Report: Fire Caused 7 World Trade Center Collapse

Look its clearly an inside job. I mean if one or two things were fishy about that day i'd let it go but come on!

1. Michael Springmann, formerly chief of the visa section didn't want to give the terrorist visa's but C.I.A. officers repeatedly overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued.

2. After easily entering the US many of these hijackers trained at US military bases. Many hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.

3. Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA to fight the Russians. At the time Bush Sr. was vice president and before that he was head of the CIA, and already had ties to the Bin Laden family. (This is why members of bin Laden’s were allowed to leave the US the mourning of 911 without being interrogated by the FBI.)

4. Marvin Bush was head of security of the wtc's and Turner Construction was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001.

5. Larry Silverstein takes out a 15 million dollar insurance plan that covers terror attacks 6 weeks before 9/11, and says they "pulled" building 7 on PBS. Hes later awarded 7 billion for the attack.

6. Experienced pilots say all the speeds and maneuvers were impossible and the two planes that hit the towers both crossed over stewards air base at the very same time, the plane that hit the south tower, has what looked to be a pod (remote control planes) and the doomsday planes were at the scene of every attack. see operations north-woods to understand what i'm saying.

7. The firemen said they could put the fires out in the towers with 2 hand lines and people are standing in the impact zone, but NIST would have you believe these intense fires weakened the steel (OK even if that's possible the 80 floors below impact are fine) and caused a total Symmetrical collapse at free fall speed into its own footprint. Then after the collapse of the 3, there's molten metal and impossible temperatures for weeks. People got blown up in the basements and the lobby was in ruins. Samples of the dust have been analyzed and military grade Thremite has been found in every sample, Explosives! The WTC steel, which if fully examined could have revealed the effects of explosives, was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.

8. As soon as bush got into office he had plans to invade Iraq, Then PNAC, written by Bush's cronies, clearly establishes a more realistic and plausible motive to create a "new Pearl Harbor" that can be attributed to any Islamic extremist. A document on how the US can be the super power of the world. Nation Rebuilding/Weapons Contracts/Oil/Lithium/Opium!

9. There's no plane debris at the pentagon, there's a punch out hole that penetrated many rings of the pentagon, but there's a tiny engine found? Once again the pilot couldn't steer a Cessna, You think he can hijack a plane hes never flown in his life, under extreme pressure, pull off some impossible turn, and just happen to hit the part of the pentagon that was under construction? No, once again it was a drone with a missile, FAA radioed in a local Cargo plane to check out the pentagon and that's the big plane people saw, also the doomsday plane was close by.

10. Flight 93, Its not wheres the beef Its wheres the Debris? There's nothing there, except red bandannas and a terrorist business card hah, A fighter pilot didn't follow his stand down orders and blasted this flight into nothing, the phone calls were faked, after the Moussaoui trial the FBI reported only 2 calls were made (right before the crash at low altitudes)and that Ted Olson never received a call from his wife, See his lying in a CNN interview w/Larry King.

11. The Bush administration said they could never imagine this type of attack, BULL, on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was running multiple war games (up to 15) of the same exact type of attacks that were going on the mourning of Sept 11th. The pilots were confused and didn't know if it was real life or exercise. Whenever contact is lost with any airplane, fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception. Also Dick Cheney changed the shoot down rules 2 months before 9/11, usually its the fighter pilots call but on 9/11 it was all on Dick and he made NORAD stand down. He was in a bunker, There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary? Then the pentagon got his Stand DOWN!

12.) Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11.

13.Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well, according to the BBC and The Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases, as reported in Newsweek and other sources.

14.The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week.

15.Different pieces of evidence have been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 "by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center." 2.5 terabytes of information regarding Able Danger was destroyed in April/May 2000. The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes.

16. Several Whistle blowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks. Most were ignored or censored by the 9/11 Commission. Some of these people are John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA), Sibel Edmonds (Language Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar (Language Specialist-FBI), Melvin A. Goodman (Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA)Gilbert Graham (Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI), Coleen Rowley (Retired Division Counsel- FBI),John Vincent (Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI),Robert Wright (Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton(Senior Analyst- NSA),Mike German (Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI) Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer , and Scott Philpott.

17. Apparently, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.

I COULD GO ON FOR EVER BUT YOU GET THE POINT IF YOU DON'T THINK ITS A INSIDE JOB DON'T YOU THINK IT DESERVES AN INVESTIGATION? Popular Mechanics (Hearst Corporation)

focused on hoaxes, real evidence ignored/ NIST & Popular Mechanics ARE NOT INDEPENDENT!

Im not one to buy into whats fed to us by major networks - i like to be observant and objective. I read news from around the world regularly and I stay away from the CNN's, Foxnews etc...

That being said, I dont believe in a full blown conspiracy theory because it would just involve too many people and something would have leaked in this age of information. I mean, I did see 2 planes hit the towers - its not too hard to believe that buildings would collapse after that...I agree that the Pentagon deal is a little fishy but...

Indeed - it is ironic that both Saddam Hussein and Osama BinLaden are monsters created by the U.S. but I dont believe that anyone at the U.S. government level knowingly participated in the bombing of U.S. embassy's or the outright destruction of the financial capital of the u.s.

All that being said, conspiracy theories are necessary and we should always challenge and question what is being said to us; its part of the checks and balances of our society...

"It's very possible. But people love conspiracy's more."

#2, the only thing people love more than that, apparently, are :"apostrophe's".

fyi, there's very well known video from a PBS investigation of 9/11, wherein silverstein admits that they "pulled" the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

and here's more in depth discussion on it.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

fyi, there's very well known video from a PBS investigation of 9/11, wherein silverstein admits that they "pulled" the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

and here's more in depth discussion on it.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

Here's a stab at it: Look closely at controlled demolitions of other buildings like those old hotels on the Las Vegas Strip. Often, after the charges go off, the first sign of the building's collapse is bowing and buckling along the roofline. When a structure's internal framework is compromised, the portion of the building with the least amount of compressing forces is the first to show movement, and often, even though the trauma occurred at the lower levels, it's the lower levels that are relatively more stable because of that compression which acts to dampen any shifting.

If you watch the tape of the WTC7 collapse closely, you will see that the roof of a *rooftop structure* on the building actually buckles and begins to collapse immediately before the rest of the building. This first sign of collapse was far, far from any fires or impact damage.

If WTC7 collapsed due to the so-called "extensive damage" and fires on the mid-to-lower floors of the building, why would the very top of the building be the first part to collapse?

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc7_why_did_rooftop_penthouse_collapse_ahead_of_rest_of_tower.htm

I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation for this.

Can any of you people calling those who dare question the official explanations "nutcases" explain it to us?

^ Thank you. The plane that the designers had in mind when they designed the towers in 1965 was the 707. What's creepy was that this all came out during coverage of the 1993 WTC bombing. The way the networks chatted up this scenario endlessly at that time makes me wonder if they weren't giving these guys the recipe for their next attack.

This will be, I think, my last post in this thread, because it's a bit like "arguing" with creationists, but Shinobi, the interview was on Nova, and was pretty much the opposite of what you said.

1) Leslie Robertson was the chief engineer, not the architect, Minoru Yamasaki, who had died in 1986.

2) Robertson did contemplate a plane crashing into a WTC tower, but he envisioned something akin to the crash of the bomber into the Empire State Building - i.e., a plane, with nearly empty fuel tanks, flying low-and slow, lost in fog, searching for an airport.

It was never contemplated that a plane full of jet fuel, flying at top speed. The plane Robertson contemplated was a 707, the largest passenger plane at the time, not the much larger 767.

Lastly, he explicitly stated that they only designed for the effect of the crash itself, and never modeled what an uncontrolled fire would do to the structure.

Since all of the above is pretty much common-knowldege, and with Google can be found in under a minute.... 'nuff said.

You are all being manipulated by Big Brother (The Man). The towers didn't fall. That was just movie magic, not unlike those Olympic foot prints in sky of Beijing.

BTW there was I believe a TV Documentary on the WTC (It's history, construction et cetera) way before 9/11 where the architect himself said that the buildings were made to be like nets (meaning that any high impact on the buildings could never do the level of structural damage i.e. complete collapse to the buildings, he even mentioned the example of a 747.)

The buildings were indeed built well enough to survive fires and high impacts (they had it in mind).

Yet you mean to tell me that those buildings fell due to a regular fire? When liquid metal was seen everywhere in the vicinity?

the best example you could relate this situation to is a controlled demolition? hm.

No, I said the failures don't have to be simultaneous.

EastRiver: "... Watch any controlled demolition and you will see that the charges are staggered. ..."

the best example you could relate this situation to is a controlled demolition? hm.

You don't need a force at every single supporting beam to bring down a building and they don't have to be simultaneous. Watch any controlled demolition and you will see that the charges are staggered. The current report states that the interior columns failed first which led to other failures. If the failure begins in the center it is logical to think the building will fall straight down. And in the case of WTC 2 (South Tower), it buckled on the south east corner. Video shows the top of the tower falling in that direction but it doesn't land 1300 feet away.

EastRiver:

for a building to fall straight down, that means that equal amounts of a certain amount of stress are being placed at each supporting beam at the exact same time. the possibility of this is near zero - which is why, in the 100 years of skyscrapers, no other steel & concrete buildings have fallen. even WTC didn't fall when they had an intense fire during the bombing incident.

here's a better example of an intense fire not affecting the integrity of the steel & concrete to the point of collapse: the Madrid Tohmatsu fire.

You lost me at: The AmEX building, Deutche Bank both suffered similar structural damage

WFC was barely clipped by falling debris and as far as I know never caught fire.

Seriously, our votes are being stolen, take 20 minutes and listen to Spoonamore in my above comment.

As far as the theories of demolition, I keep an open mind, because it is very unlikely that three separate building would all fall completely straight down on their own footprints after only a short time on fire, compared to other steel buildings that had raging fire for over 18 hours and still stood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Building

Aside from the towers all the other aspects of 911 indicate either complete key-stone cops negligence or complicity.

No one was fired for dropping the ball in the national security apparatus, and in fact some were promoted and many others are raking in HUGE sums of money.

We just learned from Seymore Hersh that Cheney contemplated disguising our guys as Iranians and attacking our own to start war with Iran.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

@ Captain Morgan- oh why bother.

First of all, why is any other theory that goes against the "official" theory referred to as a "Conspiracy Theory?" I'm my experience other theories are just simply that; OTHER theories. This does not imply some archetypical nut-case sitting in a basement with news paper clippings.

Second, The argument that the alternative theorists (as I will call myself) are not taking note of the damage to the south face of WTC 7 is not a valid argument. The AmEX building, Deutche Bank both suffered similar structural damage, and in fact were closer to the twin towers. There is a post office beside WTC7 that was built in the 1930s, are you to tell me that a building which is almost 60 years older than the origial WTC7 remained intact while sitting admid the same disaster?

Third, you have to consider Physics and the Law of Entropy. This Law of Physics requires that objects must move into a path of least resistance. So if WTC7 did fall from an office fire it should have tipped south (where so many point out the damage was) and scattered itself into the WTC plaza. But what we saw was the building collapse into itself, neatly into a pile.

And Finally, office fires do not burn hot enough to collapse a steel structure. You would need temperatures of well over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make structural steel fail, and office fire burns about as hot as a bonfire.

So yes we should be asking questions of this "official explanation" because anyone who understands physics or structural design can see the fault in this explanation. The Achilles heel of the NIST explanation is not that the building collapsed from fire, but that THEY DON'T EXPLAIN HOW IT IMPLODED INTO ITSELF AND FELL AT THE SPEED OF GRAVITY.

Think.

ConstructedPerfection.com - Blue Print of a Demolition

the building collapsed straight down, perfectly. I mean, come on. basic physics, people.

Exactly how should it have fallen?

this is pure, bureaucratic bullshit. steel definitely weakens from intense fires - but 1. that wasn't an intense fire 2. the building collapsed straight down, perfectly. I mean, come on. basic physics, people.

the best contrast to this building is the Deutsche Bank building: it's gutted, severely moldy, there was an intense fire - and yet, it still stands. they still have to bring it down, piece by piece. it pre-dates WTC 7 by about 10 years - and yes, it's also a steel & concrete building.

I agree that most of the 9/11 truthers are a litttlllleee too kookoo, but also accepting this sort of bullshit readily makes you a bit kookoo as well. it's a delicate balance to keep your head while others lose theirs in either extreme.

So the buildings of the WTC were built wrong. That's the conspiracy, the scandal.

50 cents should blame the burning of his baby momma's house on "thermal expansion."

Shinobi, steel begins to lose its strength long before it melts. Ever see blacksmiths at work? They heat the metal before they try to shape it. Why? Because the metal is softer and easier to work with. But it hasn't "melted".

Shinobi is right. The government is lying to us. There were no planes. Shit, the towers didn't even fall. They are still there. Go and look. If you can get up close, you can still touch them. But they are hidden behind the secret cloak of invisibility. It's all a lie. And soylent green is not people!

I'm not sure what a "regular" fire, is, but in most building fires:

a) the sprinklers work

b) the building hasn't sustained a bunch of structural damage

When the North Tower fell, it took out chunk of WTC 7. The troofers always love to show pics of the 'intact' north facade. This pic shows what it looked like from the other side.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/storage/911/911-images/wtc7-side-damage1.jpg

One thing the troofers never answer: this conspiracy they've uncovered is so 'obvious' - and yet, not a single firefighter, policeman, or widow of the above, has sued on that basis, for the murder of their loved ones. Likewise, you'd think the insurance companies would have raised this small point, when they were being sued for billions of dollars by Larry Silverstein.

#12 I thought those were the GREENIES serving Lord Gore?

9/11 conspiracy theorists are the evangelical Christians of the left.

No, the fire needs to reach a very high temperature before it melts steel, there is evidence of LIQUID steel seen on the sight during and after the buildings were attacked and collapsed (around the rims of the steel structures themselves).

Many physicists (especially those not under corporate interests) have been astounded at the logic the government propaganda has put forth. And they are not even 'conspiracy theorist.'

The point is no skyscraper (and look up the history of steel structures) has ever COLLAPSED due to a regular fire. DAMAGED? YES, Collapsed, NO (again, look at the history).

WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the only skyscrapers/high rises to have ever collapse due to fire.

The 'pancake theory' is an even more blatant lie, any physicist will tell you that (unless he is bought and paid for of course).

And I love how some of you are quick to call people who question and are exercising their freedoms (supposedly) 'conspiracy theorists.'

And when forming an argument gentleman, back it up (that's right at you #9).

But look, you don't have to believe, I can't believe this is so distressful for some of you that you are willing to call names (when did we become children?).

>A regular fire cannot cause steel structures to collapse people!

Yes it can you idiot. Ever been to a steel foundry??

Sinchy and Shinobi Shaw please remove all reproductive organs, your genes are no longer needed in the pool. Thank you, goodnight.

Don't forget to do some reading of the debunking of the conspiracies too.

This is the best one :

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

It is unfortunate we waste any time with these guys.

A regular fire cannot cause steel structures to collapse people! It's basic physics, I can't believe people are still accepting this bullshit from the government!

"wouldn't that mean every building designed like wtc7 can collapse if someone throws a cigarette in a trash can?"

If two adjacent huge buildings had just collapsed and broken a water main, and firefighters were so occupied by a disaster covering several blocks (and hampered by debris covering the area, lack of command capability, and heavy casualties among their number) that little was done to fight the fire the question... then, yes, probably so.

This was an "extraordinary event," extraordinary results shouldn't be so unexpected.

And referring to the fuel stored at 7 WTC, he added, "Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7."

i find that odd, i thought the oil caused the collapse & that the truthers were idiots but now i'm supposed to believe that it was just a regular fire? wouldn't that mean every building designed like wtc7 can collapse if someone throws a cigarette in a trash can?

(i'm not an architect or engineer)

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event."

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You can listen to Architects and Engineers for 911 truth Richard Gage on why the fire did not cause the collapse here

http://www.ae911truth.org/

and here



http://www.takingaim.info/

Also, the elections are being stolen by private corporations:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spoonamore&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=spoonamor

It's very possible. But people love conspiracy's more. Even if the theorists pretend to know what they're talking about.

In other breaking news, the sun sets in the west and inheriting your family's beer distributorship might make you rich.