| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| A Joke?: 9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 4 2008, 06:00 PM (532 Views) | |
| mynameis | Jul 4 2008, 06:00 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' By Mike Rudin BBC, Conspiracy Files The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center. The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse. Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition. Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse. That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire. See World Trade Center 7's location and structure The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files": "Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings." 'Smoking gun' However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition. FIND OUT MORE... The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST Visit The Conspiracy Files website or catch up using the iPlayer Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7 Timeline: WTC 7 The BBC and the 'missing' tape The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives. "Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process. "Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves." Conspiracy theories There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven. * Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down. * The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack. * The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse. * In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow. Advertisement The collapse of Tower 7 "We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years." With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible. "It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before." Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique. Steel structure weakened It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives. Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress. They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together. Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say. The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away. Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Jul 4 2008, 06:41 PM Post #2 |
![]()
|
I would refer you to the email exchange with Mike Rudin in Ferric Oxides thread. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52299/2/ |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jul 4 2008, 07:14 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
A search on past articles by Mike Rudin came up zilch. Fishy... This is the IMDB... It's official he's a shill. He's got no work history here in news, media, or journalism. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2559819/ Producer: 1. The Conspiracy Files 9/11: The Third Tower (2008) (TV) (producer) 2. No Plan, No Peace (2007) (co-producer) 3. Oklahoma Bomb: The Conspiracy Files (2007) (TV) (series producer) 4. David Kelly: The Conspiracy Files (2007) (TV) (series producer) 5. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files (2007) (TV) (series producer) 6. How Diana Died: The Conspiracy Files (2006) (TV) (series producer) Edited by mynameis, Jul 4 2008, 07:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 4 2008, 07:57 PM Post #4 |
|
Oh yeah, big-time joke. And I would correct the article as saying "That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire" to the "third" building to fall because of fire, on the same day. |
![]() |
|
| Reggie_perrin | Jul 5 2008, 06:21 AM Post #5 |
|
Not sure i would like to be working in a sky scraper now, it's pretty scary to think that a few fires can cause such a collapse. |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 5 2008, 06:42 AM Post #6 |
|
we have been building steel framed skyscrapers for 125 years, there have probably been thousands of skyscraper fires in that time. The historical record shows that fires do not cause collapse of skyscrapers. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html |
![]() |
|
| Q | Jul 5 2008, 06:56 AM Post #7 |
|
A Higher Evolution
|
I understand your concern. A simple ash-tray fire could bring down the whole building. I mean once that concrete ignites... |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 5 2008, 07:21 AM Post #8 |
|
if i rub two boxcutters together, would any resultant fire collapse the worlds tallest building in under 15 seconds? |
![]() |
|
| Travis | Jul 6 2008, 03:35 AM Post #9 |
|
I wonder if those C.S. at the BBC are going to explain what Larry Silverstein meant by 'Pull it'. Also anyone at the BBC want to explain, without altering the laws of physics, how the building collapsed in a symmetrical fashion and then turned to dust? |
![]() |
|
| silverstein | Jul 6 2008, 11:57 AM Post #10 |
|
I expect they will say that he meant "pull the firefighting operation". As "pull it" isnt a demolition term, and the FDNY are not demolition contractors.
Well, if either of those things had actually occurred, then they would need to be explained. Since neither did happen, then I doubt they will bother trying to explain them. Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 11:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 12:06 PM Post #11 |
|
Actually, pulling a building is a demolition term and it's been proven for quite some time. Secondly, the firefighters were out of the building at around 11:30am so there was no firefighter contingent to "pull" at 5:30 in the afternoon. Further, if the buildings had fallen asymmetrically, then they would have fallen to one side, i.e. the side that was damaged and follow the path of least resistance. All three buildings fell straight down symmetrically into the paths of most resistance. Seems you have some studying to do before coming to forums and spouting stuff you have no idea what you're talking about. |
![]() |
|
| silverstein | Jul 6 2008, 12:09 PM Post #12 |
|
Relating to pulling down damaged buildings with cables....
And you think that quote came at 5.30pm?
Wrong again. The path of most resistance is upwards, followed by sideways. Learn about gravity.
LOL! Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 12:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 12:14 PM Post #13 |
|
Okay. I'll go try to find a science book that shows how gravity makes things fall up....
Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 12:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jul 6 2008, 12:14 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
It only applies when you are trying to calculate the necessary resistance for leaving gravity. |
![]() |
|
| Travis | Jul 6 2008, 12:59 PM Post #15 |
|
silverstein, why do you believe what you do about 9/11? |
![]() |
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 01:03 PM Post #16 |
|
I don't think he'll be able to answer that here. I think he's limited to the "Skeptics" section of the forums now.
|
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jul 6 2008, 01:10 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
indeed, the debate continues here http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/412115/1/ |
![]() |
|
| Travis | Jul 6 2008, 01:15 PM Post #18 |
|
Ok, I guess that's where the 'special' kids hang out? |
![]() |
|
| tower | Jul 7 2008, 03:23 AM Post #19 |
![]()
|
So falling through hundreds of tons of structural steel is easier than falling through air? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |











9:23 AM Jul 11