See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7 is 9/11 Key
Source:
http://www.republic-news.org
URL Source: http://www.republic-news.org/archiv ... epub/154_kevin_potvin_9-11.htm
Published: Jan 9, 2007
Author: Kevin Potvin
Post Date: 2007-01-09 07:38:50 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 1159
Comments: 95
Current Issue • January 4 to January 18, 2007 • No 154 9-11 WTC 7 is 9/11 key Those who poo-poo alternative theories about 9-11 should adopt the methods of science and try to explain what happened to the building that was not hit by a plane By Kevin Potvin You decide how much it's worth to you: By Kevin Potvin We’ve just witnessed, if not participated in, a massive conspiracy. Tens of millions of people every winter conspire in a flat out lie to fool millions more of society’s most gullible members when they all agree to keep silent about the truth about Santa Clause. Sure, you're laughing, that’s a funny example of a conspiracy, but there it is: those who deny there could possibly be massive conspiracies involving thousands of people or even millions, are wrong. Hannah Arendt, among so many others, wrote about how the German people were swept up in a conspiracy of lies about how the Jews among them were not human, and so deserved to be exterminated. When professional standing, personal prestige, working incomes, even ordinary, seldom-examined personal belief systems, are at stake, millions will engage in the common telling of lies if they find it necessary to do so to sustain their place in life. According to authors like Arendt, they don't even necessarily know they are telling lies. The conspiracy of 9-11 and the related conspiracy of its cover-up can never be compared to either Santa Claus or to the Holocaust. But these examples can serve to show that many people can be involved in a conspiracy, that many can be motivated to do so by base, ordinary concerns, and that many may not even be consciously aware of their participation in a conspiracy. For obvious reasons, the realization and admission by anyone with official authority to speak on the matter that some arm of the US government was responsible for the crimes of 9-11 would involve so much destruction of belief systems, not to mention security, incomes, and reputations, that blind instinct dictates the official version be upheld. Popular Mechanics magazine some time ago published a special issue that purported to destroy all versions of events of 9-11 besides the official version. Last week, the editor of the magazine wrote a newspaper editorial documenting the results: hilarious and disturbing attacks on him and his magazine by the so-called conspiracy theory industry. But what if, after launching its investigation, the magazine’s editors found that 9-11 was in fact an inside job, and reported this. Where do you think the scientists who made that conclusion, and the magazine's editorial staff who reported it, would be today? When we see the level of vitriol leveled at any questioning of the official version of events that creeps into mainstream media, with accusations of anti-patriotism, treason, and anti-Semitism, it is no surprise few mainstream newspapers will touch 9-11 conspiracies. The lack of reporting on alternative versions of 9-11 in the mainstream press is no evidence of their weaknesses. If anything, the lack of mention of strong alternative theories, except to laugh at the least plausible of them, attests to their strengths. In a book called Hitler's Scientists, we find personal diaries where German scientists caught up in Third Reich politics express serious misgivings about their work, misgivings that were nowhere evident in their published work, some of it very crucial to horrifying medical experimentation, mass murder systems, and nuclear science the Nazis were carrying out. Scientists who were sure there was nothing but dangerous hubris to Nazi theories about racial intelligence and other pillars of Third Reich philosophy nonetheless signed off on published documents extolling the virtues of those "scientific" claims. This was not some backward savage place, but the leading educated and scientific nation on the planet. Those who ask, How is it all those engineers, metallurgists, physicists and material scientists who produced both the Popular Mechanics 9-11 issue, as well as the official US government 9-11 report, could get it all so fundamentally wrong, need only remind themselves of the broad popular, as well as corporate and scholarly support, the Nazi regime engineered in Germany. 9-11 is an event that registers nowhere on the scale of something like Nazi Germany and its Holocaust. But that is a fact that makes the 9-11 conspiracy an easier thing to imagine than Germany in the 1930s. The basic known facts of 9-11 need to be reviewed, beginning with the most beguiling of them all: World Trade Center building number seven fell straight down later on that fateful day but registers in mainstream media as almost a forgotten footnote. This building was the same square footage of one of the towers, half their height but twice their footprint. It was huge, one of the biggest buildings in the world, and it was not struck by a plane nor badly hit by debris from the falling towers. It may have had a diesel fire on its lowest floors, a fire that could never burn hot enough to make the steel frame of the building melt. Yet the building fell down as though every one of its steel columns, back to front and side to side in this massive building, melted and collapsed all at once. The official Congressional investigation, as well as Popular Mechanics, simply said of building seven's collapse that no known theory explains it, and moved on. The best explanation, assuming we wish to have at least one, is to theorize that it was brought down by controlled demolition. And that means it must have been pre-wired to be brought down, and who would or could do that but someone with regular access, such as members of the many US government overt and covert agencies that maintained offices in this very building? And of course, a plan and the means to bring down building seven presupposes foreknowledge of 9-11 as a whole, and foreknowledge means participation. It is the fate of building seven that has generated most of the legitimate questioning of the official version of events of 9-11, and it was that incessant questioning that lead to both the official Congressional investigation and the special issue of Popular Mechanics magazine. Yet both investigations, after clouding the issue with brain-numbing detailed examination of the fate of the two towers, completely passed over and ignored questions about building seven. Five-and-a-half years later, the controlled demolition theory still remains the best theory about why building seven collapsed. Every scientist always goes with the best theory available on any phenomenon, and never accepts no theory at all. Every good scientist does, anyway. You decide how much it's worth to you:
Poster Comment: The bottom line is no changes in skyscraper fire codes have been passed. Highrises would be upgraded and retro fitted if there was this dire flaw. Fire has never resulted in a complete collapse of a structual steel highrise. The steel used in these buildings is massive and the PSI ratings are from 36,000-100,000. There never has been even a failure of a single primary vertical girder. Ever.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: Kamala, swarthyguy (#0)
I don't know any sky-rise that had 100K of Diesel fuel in storage tanks inside a building either that was cited by the fire dept as a potential fire hazard. Google 'Bob Herbert + Giuliani + "skybox bunker". The real key to 9/11 is the vast connections of American intel had and still has with jihadi organizations around the world. The men who carried out 9/11 were veterans of CIA backed jihadi armies in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya and other places where pipeline routes and jihad campaigns overlap. Why did the govts intel mask the 9/11 cell (which they knew of and a few of these men were known CIA assets in the Bosnian war) and allow them to operate freely in the USA for so long? Did the American intel community want the 9/11 cell to succeed? Or were they blindsided by their own assets double crossing them and created this 'blowback'? Those are the real questions. The article above is designed to focus attention away from the scenario I mentioned and get people stuck on the honey trap that is the multiple 9/11 truth theories.
Fuck diesel... It's NOT that volatile. I'm a welder by trade, and I have welded holes in diesel tanks on semis without so much as completely draining the tank - let alone purging it!!! That is NOT something I would do with a GASOLINE tank!!! When welding on a fuel tank, it's the vapors which cause an explosion, NOT the liquid itself. Gasoline vapors will READILY ignite, diesel vapors WILL NOT. In fact, you can't ignite diesel vapors unless they are under extreme compression. That is why diesel engines run at compression ratios in the area of 19:1 as opposed to gas engines running at about 9:1. To cause diesel to burn, you must ignite the liquid itself, and that is not the case with gasoline!!! And while I'm on the topic of fuel/combustion, it's interesting to note that jet fuel is basically kerosene - and has combustion characteristics much closer to diesel than gasoline; hence the liquid itself must be ignited... The massive fireballs we witnessed when the plane struck the tower was the result of the liquid jet fuel itself burning not vapor from the jet fuel; thus the majority of the fuel in the plane was burned almost immediately. This leaves a large hole in the "official story" of jet fuel running down the elevator shaft pooling in the bottom of the buildings and causing explosions.... I have a smudge pot (you know one of those heaters used in the orange groves in FL in the winter) and burn diesel in it. These things are made of very thin metal, something like 20 gauge. You'll notice the lid on the tank has an adjustment mechanism to control the amount of air allowed in. The more air you allow in, the higher and hotter it burns. I've had flames coming out of the top of mine!!! And yet, AFTER YEARS OF USE IT HASN'T EVEN SO MUCH AS DEFORMED THE "CHIMNEY", LET ALONE MELT DOWN OR COLLAPSE!!! I've had the whole "chimney" glowing red!!! Being a welder by trade, I've also worked in the construction industry. One of the very first things that amazed me upon entry into that field was the massiveness of the steel used in the support columns in the construction of buildings. Being young at the time, I didn't even know they made such massive steel!! I'm talking about I-beams that the web (center of the beam) measured 12 fucking feet(!!!), and the flanges (part at each end of the web that forms the "I" shape) were 5 feet across(!!!) - and these damned things were made of steel 4 inches thick!!! Now if a diesel fire won't melt my little 20 gauge smudge pot, how in hell is it gonna melt steel that measures in inches of thickness??? You may PRETEND to have knowledge of metal, structural support in buildings, combustion, and fuels used for combustion but you don't... I was taught experience is the best teacher, and I have real-world experience in these fields. In fact, I once worked a job where we rebuilt a boiler that had exploded. The boilerhouse itself had skin blown of the sides of the building, steel was mangled and twisted, buckstays were blown apart, cement was broken - in short there was massive damage - but guess what? THE BUILDING ITSELF DID NOT COLLAPSE!!!!!
you're talking to the guy who said that fire turns steel into wet noodles. ;)
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThere never has been even a failure of a single primary vertical girder. Ever.
#11. To: Destro, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#1)
I don't know any sky-rise that had 100K of Diesel fuel in storage tanks inside a building either that was cited by the fire dept as a potential fire hazard.
#12. To: innieway, Destro (#11)
You may PRETEND to have knowledge of metal, structural support in buildings, combustion, and fuels used for combustion but you don't...
#16. To: christine, innieway, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#12)
you're talking to the guy who said that fire turns steel into wet noodles. ;)
Replies to Comment # 16.