See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 14397
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-268) not displayed.
.
.
.
#269. To: TwentyTwelve (#267)
You believe that a 110 story building can fall to the earth at the same rate as it would if it fell through thin air, neglecting the fact that it had to crash through at least 80 stories of undamaged steel and concrete, and that 19 Arab hijackers that "hated us for our freedom", of whom at least 5 are still alive, commandeered four US airliners and flew precision attacks against this Nation, and evaded US air defences for over an hour?
: )
HEHEHE
agreed.
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. It all but fell right into its footprint...you are talking about fractions rather than yards of difference between what "should have" happened as opposed to what actually happened. I saw it fall....it came right down.
NIST's FAQ contains the following 14 questions: 1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage? 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. 3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse. 4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions? 5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower? 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? OR 7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers? 8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers? 9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot? 10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive? 11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow? 12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." 13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers? 14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
All good questions....let's start with the first one, War. What is .gov telling you to say about this one?
Use of Magick Jet Fuel rules out even re-con flights. It's rule number 42, the oldest rule in the book.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
www.the7thfire.com/Politi...History/WTC7Fairytale.htm FEMA's WTC 7 Fairytale World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. [On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition.] Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. [Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.] [On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested by the official report that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.] [As you can see from the above animated-gif, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition. But, judge for yourself, download and watch the following short video clips and a larger version of the animated-gif: A Video of the collapse of WTC 7. Another video of the collapse of WTC 7. And another video of the collapse of WTC 7. And yet another video of the collapse of WTC 7. A larger (3.3 MB) version of the above animated-gif. ] So we have been presented with the following absurd story: 1. Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems. 2. Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation. 3. Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.". This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time. 4. Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply. 5. Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower. 6. Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall. 7. Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7. 8. Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires. 9. Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all. 10. Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires. 11. Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity. 12. Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. You must agree, it is absurd, isn't it?
Completely and utterly
War, I got to say, you're a fucking asshole. I did respect your response on various postings, but on this, you're a piece of crap. It's beneath you, but since you've gone apeshit on Obamalamadigdong, I guess I can't expect anything more. Such a shame. Oh, hey Rotara, I forgot to include you! Go fuck yourself!
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - Henry Louis Mencken
They didn't cause that much damage. The WTC towers took jet planes hitting it at their highest speed and only swayed about as much as it would on a windy day. The damage caused was mostly to the exterior. The central core columns would have sustained very little to no damage due to the exterior columns absorbing most of the blow and significantly slowing down any remaining debris of the plane.
God is always good!
bookmarked; thnx
Oh, I also forgot to say "it's fantastical"
It's the only logical conclusion one could have, imho.
Yea so? You're ignoring the designers scenario. The 707 would be flying at close to landing speed which is 115-120 knots. The 767's were flying 3 times that which results in a kinetic factor 7-10 times greater. Some 707 V 767 facts: 707: Wingspan of 145ft, Length of 152ft, Height of 42ft. 767:Wingspan of 156ft, Length of 159ft, Height of 52ft. BTW, those 767's were carrying only about 10,000 gallons of fuel ONLY?!? Is it your point that 10,000 gallons of highly flammable liquid is not enough to act as a catalyst/accelerant? not 80 as you claim I did not make that claim. The guy who designed the WTC made that claim. The impact would be less than half of the design expectation Wha...huh? Velocity alone bitch slaps you hard.
Of course I do. I understand them as well. Unlike you. True or false: the thickness of the steel in the core tapered in thickness from bottom to top? Note that the steel core is considerably more massive than depicted in the image you posted. Uh no...
What the fuck are you babbling about other than you have no concept opf physics? Absent any greater and opposite force, It had no choice but to drop straight down once the center of gravity was horizontally established. And do you admit that it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed as fast as they did? I posted the graph that deteailed how quickly they collapsed which, in terms of the force of gravity acting upon a body so it is in freefall, it is much longet than you claim that they did.
Dude...you are so fucking babbling. top trying to ***think*** and start using REALITY.wtc floor construction This is what the floorstructure of the WTC looked like around the core: As you can seee, there were elevators within the core. Furthermore, the core was reliant on the exterior support beams to relieve it of being the lone horizontal load bearing mechanism. Once that exterior had been breached and then the internal bracing compromised, there was no other outcome available but destruction.
Do you know thatthe difference between hollow tube and steel framing is? Apparently not. Steel framed building... Look at any of the pics on here of the WTC and the difference leaps out immediately.
That's been shown to be false by me posting the words of the lead strutural enginner who said that it was built to withstand the impact of one 707 at landing speed with minimal fuel. Never before in history has a steel framed skyscraper The WTC is NOT steel framed. Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, ACtually, from a physics point of view given the effect of gravity over that height the differenc ein time is not "near" but quite distant.
FINE POWDER?!? There were huge chunks of steel and office parts strewen all over.
I've dealt with this lie enough that anyone posting this from here on out is willfully lying.
Oh....you mean like when I was confronted with "NO Arab names on the manifest" me posting the manifest WITH Arab names wasn't logical? My suggestion to you is that the next time you go to use that word is that you know what it means first.
I posted what Leslie Robertson said about the 707 scenario: The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
As has been pointed out to everyone here more than once, the WTC was not constructed as these buildings were.
As I have posted here more than once the WTC did not fall at free fall speed. HAve you read this thread and are being deliberately stupid or are you assuming?
Uh no. Your own video shows the building favoring the east side as it collapses...
How many times do I have to answer this one? Do you folks believe that if you post the same question with the same faulty premise over and over and over and over that The Premise Fairy will come and wave Moonbat Dust over it and make it true?
You are claiming that when the planes hit @ 400+ and 500+ miles anbd exploded that no internal damage occurred? Can you explain to me how the explosion went from outside io inside without causing any damage? BTW, whent he first plane hit, I was able to speak to my buddy who was a broker at Cantor in WTC 2 and he told me that he felt like his floor was "tipping over" right before his line went dead.
www.infowars.com/?p=2807 Bodies in WTC 7: Jennings Interview Demolishes Official Version Kurt Nimmo Infowars June 23, 2008 It is obvious watching the BBC’s trailer of its "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower," set to air on Sunday, 6 July, that "Auntie Beeb" will attempt to make it appear Building 7 at the WTC complex came down as a result of fire (see trailer below). In other words, it appears the BBC will push — and defend — the government explanation hastily cooked up after attention was focused on the mysterious collapse by researchers, a collapse diligently ignored by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, or that is to say its final whitewash. The Barry Jennings interview with an introduction by Jason Bermas. The clip here will appear in Bermas’ upcoming documentary, Fabled Enemies. The BBC interviewed Dylan Avery, writer and director of the documentary "Loose Change," and during the interview the BBC disputed Avery’s claim that there were dead bodies in the lobby of Building 7 as the result of an explosion prior to the collapse of either WTC buildings. In order to make his point, Dylan showed the BBC video footage of one Barry Jennings, the New York City Housing Authority worker who made the claim of dead bodies strewn in the rubble. The Jennings interview included here was to appear in Loose Change, but Mr. Jennings had reservations after receiving threatening phone calls. He was worried about losing his job and requested the interview not be included. Jennings, and Mike Hess, New York’s corporation counsel and a good buddy of then mayor Rudolph Giuliani, went to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, but when they arrived found the office evacuated, a situation at odds with the whitewash report. "After the South Tower was hit [at 9:03], OEM senior leadership decided to remain in its ‘bunker’ and continue conducting operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7 WTC," the report states (Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, pp. 305). The whitewash commission’s description runs counter to a report published in The London Independent on September 13, 2001, indicating that Jennings and Hess arrived at the OEM by the time the South Tower was hit, indicating the center was evacuated earlier than officially claimed. The BBC trailer for "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 — The Third Tower." According to Hess, when they used the stairs — the elevator was inoperable — to go down to the eighth floor, “there was an explosion” and they were “trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half.” The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims the two men went down the stairs after 9:59, when the first collapse occurred, and were trapped around the time the second tower collapsed at 10:28, a claim at odds with the version published in the London Independent. "After the second plane hit they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. ‘I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,’ Mr Jennings said." In the video here, Jennings says the lobby of WTC 7 was so destroyed he did not recognize it as such, it was "total ruins," and the fireman escorting him instructed Jennings and Hess not to look down because "we were stepping over [dead] people… and you know you can feel when you are stepping over people." Jennings’ story indicates, contrary to the official version of events, that a bomb or bombs had gone off in WTC 7, well before either WTC buildings collapsed (the south tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. and the north tower followed at 10:28 a.m.). For the government and the corporate media, the Jennings narrative is problematic, to say the least. As the BBC’s role is to obfuscate what really happened at WTC 7 and push the official version, now increasingly under scrutiny, we can expect the world’s largest media corporation to ignore Jennings’ narrative, recorded last year by Avery and Loose Change co-creator, Jason Bermas. "This is vital information because it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level," wrote Steve Watson on June 19, 2007. What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual [now revealed to be Barry Jennings] was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation. The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings. Avery and Bermas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut. As this video documents, there were bombs in the buildings, a fact scrubbed from the official whitewash narrative, essentially a fairy tale. Jennings’ description of dead bodies in the bombed out lobby of WTC 7 underscores multiple accounts of bombs in the buildings, from firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses, including the New York Fire Department Chief of Safety, the Assistant Fire Commissioner, and an FBI agent quoted by USA Today (see video at left). For a comprehensive review of these accounts and many others, see Firefighters and law enforcement officers believe that bombs inside the WTC brought down the buildings on the Global Research site. It will be interesting to see how the BBC handles this aspect of the WTC 7 collapse. More than likely, they will ignore Avery’s evidence and push the ludicrous fairy tale that fire so weakened the building it had to be "pulled," as Larry Silverstein so infamously claimed in the PBS’ propaganda piece, "America Rebuilds." As should be obvious to all who pay attention, the textbook demolition of WTC 7 undermines the entire official fairy tale of what happened on the morning of September 11, 2001, and that is why it was not included in the whitewash commission’s report, although NIST has since lamely attempted to blame the collapse on the improbable failure of a single column that supposedly lead to the subsequent failure of the building’s 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse. Fairy tales aside, it should be obvious what happened to WTC 7 — it was fitted with a bomb or bombs and was intended to collapse at approximately the same time as the other buildings. This plan failed miserably and the September 11 conspirators had no choice but to bring the building down late in the afternoon — to "pull it," as Silverstein explained — and hurriedly cobble together a fantastic and unbelievable explanation that fire had weakened the steel frame structure and precipitated its collapse. Mr. Jennings story demolishes the official fairy tale version and it will be interesting to see how the BBC and the corporate media deal with his story. More than likely, they will continue to ignore the facts — the WTC buildings were brought down through demolition, not as a result of fire, and Mr. Jennings’ story serves as a capstone in the ongoing effort to bring out the truth and ultimately bring to justice the perpetrators.
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3945-questions-which-are-unan swered-on-911-.html Questions which are Unanswered on 911 Sunday, 25 May 2008 15:11 Pakistan Daily Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence. The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did. At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires. The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part: "...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources, including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings, eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone. Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed. Chemical analysis has been conducted by a multi-disciplinary team led by Professor Steven E. Jones and the results published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr. Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr. David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney is a registered member of the group. A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the 47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day. Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above. Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence. This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings down under their own weight. The collapse of Building 7 is visually identical to a controlled demolition, as illustrated in a side by side comparison on Youtube. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has gone on record confirming this observation. "A team of experts did this", he said. The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge: "As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur. The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants." The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior to the collapse. William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair. The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission. There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of questions raised by these courageous women. Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while others believe that September 11 was an "inside job". As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new investigation for several reasons. First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime. Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification. Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation.
I don't debate spam. It's time for you to start dealing with the contradictions to your bullshit that I have pointed out.
The two major biullhits that you are promoting is the 707 scenario and the fact that the WTC was NOT a steel framed building.
Geez...trying to do two thigs at once... The two major biulshits that you are promoting are the 707 scenario and ignoring the fact that the WTC was NOT a steel framed building.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/190807Building.htm Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse Prisonplanet.com Sunday Aug 19, 2007 The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing. This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled. The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn. On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses. The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11. However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon. Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand. Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse. More pictures and an AP report on the latest blaze follow.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2005/040505potentialfraud.htm Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud PR Web | May 4 2005 RELATED: WTC 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others A proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 has been published on the website of the Allianz Group, one of the world’s largest insurers, in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting. (PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence. The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria. The text of the shareholder proposal, which may also be viewed at the Allianz website, http://www.allianzgroup.com/azgrp/dp/cda/0,,100646-49,00.html, is reproduced below.
BE SURE AND CLICK ON CONTENTS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC ... An investigation of WTC 7's collapse, evidence of controlled demolition. Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
Comments (310 - 607) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWindsor Building burning Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.
#270. To: TwentyTwelve (#268)
AMAZING!!
#271. To: war, litus (#223)
It collapsed from an out of control fire weakening one of the main support beams.
#272. To: FormerLurker (#249)
Well yeah, I meant OTHER than that one.
#273. To: TwentyTwelve (#271)
#274. To: litus (#157)
the planes were just to hide and obfuscate what really caused the towers to collapse....
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#275. To: war (#244)
It actually collaped to the north and east and took out a good snick of Fitterman Hall which stands about 30 yards from me and was damaged substantially on its southern face from 7's collapse.
#276. To: war, litus (#223)
#277. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#276)
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
#278. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#271)
and evaded US air defences for over an hour?
#279. To: litus, war (#277)
All good questions....let's start with the first one, War. What is .gov telling you to say about this one?
#280. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#279)
it is absurd, isn't it?
#281. To: litus (#280)
#282. To: war (#10)
(Edited)
Feel free to wax eloquently about what a moron you are...believe me...it's entertaining...
#283. To: TwentyTwelve (#276)
(Edited)
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
#284. To: TwentyTwelve (#281)
#285. To: TwentyTwelve (#279)
#286. To: Artisan (#274)
#287. To: FormerLurker (#245)
The 707 flies faster than a 767
#288. To: FormerLurker (#247)
Do you even look at the images you post? The image indicates a reinforced steel core. Are you blind as well as being dumb?
#289. To: FormerLurker (#248)
So do you finally admit that it was impossible for the tilted top of the tower as I had shown to have dropped straight down when it was already in the process of tumbling to its side?
#290. To: FormerLurker (#250)
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there.
#291. To: RickyJ (#251)
That "hollow tube" was made out of steel you dumb ass.
#292. To: TwentyTwelve (#254)
The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire. To be able to take multiple impacts from similarly sized aircraft as the 767--Like a window screen being poked with a pencil, it would do nothing to the integrity of the structure.
#293. To: TwentyTwelve (#254)
The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.
#294. To: TwentyTwelve (#254)
and was designed to be centrally supported.
#295. To: RickyJ (#260)
war doesn't have answers that are logical
#296. To: litus (#263)
The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 1 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767." 2
#297. To: TwentyTwelve (#267)
#298. To: TwentyTwelve (#271)
You believe that a 110 story building can fall to the earth at the same rate as it would if it fell through thin air,
#299. To: litus (#275)
It all but fell right into its footprint...you are talking about fractions rather than yards of difference between what "should have" happened as opposed to what actually happened.
#300. To: TwentyTwelve, litus (#276)
If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707
#301. To: RickyJ (#283)
The central core columns would have sustained very little to no damage due to the exterior columns absorbing most of the blow and significantly slowing down any remaining debris of the plane.
#302. To: war, litus (#299)
#303. To: war, litus (#299)
#304. To: TwentyTwelve (#302)
#305. To: TwentyTwelve (#303)
#306. To: TwentyTwelve (#303)
#307. To: war, RickyJ, Litus (#301)
#308. To: war, Litus (#304)
#309. To: war, Litus (#304)
An investigation of WTC 7's collapse, evidence of controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net/ - 7k -
.
.
.