East Penthouse on top of WTC 7 imploded too!

[killtown]

Another smoking gun that the WTC 7 was PULLED! :wow:

"5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to "disappear" completely." - FEMA (05/02)

A fire :grr: did all this? :rofl:



The rest of the WTC 7 perfectly imploding: :nuke:

~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south "kink" or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall." - FEMA (05/02)

WTC 7 perfectly imploded on it's own footprint: :wtf:

"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and
implosion." - FEMA (05/02)


"...when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a...skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint." - HowStuffWorks.com

And just in case you forgot: :yoiks:

America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero -PBS (09/10/02)

Narrator: "World Trade Center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding.

Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder: "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." - Audio


(Unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we
demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area." - Audio

See also: Was the WTC 7 pulled? :patriot:

[hack89]

1. So is it safe to assume you can provide a technical debunking..

of NIST's proposed collapse mechanism? Or are we to judge the quality of your scholarship by the number of smilies?

[jschurchin]

2. Hi Hack

member me. Hey I gotta question what exactly does the NIST do and are they qualified to pronounce judgement on why the buildings collapsed?

[hack89]

3. Funny question from a 911 expert...

but they are responsible for the nations fire and building codes. Through their association with various universities and with their own Building and Fire Research Lab ( http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/ )they conduct research on building materials, building methods and fire safety.

The Building and Fire Research Laboratory studies building materials; computer-integrated construction practices; fire science and fire safety engineering; and structural, mechanical, and environmental engineering. Products of the laboratory's research include measurements and test methods, performance criteria, and technical data that supports innovations by industry and are incorporated into building and fire standards and codes.

You would be hard pressed to find any other organization with their resources and experience when it comes to investigating the WTC collapses.

[jschurchin]

6. So they test building materials?

I checked their web site for their investigatory section, I couldn't find it. Maybe being such a swell guy you could help me out and provide the link?

[jschurchin]

7. Hey Buddy......

one other thing. In our discussion about the Pentagon you said since they knew what happened the NTSB didn't have to investagate the crash, check out this link.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/NTSB_statute.htm#1132

Don't you just hate smartass guy's from PITTSBURGH.

[hack89]

9. Except when...

In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.

More recently, on September 11, 2001, the crashes of all four airliners were obviously the result of criminal actions and the Justice Department assumed control of the investigations. The NTSB provided requested technical support.

http://www.ntsb.gov/abt_ntsb/invest.htm

So there will not be an separate NTSB report - there will just be an FBI report.


Amusement, not hatred, is the primary emotion you evoke.

[jschurchin]

23. I stand corrected........

when you can provide a link to the FBI investagatory report I would appreciate it, thnx buddy!

[AZCat]

8. You mean the actual materials?

That's usually all certified by ASTM, ANSI, UL, or any of the myrad other groups set up to do that. These groups develop the standards for building materials and are responsible for testing materials to see if they meet the requirements of the standard. The BFRL does research that supports the development of these standards, but does not develop standards on its own.

[jschurchin]

11. Yeah, I know what these...........

organizations do and why they conduct their testing. I was in commercial construction for 20 years, I understand what ANSI, UL, NIST and other standards and testing firm's do.
My point to Hack being, they ARE NOT disaster investigatory firms. They test building materials to the point of failure and create standards for the construction industry.
I checked NIST's site, nowhere is there a Disaster Investigation Team.
It IS NOT what they do. He is famous for prove it, So I am asking him to PROVE that NIST investigates disasters. And one report does not a investigatory agency make.
Sorry AZ don't mean to rant!!!

[hack89]

12. They have a long history of disaster investigations,,

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/bfrlinvestigations.htm

[jschurchin]

24. Good Link Thanks, but...

"Under the National Construction Safty Team (NCST) Act, signed into law in October 2002"

When did the event occur we are discussing?

[hack89]

26. Did you even look at the link I sent ?

NIST has more than 30 years of experience investigating building fire and structural failures. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, “third party” investigator. According to the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as
evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.

Other building fire and structural failure investigations in which NIST has participated or led include:

* Terrorist attack, Pentagon, Washington, D.C., 2001
* Apartment fire, New York City, 1998
* Terrorist bombing, Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Okla., 1995
* Building fire, Happyland Social Club, Bronx, N.Y., 1990
* Tank failure, Ashland Oil Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., 1988
* Building fire, First Interstate Bank Building, Los Angeles, Calif., 1988
* Building fire, Dupont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1986
* Highway ramp failure, East Chicago, Ind., 1982
* Condominium collapse, Cocoa Beach, Fla., 1981
* Cooling tower collapse, Willow Island, W.Va., 1978
* Apartment building collapse, Bailey’s Crossroads, Va., 1973

[jschurchin]

32. That's real nice..............

and I am sure that building material standard's have been changed by their findings.

In all seriousness, I do apologize for being a dickweed about the Pentagon. I was not nice and you are entitled to your opinion. There is nothing wrong with disagreement as long as it is civil.

That being said, back to the battle.

[AZCat]

48. Don't worry about the ranting.

What are internet forums for, if not to let us all blow off a little steam?

Rant away!

[hack89]

10. Here you go...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/bfrlinvestigations.htm

If you expect credibility, it might behoove you to make some minimal effort to learn basic facts on your own. Next time a question pops into your mind, why don't you take the time to research it yourself - it took all 5 minutes to find this link.

[jschurchin]

25. Yeah partner I did read..........

it before I asked for the link. I suggest you read It Again. You obviously are missing some very important parts.

Such as "According to the NCST act NO part of any report can be admitted as EVIDENCE or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witness's."

So what part of their report would you not like to use as evidence?

[hack89]

28. You do understand, don't you,..

that NIST is not doing a criminal investigation. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion - the FBI is responsible for the criminal investigation.

[jschurchin]

30. Yeah man I got it.........

please be a buddy and go read your first post to killtown and explain the agancy you want to use as evidence. Then remember my last post. Thanks.

[hack89]

33. I was not referring to evidence in a criminal trial ...

merely evidence that explains what happened. Whether or not it ever sees the inside of a courtroom is irrelevant to how good the science is. My point to killtown is that technical evidence must be judged (both good or bad)on its technical merits - there is nothing technical in his critique.

NIST has the experience and the expertise to conduct the investigation they did and support the conclusions they reached. They identified specific collapse mechanism that would produce killtown's "smoking gun" - killtown (and you for that matter) have not demonstrated that you have even read their report much less understand it. I am certain nether of you could summarize their WTC 7 collapse mechanism without cutting and pasting from some CT site. That is what the intent of my post to killtown was about - less superficiality and more specifics. Fewer smilies and more science.

[jschurchin]

34. Thank you for......

the honest answer. You are correct in the assumption that I have not read the report, but I will and believe me I will do the research to understand the parts I do not.

Something about the way the buildings collapsed just does not seem right. But I do have to do more research to better define my argument's.

If you don't hear from me for a while, don't take it personally. No affront intended.

[hack89]

36. No affront taken nt

[rman]

4. the NIST report

copied from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x66677

in reference to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x66589


NIST had gotten $20 million to spend on this.

The NIST report tries to make 2 main points:
1. the plane crashes caused fires, weakening of the steel, leading to collapse initiation
2. once collapse has been initiated it becomes "global collapse"

1st point takes up the entire 300 page report.

2nd point is put forth as an assertion, even though "global collapse" has never occurred in the past.

"a mountain of distracting detail"
NIST used finite element analysis to model the planes down to the individual turbine blades of the engines, individual seats and every single strut in the wings.

Almost all of the report deals with highly detailed simulations of the plane crashes. The explanation of the actual collapse initiation mechanism is only 1.5 pages short and is very vague, completely lacking the great attention to detail found in the rest of the report.

The NIST collapse initiation mechanism is the opposite of that of FEMA. FEMA concludes that the connections of the floor trusses to the core and the perimeter wall failed, causing the floors to drop. NIST concludes that the connections of the floor trusses were so strong that the 'sagging' floors locally pulled the perimeter columns inward, causing buckling and falling apart of the outer walls and the core.


"If only they would apply some their millions of dollars to trying to model why these buildings exploded when they came down, i think that would be a much more appropriate use of public resources".
-- Jim Hoffman


Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
Guns & Butter on KPFA
With Software Engineer and Research Scientist, Jim Hoffman. Analysis and deconstruction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) draft government report on the physical evidence regarding the collapses of the World Trade Center twin towers on September 11, 2001. Originally broadcast on September 28, 2005.
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=1
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112 (mp3)

[hack89]

5. How about an independent foreign source ...

who does not question that fire alone brought down the WTC? They disagree with some of the mechanisms that NIST proposes but put forward their own - now the scientific process of peer review and experimentation will take these ideas (NIST and ARUP's) to further their understanding of what happened.

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

15. Pardon me while I make a comment

Peer review :rofl:

Outnunbered? Where? How? :rofl:

Please continue

[hack89]

17. Well, considering that it takes two of you to technically outnumber me,

I guess there is some truth to what you say :eyes:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

20. Technically...

... it doesn't appear that they have set-up any peer review process or cooperative research system within this organization.

The following are the paragraphs immediately preceding the portion that you posted:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T) is a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11.

The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues.

S9/11T members are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.

They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

S9/11T encourages its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings.

Founded by professors Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones, S9/11T is devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may".

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

It looks like they believe joining together under one entity will lend credence to their individual research.

Perhaps when they put out a paper under the organization's name we can say that it has undergone some peer review process, but a list of names does not necessarily mean that such a process has been implemented.

- Make7

[jschurchin]

31. Hey Liberty you got to..........

admit this really would be a boring forum with my buddy Hack and his friends Lared and Kevin Fenton.
I do try to keep an open mind, what little is left of it. Way to many years on the party patrol, anyway I enjoy talking to everyone in this forum, everyone. And it would be boring without them.

[libertypirate]

38. Sure but you have to admit that if you were here for any length of

time your opinions should change, your views should change, and the facts that you hold most relevant about 9-11 should change.

The problem is reality their views, facts, and opinions have not changed a bit since I first saw them on this board.

And perhaps factoring in that with their constant attempts to derail converstations I have my own perceptions about their behavior.

[jschurchin]

40. Fair enough.

[greyl]

64. It's interesting how little agreement there is among "you" guys.

If a group of people rationally and scientifically investigate something objective, we can expect their views to converge eventually. That's what happens through the process of peer review. What I see is movement toward more diversity within the extreme 911 conpiracies. Arguments to support alt hypotheses aren't being strengthened, but new crazy shit pops up all the time to effectively derail intellectually honest and competent investigation.

"you have to admit that if you were here for any length of time your opinions should change, your views should change, and the facts that you hold most relevant about 9-11 should change."

Maybe, it depends. Firstly, this forum isn't the first and only "resource" for 9/11 information. Is there anything here that can't be found elsewhere? Second, you have no good reason to expect critical thinkers to change their views due to being faced with a poor argument. And I have no good reason to believe that most people who are emotionally attached to a bad idea will change their views after being presented with a good argument.

Prediction: Steven E. Jones will one day be quoted apologetically saying "I said it was only a hypothesis. It was never a theory in the scientific sense." I'm not holding my breath though, because I don't think he's ever apologized for his myopic and self-serving hypothesis that Jesus 'visited' North America.

[simonm]

62. My favorite explanation

2. once collapse has been initiated it becomes "global collapse"

That is comparable to knocking one leg off a four legged chair while the remaining three collapse at the same time. A complete symmetrical collapse from partial damage is ridiculous.

Do they really think we are that stupid?

[killtown]

63. "but, but chairs aren't designed to collapse straight down

like skyscrapers are!"


LoL! One of my favorite responses!

[killtown]

13. oh I'm sorry Hack...

:nopity:

[hack89]

16. Thanks for the thoughtful answer..

certainly up to your usual standards. Superficial analysis and smilies - an unbeatable combination.

[libertypirate]

19. Who would have guessed you liked thinking? It doesn't show /nt

[hack89]

27. Why do you think I like this forum? nt

[libertypirate]

39. Sorry I forget that everyone doesn't like what they do for a living

My Bad

[hack89]

44. It's ok

decent benefits and they promise they will move me to the UFO cover up in a year or two

[libertypirate]

49. At least you have options not a dead end job, but it's got to get to you

spreading the same BS day end day out. Well unless you don't know any better...

[TomClash]

35. Can anyone provide a "technical debunking?"

Pretty hard to do that when most of the forensic evidence was sequestered, moved prematurely and/or destroyed.

[hack89]

37. How about a critique starting with basic engineering principles..

here is a good example from a 911 skeptic concerning the use of explosives. I don't know if it is right or not, but he attempts to use basic physics to answer some basic questions. I get tired of all the statements along the line that it was "impossible for XX to happen" with absolutely no attempt to back it up with some basic engineering or physics. It isn't rocket science yet it is uniformly missing from most 911 CT posts.


http://www.erichufschmid.net/WTC_AnalysisRussell.html

[TomClash]

42. Fair enough

I'm not qualified to do that.

But the buckle in that photo reminds me of the buckle near the top that occurred when 2 WTC collapsed.

That said, I'm not convinced 1 and 2 were part of a controlled demolition, though it sure looked like it to my wife's untrained eye.

[Make7]

21. What would be the purpose of imploding the East Penthouse first?

And then the West Penthouse? Then finally the building itself?

(Other than to perhaps give killtown another "smoking gun"?)

- Make7

[killtown]

22. Educate yourself on how to properly implode a building

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

[Make7]

29. Gee, the animation in that site shows...

the first blast in the middle, then the sides, and then the top. Is that how to properly do it?

You are saying the fact that the East Penthouse went first, then the West Penthouse, followed by the rest of the building is proof that it was controlled demolition.

Once again, what is the purpose of doing the East side first, followed by the West side? Why not both at the same time? Or why not the middle like the animation?

And how would the sequence differ if the internal support structure failed under where the East Penthouse was and then failed under where the West Penthouse was?

In other words, why do you believe the outlined sequence is proof of controlled demolition and could not be caused by some other collapse mechanism?

- Make7

[libertypirate]

41. Shut up your talking in circles....

When a building falls to it's foundation it never does it without a heck of a lot of energy.

"some other collapse mechanism" Could you provide an example of such mechanics?


DENY, DISCREDIT, DISTRACT nothing new here just move along....

[hack89]

43. You make no sense..

Weight plus gravity is all you need - once a vital support member fails, the remaining supports are overloaded as the weight is redistributed. Now that initial support could be severed with explosives but it can also fail due to fire. No matter what the initial cause, the building will come done the same way.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[killtown]

51. "the building will come done the same way"

So why do demo crews spend many many hours carefully planning an implosion if "the building will come done the same way"? Sounds like they are wasting a lot of time and money according to your logic, huh?

[Make7]

45. Thank you for your thoughtful and polite response.

libertypirate wrote:

...your talking in circles....

You seem to be having some difficulty in understanding my previous post. I am simply asking killtown to explain his reasoning for concluding that the "implosion" of the East Penthouse at the beginning of the collapse sequence "is proof positive that the 7 was imploded by bombs".

libertypirate wrote:

When a building falls to it's foundation it never does it without a heck of a lot of energy.

Excellent point, although I'm not sure what, if anything, that has to do with my posts. Why did you feel the need to point out something so completely obvious?

libertypirate wrote:

"some other collapse mechanism" Could you provide an example of such mechanics?

The McCormick Place Exhibition Center fire.

- Make7

[libertypirate]

47. Sequence

You seem to be having some difficulty in understanding my previous post. I am simply asking killtown to explain his reasoning for concluding that the "implosion" of the East Penthouse at the beginning of the collapse sequence "is proof positive that the 7 was imploded by bombs".

Sequence

It's like A + B + C = D

But in this case A,B,C are the movements of buildings sections that would have to move in a specific order to achieve a desired result.

If your going to implode a building you start in the middle; the penthouse is at the top of the middle and directly above the point where the building seemed to fold. How would fire collapse the strongest area of the building first? How would the center of a building collapse with no visible evidence from the outside structure?

If a building falls apart it's going to do it from the weakest part first and that's not going to be the part supporting the penthouse.

Sorry about my mood lately... You may have gotten a bad deal... Sorry for that....

[Make7]

53. RE: Sequence

The East Penthouse was above the transfer trusses on that side of the building. If one of them failed for some reason, the East Penthouse would likely fall into the building exactly as shown in the original post.

I simply want to know, based on just the collapse sequence, how one can determine that the building failure was caused by explosives and not some other reason.

I thought the original post was saying that the fact that the East Penthouse collapsed into the building first somehow proves the building was brought down by controlled demolition - however, the reasoning for that conclusion does not seem to have been provided.

- Make7

[killtown]

50. Go back and READ how implosions work

it's obvious you didn't the first time.

[Make7]

52. I only like looking at the pictures.

When I first read the thread title "East Penthouse on top of WTC 7 imploded too!", I thought - what would be the purpose of blowing up something on top of the building? But from the quotes you posted, I guess you must be saying that the structure beneath the East Penthouse was blown up causing the East Penthouse to collapse into the building.

Since the East Penthouse was above the transfer trusses on that side of the building, I am wondering how you know for a fact, based just on the collapse sequence, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. If one of the transfer trusses failed due to a combination of fire, defect, and/or faulty engineering, wouldn't the East Penthouse fall into the building in a similar fashion?

I am asking you to explain why you believe the East Penthouse falling first is proof of controlled demolition. I wouldn't think this "smoking gun" would be that difficult to explain.

Suggesting that I read something written by someone else - about buildings other than the one under discussion - does absolutely nothing to explain why you think that the outlined collapse sequence is proof of controlled demolition for this building.

Perhaps if you could give some explanation, we could discuss it - but claiming it is "proof" without even giving some reason is not convincing. I would suggest that if you do not want to discuss this with me and/or would rather not answer some basic questions, just stop replying to my posts.

- Make7

[killtown]

54. Hint: It's not that the penthouse collapses, it's more like HOW

it collapses. It perfectly implodes.

Btw, do you think all demolisions of buildings are done exactly the same???

[Make7]

55. Are or unable, or just unwilling to explain why you think this is "proof"?

Let's try to at least get close to the same page on this - can we establish what actually happened concerning the event in question?

The East Penthouse itself did not implode, the structure of the building below it failed (initiating event to be determined) causing the penthouse to fall into the building. Do you think that is that an accurate description of what happened to the East Penthouse?

If that description is accurate, then the variable remaining is what caused the building failure. Why do you think how the East Penthouse collapsed proves explosives were used?

If that description is not accurate, how would you describe it? And why does that lead you to believe that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition?

killtown wrote:

Btw, do you think all demolisions of buildings are done exactly the same???

No, I don't.


- Make7

[jschurchin]

56. Sorry to intrude........

on the delightful conversation between the two of you. May I ask a question? What does postulated mean?

[Make7]

57. No need to apologize. I welcome the interruption.

My forehead is starting to hurt...

jschurchin wrote:

May I ask a question? What does postulated mean?

Yes you may. Try one of these:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=postulated

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/postulated

    http://www.answers.com/postulate


- Make7
Why not just ask what you want to know?

[jschurchin]

58. Thank You, about your head.....

take 2 Percocet and I'll call you tomorrow, LOL. Just kidding.
The reason I asked was in the NIST preliminary report they state that the "First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roof line, aligned with interior column's 79, 80 and 81.Postulated initiating events include the failure of these columns."

According to Websters Online: Postulated (adj.) Assumed without proof,as a, postulated inference.

Are you familiar with the NIST and FEMA reports?

[Make7]

59. I don't like to dilute my drugs with Tylenol, it's OxyContin or nothing.

I haven't read the NIST report on WTC7 yet, but I did read the FEMA report quite some time ago.

I interpret the use of 'postulated' in that sentence as suggesting a theory without it having been proven - similar to how it would be used in mathematics. But nonetheless, they are saying that the initiating event has not yet been proven - but they are giving possible causes based on what is known of the building design.

The FEMA report did not reach any definitive conclusions either - they advanced their ideas as far as what they think may have occurred as well.

It appears that both organizations are at least being upfront that they haven't been able to prove what initiated the collapse of WTC7. Unlike some people around here, who shall remain nameless.

If someone says they have 'proof' of something, I'd like to evaluate it myself to see if it is valid or not. That may help explain the majority of my posts in this particular thread.

- Make7

[jschurchin]

60. Love the subject line LOL LOL.

I agree with your thought process concerning proof. I am just beginning to look at the available information, my background is in commercial construction (plumbing, fire protection and carpentry) and building maintenance. So I am very familiar with what it takes to put a building up and keep it up, sadly though I am not as familiar with what it takes to make one fall down.
Currently I am reading both reports, to try to understand what happened.
I am sure Ktown will read this and say explosives brought it down, that is one possibility, but there are others. The fact's as they are presented right now do not support explosives but they also do not support fire either. There is just not enough information to support either hypothesis.
I was one of those guy's who used to go "oh, come on it's as plane as the nose on your face." Until a certain nameless member of DU said "have you read the report's?" I am like duh, no. And I understood, an opinion without fact's to support it and making those facts available to all of us, is no opinion at all.
I am pretty sure we all want the same thing, the Truth, it is buried somewhere and it is going to take a lot of work and Reading to find it.
Until next time Make7, J

[killtown]

61. The pulling of the WTC 7

needs to stay front and center on this forum. It's one of the easiest 9/11 conspiracies to prove.

[file83]

65. True that. Do you think, though, that maybe an aspect that

gets overlooked is the military 'stand down' that occured? Right now I'm reading the middle chapters of Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" concerning the attacks, and it is kind of 'reintroducing' me to the military stand down that occured.

When you compare what SHOULD have happened that day to what ACTUALLY happened, it really does truly remind me of the Sherlock Holmes case of "The Dog That Did Not Bark".

And if one refuses to believe LIHOP/MIHOP, then the only other conclusion is that the multi-trillion dollar North American Air-Defense shield isn't worth shit. You would have to ask yourself, "What in the hell did we spend all that money on if we can't even scramble a couple of fucking jet fighters to intercept those jet liners?" If you don't believe MIHOP/LIHOP, then your only other option is that the American people have been the victims of the biggest SCAM in the history of the world, in terms of paying for TRILLIONS of dollars for essentially, nothing.

Personally, the more believable scenario is either LIHOP/MIHOP.

[JackieO]

66. nice presentation

thanks killtown :)