was a symmetrical collapse.

What is your experience about collapses like this?
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Yeah because of all the times two 110 story buildings fall after airliners explode into them across the street from a collapsed building, this is the first time there was a symmetrical collapse.

What is your experience about collapses like this?
Obviously, there is none. 9-11 was a unique event.

And at the same time NIST now states a common occurrence caused an extraordinary outcome. Does this mean that such a thing is impossible? Absolutely not. But what it does mean is that the uniqueness of 9-11 is also not a contributing factor to the collapse. NIST said so themselves. No longer can debunkers use uniqueness as their primary defense of the WTC7 collapse. Now it's just plain old relatively low temperature fire.

A common occurrence that brought about an extraordinary outcome, just like so many other things that day. While the sheer frequency of same on this one day boggles the mind, it certainly does not constitute evidence... just a whole lot of funking unfortunate coincidence.
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
I love how everyone is an expert in building demolition on the Internet. It's one of the more obscure areas of explosives employment.

The best is when people talk about squib signatures (ie, dust blowing out of vents) or thermite used to cut columns (which can't cut horizontally). And I'm nowhere near an expert , mind you. I have, however, been trained a lot of stuff, including basic employment and detailed post-blast investigation, so I have enough experience to call out uninformed opinions when I see them.
But we've all seen pics of buildings being brought down, and this had a similar appearance, so it's gotta be it!![/QUOTE]
I may not be and expert but I have seen a couple films with experts who are calling it a controlled demo. I know about the the dust blowing out the sides of buildings, but that still doesn't explain how all 3 buildings collapsed at freefall. I also don't see how 2 buildings can fall at strait down into them selfs that have huge holes in 1 side, I may be no expert but i find it hard to believe that a building like that could collapse so perfectly with so much more damage one one side compared to the others


Now I need to straight, flat-out call you an idiot.

You know NOTHING about which you speak. You're simply inventing bull**** to blather about on the Internet.
You need to look at more of the facts, there was a whole bunch of shiesty ass **** going down that day, explain to me why EVERY SINGLE plane in the air force was out doing a training mission while the attacks happen. The government has previsions set up to take down rouge aircraft that pose a threat, ESPECIALLY in DC there is an airfoce base in incredibly close proximity. In every other case of a plane doing something totally erratic the airforce was sent up to check things out and make sure everything was under control, this would (or should) be especially true in the DC area.


Oh and another thing I find kind of funny is a couple of the so called "high jackers" appeared on al jazeera on multiple occasions.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
You need to look at more of the facts, there was a whole bunch of shiesty ass **** going down that day, explain to me why EVERY SINGLE plane in the air force was out doing a training mission while the attacks happen.
Could you explain to me how you think every operational plane in the air force, from C-130's to Stealth Bombers, was on a training mission at 9am on 9/11?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
You need to look at more of the facts, there was a whole bunch of shiesty ass **** going down that day, explain to me why EVERY SINGLE plane in the air force was out doing a training mission while the attacks happen. The government has previsions set up to take down rouge aircraft that pose a threat, ESPECIALLY in DC there is an airfoce base in incredibly close proximity. In every other case of a plane doing something totally erratic the airforce was sent up to check things out and make sure everything was under control, this would (or should) be especially true in the DC area.
you're trolling, right? i mean, this is too specific to be unvetted. do you seriously believe this, or are you asserting this? you do know how meticulous the military is about logging flight plans, right?

wow, dude.
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
you're trolling, right? i mean, this is too specific to be unvetted. do you seriously believe this, or are you asserting this? you do know how meticulous the military is about logging flight plans, right?

wow, dude.
I know how how the military is with flight plans, and I also know there is an air base in DC who is responsible for making sure random jet liners that have gone totally off course. I am saying the air force intentionally did nothing to try and bring down those jets. I find it hard to believe that the military knew nothing of what was going on, I am saying they intentionally ignored those hijackings and ALLOWED them to happen. There is just no possible way a jet liner like that could get through security precautions that are in place unless allowed to.


Could you explain to me how you think every operational plane in the air force, from C-130's to Stealth Bombers, was on a training mission at 9am on 9/11?
I'm talking about fighters, they were out on, ironically, anti terrorist training missions over the Atlantic called global guardian.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
I know how how the military is with flight plans, and I also know there is an air base in DC who is responsible for making sure random jet liners that have gone totally off course. I am saying the air force intentionally did nothing to try and bring down those jets. I find it hard to believe that the military knew nothing of what was going on, I am saying they intentionally ignored those hijackings and ALLOWED them to happen. There is just no possible way a jet liner like that could get through security precautions that are in place unless allowed to.
so you see no possible way our military could not respond to one of a hundred aircraft in d.c. airspace with its transponder turned off & flying low at 300 mph over a densely populated area? what would be a reasonable plan for this once-in-a-lifetime event? a war room filled w/ O3's staring at some bank of 52" plasmas showing all aircraft in realtime using some technology other than what's used by ATC; and then once unambiguously determining the threat, push some easy button that launches some ground-to-air missile that never misses & "takes it out" within a few seconds? or maybe a half-dozen fighters in a 20 mile orbit about the district (and all large cities, natch), bristling with air-to-air missiles, flown by hopped up pilots itching to bag their first 757?

so if for a day you were the very model of a modern major general, how exactly would you conduct these ops differently?
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
so you see no possible way our military could not respond to one of a hundred aircraft in d.c. airspace with its transponder turned off & flying low at 300 mph over a densely populated area? what would be a reasonable plan for this once-in-a-lifetime event? a war room filled w/ O3's staring at some bank of 52" plasmas showing all aircraft in realtime using some technology other than what's used by ATC; and then once unambiguously determining the threat, push some easy button that launches some ground-to-air missile that never misses & "takes it out" within a few seconds? or maybe a half-dozen fighters in a 20 mile orbit about the district (and all large cities, natch), bristling with air-to-air missiles, flown by hopped up pilots itching to bag their first 757?

so if for a day you were the very model of a modern major general, how exactly would you conduct these ops differently?
Well for one the air force was ordered to stand down and not send over any jets

As well you are saying that WASHINGTON DC, you know the place were the federal government does not have the technology to spot a low flying passenger plane going strait for the CAPITOL.

Oh and lets not forget all of those images of the radar screens we saw on TV of the planes turning around, the FAA knew right away that those planes were going off course, I find it hard to believe that this the only case in recent history were the FAA did not report something like that happening.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
I know how how the military is with flight plans, and I also know there is an air base in DC who is responsible for making sure random jet liners that have gone totally off course. I am saying the air force intentionally did nothing to try and bring down those jets. I find it hard to believe that the military knew nothing of what was going on, I am saying they intentionally ignored those hijackings and ALLOWED them to happen. There is just no possible way a jet liner like that could get through security precautions that are in place unless allowed to.
Three things you have to consider:

1. Chaos in the air. I bet every air controller and radar operator was scrambling after the first plane hit. I wonder how much clear information the people in charge had.

2. Information about military defenses and training plans. I bet no one without high security clearance has access to military flight information of any type, so whenever someone says "Every plane was doing this" during 9/11, I doubt they really know.

3. You don't think The Twin Towers falling had enough of an effect on American society?

One thing I do wonder about is the effectiveness of anti-aircraft missiles. I always believed there were some type of anti-aircraft weapon on the White House. However, possibly all these kinds of weapons disable, not outright destroy, aircraft.

I was a little surprised to hear that the Pentagon did not have dudes with Stingers sitting on the roof. Maybe Cheney told them to take a coffee break at 9:45am.
 

Stray_cat

Monkey
Nov 13, 2007
460
0
Providence
I think the main thing that discredits most conspiracy theories is that I just can't believe our government is capable of executing something properly.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
I think the main thing that discredits most conspiracy theories is that I just can't believe our government is capable of executing something properly.
I find it interesting that the defenders of the "official" conspiracy theory often use government incompetence as a defense.

It's not that I disagree as to the government's level of competence... I just want to know what makes anyone think the government performed a competent investigation into the matter. :crazy:
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
I find it interesting that the defenders of the "official" conspiracy theory often use government incompetence as a defense.

It's not that I disagree as to the government's level of competence... I just want to know what makes anyone think the government performed a competent investigation into the matter. :crazy:
While I prefer to think that Atta was totally responsible, I know there is a lot of ways the US Gov't could have made this happen and how it could have been covered up.

But unless G Gordon Liddy admits to laying explosives, I will always believe the buildings fell because planes hit them.