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…
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.
“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.”
This should keep conspiracy sites in business for decades. Fairly detailed article; but, the real fun doesn’t start till the whole report is released.
Isn’t it just funny how that WTC7 building collapses (and no planes hit it) in itself from a few fires while the one in Madrid burned for like a day and still didn’t collapse like a controlled demolition: http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296
Yup, and every building in the Western world is constructed exactly the same.
It’s just funny how truthers will say the same mantra of “no planes hit it… no steel building ever before… the building in Madrid… Looks like controlled demo… Look at this website” over and over and over for years without providing any real evidence for their claims
wtf is 9/11 :/
“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”
Like the two years it took to come up with that ridiculous ‘pancake collapse’ bullcrap that was supposed to explain how the 2 main towers collapsed. Of course, that particular explanation failed to account for the inner-core supports and other inconvenient things like that which had to be left out so the pancake thing could actually occur.
This is going to be another whitewash. There is no way ‘ordinary fires’ caused building 7 to collapse and handily destroy the hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence about security fraud and all the juicy Enron stuff that was stored in it. In all such things the mantra “follow the money” should be followed, and the person/s who stood the most to gain be put at the top of the suspect list.
#5 Zybch
The pancake collapse theory you are talking about was put forth by FEMA and not by NIST. The NIST report replaces that explanation with a more detailed and scientific one. Remember it took NIST until 2005 to put out their report on WTC1 and WTC2.
As far as securities fraud, name one investigation that did not go forward because of 9/11. What would it accomplish to destroy an entire complex of buildings when a paper shredder and a big magnet would have been more effective than having thousands of strangers picking around a crime scene for months.
Once again bring forth one piece of hard evidence. Not conjecture, scuttlebutt, rumor, or unicorn wishes.
Why would debris from the other two towers cause fires in that building? Do they have gas tanks on every floor?
Are the main towers 1 and 2 or 5 and 6?
I know when I have sensitive papers to get rid of, I always have to make a decision whether it would be easier to use a shredder or use a controlled detonation to destroy my house.
OK, but who started the fires and why were they not snuffed out promptly.
Thats the real question.
You will never know what actually happened, so why dwell on it? You can’t have the relative freedom we all enjoy, and have all operations of national security as public knowledge. The country is too big, too diverse and too “free” to survive without secrecy.
I am constantly amazed by the “Just asking questions” tact of truthers without the need to go and get the answers.
#7 MikeN
WTC 7 had around 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel to power backup generators. Of that fuel there were two 6,000 gallon tanks feeding nine emergency generators under a pressurized system. When the tanks were found in the wreckage they were empty but fuel was not detected in the ground below them leading to believe that the fuel was consumed in the fire. Of course this only theory until the NIST report comes out but it does seem to make sense.
#10 English Vibrato
Remember the very large buildings next to WTC7 that collapsed? WTC1 was about 350 Feet away. There were also water pressure problems that hindered the fighting of the fires plus THERE WAS JUST THE COLLAPSE OF TWO HUGE BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR.
Please bring one piece of hard evidence.
#3
Its funny how you can’t believe the people that have more evidence, instead you are so gullible that if you see it on TV or the news it HAS to be true. Why don’t you do some research and look at real professionals finding and form your own opinion instead of just going on what the television tells you. When you can get on here and start stating facts and evidence to the idea that 9/11 happened exactly like the television happened then we will listen.
#13 bpc2duser
You still have not answered my challenge to bring one piece of hard evidence. I would like to know where you get your research from. Is it pixelated youtube videos? Who are these professionals that you point to? Do they present any evidence that is not based on conjecture or fantasy? Do they present any hard evidence to back up their claims?
#14
I am not arguing for either side right now. I am just stating that you are on here talking about the “truthers” not stating hard fact. Whats your excuse? Wheres your hard facts? I’m saying that alone the fact that only 3 steel structure buildings like the WTC buildings have ever fallen due to fire and only 2 planes crashes have ever been so severe that they didnt find bodies or major parts of the planes, and all 5 of those incidents happened. This kind of evidence sparks my interest to go look elsewhere for more of this kind of info.
Not to keep going on like I am arguing in favor of the conspiracy theorists, the point I am trying to make is that the “truthers” are at least stating some kind of evidence. Whereas the people that are arguing with them aren’t making very good arguments. and contrary to popular belief “Nuh uh! Never happened, the TV/Government says so!” is not a good argument. I just wish people would form their own opinions on this kind of stuff.
see #12 is actually bringing some data to the table, I like that.
#16 – answer of the day. 🙂
It’s not how they fell that’s the covered up conspiracy, it’s why they were allowed to be destroyed in the first place. The steps and meetings leading up to a need for a Pearl Harbor to take place are well documented by people from Bill Moyers to Alan Greenspan and people still pay no heed, instead being diverted with silly conversations about why a damaged building fell down.
#15 mbpc2duser
I posted #12. If you have questions about 9/11 it is fine. But use your brain and go and find the answers. You will find that the side that is debating the “”inside job” tact do not have logic on their side.
Lets look at your post #15.
“I’m saying that alone the fact that only 3 steel structure buildings like the WTC buildings have ever fallen due to fire ”
How about fire and massive structural damage.
“only 2 planes crashes have ever been so severe that they didnt find bodies or major parts of the planes”
I do not know what you are referencing, please clarify.
“the point I am trying to make is that the “truthers” are at least stating some kind of evidence.”
If there is evidence then please show it.
“Whereas the people that are arguing with them aren’t making very good arguments. and contrary to popular belief “Nuh uh! Never happened, the TV/Government says so!” is not a good argument.”
I agree, that is why I have educated myself.
“I just wish people would form their own opinions on this kind of stuff.”
I do too, but those opinions should be based on supportable facts and not FUD.
Once again, One piece of hard evidence is all that I ask.
#18 “The steps and meetings leading up to a need for a Pearl Harbor to take place are well documented by people from Bill Moyers to Alan Greenspan and people still pay no heed, instead being diverted with silly conversations about why a damaged building fell down.”
Yep, why hasn’t Clinton been indicted since all planning and set up took place under his admin?
One of the explanations given for the WTC towers pancake collapse was the unusual construction, outer frame supported the towers. Now they are saying tower 7 pancaked due to the fires, yet the construction was different then the twin towers.
So much for a top-notched urban command and control centre. oh,wait. it was put in the pink taco.
#21 Bob West
No one is saying that WTC7 had a pancake collapse. NIST also didn’t say that WTC1 and WTC2 had a pancake collapse, that was FEMA in a preliminary report that they admitted needed more investigation.
WTC7 did indeed have an odd construction that was different than WTC1&2. But that is pretty meaningless to the argument.
moss said
Yup, and every building in the Western world is constructed exactly the same.
Yeah, and it always takes them 7-8 years to fabricate, I mean, figure out why they collapsed.
LOL…
Well, as the Bush/Cheney REIGN OF ERROR comes to an end, they are trying to put a cap on their CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE !!! The first order of business of the Obama Presidency ought to be to appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND EMPANEL A GRAND JURY WITH SUBPOENA POWER to have a REAL INVESTIGATION of the entire 9/11 NATIONAL SECURITY FAILURE !!! Bush/Cheney shoule have to ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE – UNDER OATH – FOR THEIR NEGLIGENCE, MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, AND NON-FEASANCE !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance
“Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance”, says Gage, “they don’t go straight down through themselves.”
That’s bullshit. If you look at how buildings collapse during earthquakes, they fall straight down through themselves. Structural failure results in the floors pancaking one on top of the other. It’s not like the thing is a rigid structure that can fall over intact!
#27 brucemlloyd
Yes it would be good evidence if it were compring apples to apples.
The Windsor fire in Madrid destroyed the steel structure above the 17th floor. The concrete core of the building was what was left standing. It was a completely different design and construction than the WTC.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The B-25 bomber that hit the Empire State Building was lost in the fog going at around 200 miles an hour when it crashed into the building. It did cause a pretty good amount of damage but because of the construction of the Empire State Building and the relative low speed of the aircraft there was not enough damage to bring down the Empire State building.
The empty weight of a B-25 is a little over 21,000 lbs.
The empty weight of the 767’s that hit the WTC are around 181,000 lbs. Plus the airplanes were going over 450 MPH.
So take the weight and Velocity of each plane and calculate the force on impact. Not even close.
Please bring concrete evidence. A smoking gun if you will.
#27, brucelloyd,
My brother-in-law is named Bruce. He is a right fucking jerk. Does that mean everyone named Bruce is a jerk? Well, besides you and him?
*
All the WTC towers, 1, 2, & 7, had about 50% support via the core and 50% on the outside walls. When the heat of the fires caused the steel cross supports to weaken, they pulled the outside walls in towards the center thus causing the outside walls to lose their integrity. Without any support, those floors above the weakened supports gave in and fell onto the floors beneath, thus starting the catastrophic chain.
The steel supports did not melt. But at higher temperatures they will lose their strength. It doesn’t matter if they are insulated or not, eventually the heat will reach the supports. In WTC 1 & 2, the insulation was knocked off which hastened their collapse. In WTC 7, it took several hours longer because the supports and insulation were in better condition, but they too eventually failed.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths
http://debunking911.com/
#31 Brucemlloyd
While true WTC7 was not hit by a plane it was hit by WTC1. Remember these buildings were pretty close together. Structural damage along with an uncontrolled fire brought down WTC7 due to it’s odd construction. Could you put forth a better argument that is supported by evidence and facts. Actually I have consistently asked for a single supportable fact that links 9/11 to being an inside job.
# 25 JimD
Take a fuxing Valium & chill. You rabid Bush haters are going to pop an artery one of these days. (We can only hope.)