Another arguement against the Tower 7 conspiracy:

The conspiracy theorists also focus on Tower 7, for two reasons. One is the usual argument from incredulity that, since the building wasn't directly hit, they can't think of why it should have collapsed. The other is a video of Larry Silverstein saying to "pull" the tower, which they say means he ordered the destruction of the tower.

Tower 7 was not hit by any airplane, but the damage to the main towers did cause both structural damage and fires to it. An analysis of the steel from the ruins of the tower shows that the steel had a high content of sulphur, which can happen when steel is misforged. The sulphur, in addition to burning on its own, also lowered the temperature at which the steel would soften and melt.

As for Silverstein's comments, he was relating a conversation he had had with fire officials in determining whether or not to save the tower. He had said that they had "made the decision to pull it." The conspiracy theorists take that comment out of context, and point out that "pull" is used by building demoloshers to mean bringing down a building. Regardless of whether or not this is true, Silverstein is not a building demolosher, and he was speaking to firefighters, not building demolishers. When firefighters use the word "pull," they mean to pull out all of the firefighters and equipment and let the fire run its course. Silverstein's later comments clarify that this is exactly what he meant.

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup

 

Nice...a thought out rebuttal. Thank you. I really do mean that.



How did the damage to 1 and 2 cause structural damage to a building more than a block away? It was not hit by an airplane, nor was it seriously battered by debris from the Towers (compared to closer buildings) but it did have two small fires of uncertain origin.

Official reports suggest that fires in WTC7 had been "raging out-of-control" all day, but there is no photographic evidence of this. Several clear images from the moment of onset of the collapse do not even show emergent flames, let alone any other evidence of a huge all-consuming inferno.

WTC7 came down in 6.5 seconds, imploding perfectly within its footprint, simultaneously collapsing straight downward from all points and looking just like a perfect controlled demolition.

The straight-down, vertical collapse of Building 7 could not have happened and with such perfect symmetry unless all 58 perimeter columns and all 25 core columns somehow were removed exactly simultaneously.

It has been said that a large amount of fuel oil may have been stored in the building, but even if this was burning it could not have caused the simultaneous structural failure of all the support columns. The fact that WTC7 was built over a preexisting three story substation also does not explain the perfect symmetry of the collapse.

This failure was also attributed to "progressive total collapse" brought on by fire in FEMA's report.

WTC7 was not even mentioned in the 911 Commission Report.

What would it be like if every steel frame high-rise in existence was likely to collapse as a result of a not-too-serious fire? No one would set foot in them! As a matter of fact, no one would build them - they would be too dangerous. If the WTC buildings did collapse from fire, these unprecedented failures would be extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profound forensic analysis (the painstaking reassembly of crashed aircraft comes to mind).

This did not happen. The steel from all three buildings was quickly removed - over the strenuousobjections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and families of victims - and has been melted down inoverseas markets. The blueprints for the Towers have also become unavailable.

Two groups who have been extremely vocal in protest of the destruction of evidence and lack of real forensic investigation have been the families of those killed and firefighters. Fire Engineering Magazine - the primary journal for firefighters everywhere - ran a scathing editorial in January 2002 in which they referred to the official investigation blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers as a "half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forceswhose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far a field of full disclosure."

This is obviously a big concern for firefighters because they have to go into burning buildings! Prior to9/11 there was no precedent to prevent or even caution them against entering the WTC Towers togo about their work of rescuing people and putting out the fires.

Surviving audio-tape of firefighter communications from the South Tower show that they had reachedthe 78th floor sky lobby and found only "two pockets of fire". They called for "two lines" and began to implement their evacuation plan just before the Tower "collapsed".




I would like to see this analysis. Who conducted the analysis? From what building was the steel taken from.

I must say this is the first I have heard of improperly forged steel.




http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup[/quote]

Since when does a building owner tell a fire department fighting a fire when they should "pull" out?

In the documentary "America Rebuilds", Silverstein makes the following statement;

"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 we made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six."

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. ( http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_..._seismic_.html)

Wired New York reported "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures".

Burning diesel can't produce enough heat to melt steel. How did it melt?

Consider the facts:

The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.

Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).

Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."

WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.

Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

No steel framed structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire, yet 3 buildings (and two different designs) did just that, all on the same day.

Look into the Madrid fire which burned for 18+ hours:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people:

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." http://www.nylawyer.com/login.php?so.../01/09/091701e


Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10036925.html

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/feat...t_Service.html

 

Yo HB you know too much

 

I think WTC7 collapsed just to give people with nothing better to do something to argue about.


Yes, it fell out of spite.

 

oh, ok...so YOUR sources are supposed to bve assumed credable while anything speaking against your side is supposed to be wrong. Whatever man.

How about this:

7 was not blown up. Why? Because logical thought dictates that IF they were going to blow it up they wouldn't have waited HOURS to do it. It would have fallen with the other buildings.

Are you capable of logical thought?

I'm out.

 

that isn't exactly logical though. more like an opinion. not even that but a guess.

 

Well, I provided some kind of back up for my claims. Im still waiting for your response regarding the poor quality of the steel used in the construction of WTC 7.

Now that’s what I was looking for.

Why do you feel it logical that the building should have been brought down right away? Logic would dictate that if you wanted the public to believe that the collapse was caused by fire, then logically fire would take time to melt steel and concrete....it would not happen right away.


log·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lj-kl)
adj.
Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable.
Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

I have already shown I am capable of logical thought. Are you capable of answering my question?

 

Maybe, but it is all quite worthless if those responsibile for the attacks continue to get away with this.

Sleep.
Eat.
Consume.
Dont question.
Watch tv.

 

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........dont steal my thunder.

 

To continue with your thought logic would also dictate that the first tower hit would come down first, since it was hit (more or less) in the center of the tower, causing much more damage to the core columns than the second plane to hit, since that one hit a corner and (as evident by the fireball on numerous DVD's) lost most of the fuel cargo before causing significant damage to its core.

But that is not the case.

 

This is pathetic. First of all there is no practical motivation for anyone to do this and the cover-up would be next to impossible when you consider how many people were crawling in, around and all over everything having anything to do with 9/11 both figuratively and literally.

And even if WTC 7 was blown up for some bizarre reason, who gives a crap? The truth surrounding every other aspect of this event is way more fascinating than some little side note about a building no one rememebers or cares about. What difference would it make if you were right about WTC7? What would that be? Some insurance fraud scheme? Ooooo spooky....

 

You have not been paying attention have you.


Are you serious?


Proves a coverup.


To the tune of 4.6 billion dollars. That means higher premiums for all of us that have insurance.

But I think youre missing the big point....if 7 was pulled, it would have had to been wired weeks in advance.

 

I dont understand why people think that information gathered on the internet and from the news is soo flawless...

How about you guys go ahead and let me know when you have a security clearence that allows you to know the information you are debating. Then we will head to a secure area and you can appologize for being soo rediculous...

 

I dont think that was ever said. I dont know why you think information on the net is so flawed. It would be quite easy to disprove if it was flawed, but so far I have yet to meet anyone (in real life and eLife) who can explain WTC 7.

Why would you need a security clearence to understand how physics works? Or gravity for that matter?

 

I think what HighlanderMac is saying is that since neither side in this debate has access to all the information, no one can argue that they are 100 percent right from a firm foundation.

 

While true that very little in life is 100%, there are general rules that have become established through observation.
We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).
In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:
Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height
It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608
Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

Resistance from air
The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potenial energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.
That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.
It is that last sentence which bears repeating.
There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is used to do anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.
And if an object's downward acceleration is diminshed, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.


The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

 

What in the world is your point with the above ramble??

 

The point is the Towers were not brought down by fires or aircraft.

 

has anyone ever just considered that the towers had design flaws so they fell easier than they should?

Buildings collapse all the time from being improperly reinforced. I work in construction for the military. So I know not everything is built the way it should.

As a military member, I also no that NO, NONE, NADA, civilian knows all the information.

So yes it is debatable how the towers fall because no one knows the complete facts and the building of the towers.

I say there is no conspiracy and its all like what everyone saw on tv. But my opinion means nothing and this thread has gone on far to long of people who know little to nothing about what happened, other than reading someone else opinion about it.

Yes everyones research is real good in here and I respect that, but come on its impossible to prove this.

If it was provable by someone on SCIONLIFE, then I doubt they would be on scionlife.

 

Hey... where was David Copperfield that day???

Remember what he did with the Statue of Liberty?????