GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Marek_Tucan]

Atrocities said:
Any ways back to the topic of this thread.

Study Backs Up Fed Theory Of Why World Trade Center Collapsed

And their models back this up.

Just from my tiny country, two highly respected construction engineers, both professors on two different technical universities, both with experience with high-rise and steel construction buildings as well with results of fires on such structures, have peer reviewed NIST report. Along with scores of other experts all over the world. Heck, at my university they even did an experiment simulating influence of "regular" office fire on WTC-like structure. Just in one room. Yet, the buckling of ceiling was notable and fell neatly to what was observed in WTC during a mediocre fire in 1980's.

But don't try to explain this to conspiracy theorists. Dont even try to say show them the hole in the Pentagon wall was large enough for the most massive parts of 757. don't try to send them footage of F-4 smashing into concrete wall at similar speed to Flight 77. Because they will explain away any contradicting facts as 'gubmint set up.

Though I admit I do clash with them sometimes, just for entertainment purposes

[Phoenix-D]

Thank you so much for bringing back this 4 month old dead thread.

[Atrocities]

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Just from my tiny country, two highly respected construction engineers, both professors on two different technical universities, both with experience with high-rise and steel construction buildings as well with results of fires on such structures, have peer reviewed NIST report.

There are hundreds of architects and engineers who disagree with the conlusions of your two Czech engineers. They have concluded that the complete collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 resulted from demolition charges based on the fact that jet fuel and office furniture cannot possibly burn hot enough to cause steel to melt (yes, molten steel was found in the debris) and also from numerous eyewitness reports of secondary explosions coming from the buildings. The possibility of demolition charges being the cause of the building collapse was not even considered by the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.ae911truth.org/



And Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko was able to conclude that WTC7 was imploded just by watching video footage of its collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

[lch]

I am not an expert, but molten steel doesn't convince me. During the disasters in the Alps tunnels and similar disasters like that where things worked like a chimney there were extreme temperatures, too. It might have come from one of the elevator shafts. I didn't see this WTC7 collapse thing before, but that one the other hand is really a troublesome video. It looks exactly like a controlled implosion, and AFAIK those really aren't easy to do, you need experts so that it doesn't collapse to one of the sides.

[lch]

Browsing through these forums again, I see that this post is still at the top... I've just entered "controlled demolition wtc" into google because I was curious what the word out there was, and among the top links is this one: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by lch

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here.

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire. You really believe that's what happened? Why in that case doesn't the fire department admit that there was a controlled demolition?

[Slaughtermeyer]

To clarify my previous post, I agree with you that there was a controlled demolition but I believe that the demolition charges were placed prior to 9/11 on the orders of someone who knew that the 9/11 attacks would take place. This is why the fire department refuses to admit that there was a controlled demolition.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Slaughtermeyer

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire.

As I said, I didn't really read the article much, nor did I read it again now, but from what I grasped from it the building never really was on fire, or at least not critically so that it would have made trouble to place the charges. They wanted the building out of the way so that the fire wouldn't get there and spread around from there. The same like they'd remove pastures in the event of bush fires, even going as far as burning the grass down in a controlled way, so that it doesn't spread over there.

[Ballbarian]

Well, I did read it and probably the most telling piece is the following:

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

It wasn't controlled. It was abandoned to prevent losing more firefighters.