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.
Not that I buy most of the tinfoil hattery but there was an official on the news who did remark that the building was “pulled.” Iirc, he later recanted, but I did think it was an odd thing to say…
This was not a pancake collapse. This was more like a pussy fart.
I’m not saying it’s not true, but is there any record of any other building of it’s size ever collapsing due to ordinary fires? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of it before. Actually, I never heard of a building like this ever collapsing except by natural disasters.
#34 – The ‘pull it’ comment was referring to the fire fighting efforts, since by that time everyone was evacuated and it was clear that the building was gonna go.
#34 – The ‘pull it’ comment was referring to the fire fighting efforts. Since by that time everyone was evacuated and it was clear that the building was gonna go, so they wanted to minimize casualties when it fell.
#36 JFetch
I think that the events of the day were extraordinary. Think of the energy involved in crashing large planes full speed into buildings. Think of two very large buildings crashing down and destroying the parts around them. It was not an ordinary day. And please remember that it was fire along with structural damage that wreaked so much damage that day.
#38, Jezcoe,
The plane damage to the buildings and the damage to WTC did not cause their collapse. That damage was manageable. Contrary to the “twoofers” claims.
It was the fires that weakened the supporting structures that caused the collapses. If the fires had been contained, the probability of saving the building would have been much closer to certain. They may have been needed to be demolished later, but they would have remained standing.
I think the only conspiracy at work here, is in designing and building flimsy structures. These towers were designed mainly to take vertical stresses and loads. And clustering them together helped protect them from bearing high winds on their own. But the designers never took into consideration fires and explosive damage from neighboring buildings. Which is what took down Tower 7 in NYC. Their modern design factored out most such unlikely causes of collapse. So they could build the things even cheaper than ever. But this “all looks and little substance” philosophy of modern architecture is like gambling on a house of cards standing against the unknown.
#12 It is curious how many photographs and video we got of building 7 before it fell and yet apparently, the WTC-7 fires were not very photogenic. There were only small fires localized within the offices of the Securites Exchange Commission (SEC). 43,000 gallons of diesel burning would have generated a spectacular fire that was never seen in or around building 7.
And yes the report will come out and it will be another fairytale about how the laws of physics took a lunch break that day.
‘xcuse my spotty grammar atm…
——
regardless of who thinks what..anyone gullible enough to take any reports, data or otherwise from our government agencies as gospel has had their head firmly planted in the sand for the last 50yrs or more. -and that’s being kind.
let’s ignore all the wonderful “data” for a moment and just look at the “picture” for a moment.
if you can believe that the technically “random acts” damaged and fell 3 rather grossly over engineered buildings, (the command bunker floor in wtc7’s case) -all sustaining damage in different ways…
..which resulted in all 3 falling in almost identical ways/patterns to each other…
well wow..i have the deed to the brooklyn bridge
and i’ll give you 20% off only because i dont have any K-Y or Crisco handy atm…
-the gullibility of people these days is mind boggling..
(ps..if they ever show the huge gouge on the corner “backside” of building 7, that alone should at least make one wonder how the heck that building went down symmetrically…)
again, the gullibility is mind boggling.
why is no one allowed to question the official
story..?
-it is our constitutional duty to do so.
-s
further more..how come the top say, 3 to 5 stories
of all 3 buildings pretty much completely vaporized like the rest of the building(s)?
the few pics ive seen of 12+ story building that fell due to earthquake or bad foundations always
had the top floors relatively and visible intact?
these buildings typically have great loads on the roof (usually from AC/cooling equip if nothing else. -so its not like some special situation arose that allowed them to make the top floors so weak as they would collapse/vaporize beyond recognition..
too many inconsistencies NOT to question it all..
-s
#40 Mr. Fusion
If you read my other posts you will see that I have consistently written that it was structural damage and fire that brought down the buildings.
#41 Glenn E
When the complex was built starting in the 70’s I doubt that anyone thought that planes would have been rammed into them on purpose. I don’t think that that was a consideration in the cost of the things.
#42 Dexton7
Whether the fuel was used up in the fire or not will be shown in the upcoming NIST report. As of now it is one of the working theories. It is not 43,000 gallons though but two 6,000 gallon tanks that fed a pressurized system that is being looked into. If you have trouble with the physics of the collapses or the original story then bring forth some opposing evidence.
#43 Soundwash
It was not random acts that caused the damage but two planes being crashed into them. The rest was inevitable. If you have any proof to the contrary than I would love to see it.
Once again I will ask for a single piece of evidence that points to an inside job. Just one.
I don’t understand why it matters how the towers collapsed. It seems to me that the Bush administration being complicit with Al Qaeda is just as likely. I don’t really care about how the towers came down, so much as why this attack happened.
Taking into consideration all the “coincidences” that allowed the planes to hit the towers and pentagon, it seems like something suspicious was going on and should be investigated. I say that not knowing whether complicity or gross negligence is the cause. Either way, an inquiry and possible referendum/impeachment should have followed.
I think that it is unfair to group all people who think something is up together in the “thruthers” group. Just because conspiracy theories bring the lunatics out of the woodwork, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be treated seriously. Or at least not completely dismissed because some (not commonly held) beliefs of some supporters are completely insane.
#46 Noel
LIHOP or let it happen on purpose is a lot harder to disprove. But it would take a grand scheme to work in perfectly for all the different agencies involved in the investigation to cover malfeasance. Remember the actual conspiracy of 19 men hijacking planes goes back to the Clinton administration. Are you prepared to say the the Clintons were in on it? So I will put to you to bring up one fact that proves some sort of LIHOP. Or basically something that goes against the 9/11 Commission report.
Also to be clear I think that Bush is one of the worst presidents in the history of our nation. The administration has used 9/11 to push through all sort of awful legislation and executive orders under the guise of security and congress has rolled over and let them.
My greatest problem with the conspiracy theories around 9/11 is that, as I have said before, there is the inability to produce one piece of evidence that supports them.
#47-Jezcoe,
I can only point toward circumstantial evidence such as the Bush owned security company that lowered its guard just before the attack. The Project for the New American Century’s report suggesting that a “new Pearl Harbour” would lead to a greater US military presence in the outside world (I have read the report and it is very chilling). The Bin Laden confession tape in which he seems to have gained 30 kg and promptly lost it in his next video in which he is emaciated and claims to have nothing to do with the attack (though he wished he had done). Or perhaps many of the suspected terrorists still being alive.
Certainly this is not irrefutable proof, but it should be enough to trigger proper inquiries.
#48 Noel
It was Marvin Bush, George’s brother, who worked, not owned, at Stratesec on the board of directors until June 2000. So he had left before the Bush Administration.
The PNAC document does refer to… well I guess I should quote it.
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.
But what does that mean in context to the rest of the document? The document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” http://www.scribd.com/doc/3098235/RebuildingAmericasDefenses
laments the lack of readiness of the military to counter new threats worldwide. It does not call for staging any sort of event at all, it calls for missile defense shield, space soldiers, and information technologies. It is clear that they are laying out a timetable for military modernization. Does the other mention of pearl harbor sound as ominous?
“Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age”.
So they are talking about an attack to which the military has no current counter to. So in context the “catalyzing event” quote can be taken in context to mean that the Military will take a long time to update unless there is an event to push it along. Not a far stretch to think that. But it runs counter to 9/11 because there is no military technological fix for 19 hijackers. Taken in context with the whole document the “Pearl Harbor” quote makes sense and does not point to some sort of foreknowledge.
The Fat Bin Laden video. Conspiracy theorists usually use a frame or two of that video, which is poor quality and bad lighting, to prove that the Bin Laden in it is fake. But once again taken in context of the whole video it is Bin Laden. Here is a much better analysis of the claim than I could ever provide.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Confession_video
#45, Jezcoe
You are quite right and I agree with you. I was reinforcing your comment but my own human failings made it appear I was arguing or trying to correct you. That was not the intent.
My humble apologies sir. I should point out that you are making very succinct, clear, and forceful arguments. The best I have seen for some time.
#50 Mr. fusion
Thank you
So when are they going to solve the mystery of the Kennedy Assassination?
There’s much more evidence of error in the government explanation for the crash of TWA flight 800.
#48-Jezcoe,
The Bushs do have an interest in Stratesec.
If you read my comment again, I think you will find that I only said “The Project for the New American Century’s report suggesting that a “new Pearl Harbour” would lead to a greater US military presence in the outside world” nothing about the report advocating such behavior, only that it was chilling. Though the attacks did support the intended ends of the project.
Again, I did not say that was not Bin Laden. I certainly was implying it though. I must say that upon watching the video again and reading the page you linked, I’m not entirely convinced . I seems to me that even in the high resolution video on that site does not look completely right. I am also not entirely sure why that site is supposed to be more reliable than the insane conspiracy sites littering the net. All I am really saying I suppose is that if that is him he looks healthier than in other videos and he claims that is not him in the video.
For the sake of argument however though, if that is Osama, in the video, there are a whole lot of links between the Bushs and Bin Ladens.
There do seem to be quite a few coincidences.
#54 “For the sake of argument however though, if that is Osama, in the video, there are a whole lot of links between the Bushs and Bin Ladens.”
Exactly, and Clinton allowed the terrorists to come and train here + allowing the whole set up to be put together. I wonder how much he was paid by Osama?
#54 Noel
That is the problem with conspiracy theories, they live off of lies, distortions, and coincidences. As you stated, you never came out and said the things that I answered to but implied them. There is no concrete evidence presented. When you can put out something more than relationships and a wink wink conjecture then you will have something.
And of course there are connections between the Bushs and Bin Ladens. Two families that deal in oil. Two families of wealth. And the fact that there about 600 people in the Bin Laden family makes it even easier to be a connection. Do they all support Osama Bin Laden. I doubt it.
#55 Patrick
Prove it.
#43, sound
Your attention to grammar is equal to your understanding of physics and mechanics. Non existent.
-it is our constitutional duty to do so.
Ya right. After you learn some basic mechanics try learning some “civics”. Fucking moran !!!
#56-Jezcoe,
I really do think that there are enough coincidences, lies and happenstance that there should be some sort of investigation by an external bod such as the UN. The problem with conspiracy theories is that man of the people who are drawn to them are insane. People tend to discredit them altogether because some people are nuts. I would like to offer up some absolute evidence, but I can’t. The problem may be that I am completely wrong and GWB and co are the best guys ever (not that they aren’t still proved war criminals etc.), but I think that there are a lot of powers working to push the official story and cover up anything that might make Republicans appear complicit, dastardly or profiteering, and not much in the way of actual investigation going on.
I definitely think that these events served republicans well, and I think that something devious was going on.
In terms of the Bin Laden-Bush connection, have you seen Fahrenheit 911? The US did install the Taliban in Afghanistan to combat the Russians in the Cold War.
#58 Noel
Investigations have to happen on hard facts and evidence not coincidence. Anything less and you get a witch hunt.
I do think that the Bushies used 9/11 to their advantage to enact policies that they would have pushed for anyway. It just made it easier. But there is a difference between profiting off of a disaster and actively making it happen.
Yes I have seen Fahrenheit 911. Michal Moore is not very good at showing different views other than his own.
So what do think it means that the families know each other?
It was the Mujahideen that was backed by the CIA to fight the Russian occupation.
#56 “Prove it.”
Prove that Clinton was in the White House for the 8 years up until the beginning of 2001? Okay, proved. That most of the planning, prep and placement of the terrorists in the US occurred during this time? Well documented. What else?
#44, unsound,
further more..how come the top say, 3 to 5 stories
of all 3 buildings pretty much completely vaporized like the rest of the building(s)?
Could you provide some proof the top few floors “vaporized”? Are you sure that the remains of those floors were not pulverized into debris and dust after falling 400 to 1000 feet?
the few pics ive seen of 12+ story building that fell due to earthquake or bad foundations always
had the top floors relatively and visible intact?
They have? Please provide some examples.
Concrete is a great building material. It has fantastic compression properties. Unfortunately, its tension and torque (bending) and stress (pulling) properties are very poor. Some tricks can be used to increase the torque and stress properties such as using rebar and pre-stressed steel rods or special shapes, but under heavy, sudden, and / or uneven loads even pre-stressed concrete will break. With enough force it will shatter.
In a fire concrete will flake and chunks will fall off. This is called “spalling” and is caused by residue water from the concrete pouring to vaporize and explode. The longer the flame the more the spalling occurs. In reinforced concrete, heat reduces the effective strength of any pre-stressed steel which reduces the overall strength of the structure. The more heat applied to concrete the faster it will fail.
Coincidence? No. Just plain ordinary structural properties. Something most High Schools teach in gr. 9 or 10 science.
#60 Patrick
No prove that Clinton was complicit in the attacks and somehow handed the plans over to the Bush’s
#60 Patrick
I am sorry. I mean prove your original claim that Osama paid off Clinton. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.