In Reply to: Re: WTC 7 posted by Patrick J. McNierney on May 12, 2002 at 19:23:03:
But, upon viewing this, you may wonder why these photos seem a bit odd, for a building that was damaged by fire, trusses collapsing causing collateral damage, as the way/reason it collapsed.
First - an explosion that occurred BEFORE the WTC1 or WTC2 came down. How is that plausible given your description of events?
It is very possible there were explosives in that building which caused it to come down. And not just diesel fuel, either. We also have technology that would explain why the buildings were so hot, but only if the unthinkable is really what happened. Is that possible?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html < why does a building with an unevenly burning fire collapse evenly, as if demolished?
An alternative viewpoint:
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/mslp_i.htm
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/wtc_other.htm
The building collapses evenly upon itself? Is that the expected physics from building-fires where entire buildings collapse?
http://www.rense.com/general18/cmdd.htm < this link says "structural damage from falling debris," too, but building 7 wasn't really that close to building 1 or 2... not enough to make it fall evenly.
Is it odd that all of the WTC building collapsed in on themselves, leaving metal that burned 4 - 5 times hotter than diesel fuel can normally burn, in a fire that lasts for 2 months (despite fire retardents), leaving no human body remains (not possible unless other heat sources were used to create the fire), and also no black boxes were recovered from the scenes -- oh, and leaves only concrete powder trace evidence behind from 450,000 tons of concrete? Robert Schuller, who visited the site, said "there was not one block of concrete as big as one foot left"... I've studied the photos and can't see a lot of concrete, either. Huge concrete blocks would normally be left behind, right?
And, to even debate this, we must be able to accept that guys with 600 hours flight experience, described as "dumb and dumber" by their flight instructor, could fly military-trained aggressive flight routes with meticulous curves just feet above the ground (at Pentagon) - this, of course, after taking over a plane with plastic knives. Not sure about you, but I'd probably kick some crazy's ass with my laptop if he came after me with a drywall knife. Yep, let 'em try to take me! They'd get nowhere. We must also assume that the buildings were demolished, by the same crew that demolished OKC, in such short time not a single piece of metal was analyzed. Also, the same families who built their empires on oil (Rockefeller, Bush, Walker) all built the buildings and likely capitalized on the $15B + insurance policies NY taxpayers cashed in. We must also assume that our President had a TV in a hallway of a school where he watched the first building get hit on TV - yet with no TV station broadcast that signal at that time -- Hmmm. But, if we "buy" the official story, this is what he said happened. We must assume that flight 93 was overcome by heroes, even in the facts that wreckage spewed across 8 miles with only a 10 mph wind, and witnesses of the plane exploding in the sky first. We must assume all of these things, in order to say that this really happened the way CNN and NOVA reported it.
I'm trying to rediscover my faith. And you?
Perhaps you can answer these questions:
In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?
The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)?
Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York?
Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)?
AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?
Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?
Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If not, why not?
In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down?
"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)
Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings siezed by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?
Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?
Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)?
What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams?
Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available?
Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?
Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this?
Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?
Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity?
Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?
Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon? Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?
Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?
Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?
Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
In September the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?
Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?
Is it possible that floors 9 and 10, which housed the US Secret Service and Securities Exchange Commission (and related stock-insider trade investigation files) that maybe they were destroying something on those floors that the present administration wanted gone? Perhaps related to Worldcom, Enron and other debacles surrounding black money financing, heroin trade in Afghanistan, and other energy-gouging deals?
Why is the U.S. mainstream media ignoring questions like these?
Good luck and I hope you figure it out!