National Geographic program called Inside 911

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/13974.php

Excerpt:

"The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake. A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away. "

.

 

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

.

 

i remember not so long ago bill clinton apologising for the fact that the american authorities had deliberately injected radioactive isotopes into pregnant woman to see what it would do to the unborn child. this was done 50 years ago. one day the american people are going to wake up and realise that they have been completely fucked over by the government. 9/11? of course it was an act of treason by the very security service that was meant to protect them, welcome to the real world, get used to it.

 

A french cameraman was there filming the fire department dealing with a gas leak. The first aircraft passed nearly overhead of them and the cameraman decided to stay on the plane. (I happen to do videography part-time and I would have filmed it too if I saw a jumbo jet flying that low in Manhattan).

The speed of the first plane was determined from the French video. You can read about the details of an analysis that was performed by researchers at MIT (see article 'Speed of Aircraft'). The speed of the first aircraft turned out to be about 429 MPH.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

Knowing the speed is important because it tells you the kinetic energy of the aircraft. The aircraft that hit WTC1 went in but didn't come out (with the exception of a landing gear). Its energy went into defoming and fracturing the aircraft itself and also the building.

According to the finite element modeling done at MIT, the aircraft itself dissipated about 23% of its kinetic energy (this went into bending and fracturing the aircraft itself). About 48% was expended damaging the floors of the building. Damage of the inner core columns took up about 25% of the energy. The outer facade/core took up only about 4%.

As a comparison, a 3000 lb car going 60 MPH has about 0.5 mega-Joules of kinetic energy. The jet that hit the north tower had about 2500 mega joules of energy (5000 times as much energy as the car), The building had to take up about 77% of that energy, which amounts to nearly 2000 mega-Joules.

The floors and columns must have been damaged heavily by that amount of energy. It's estimated that about 4 to 12 inner columns were bent severely or fractured in WTC1.

This debunks qualitative remarks by conspiracy advocates such as Morgan Reynolds (an economist) who try to play down the amount of damage done to the building by the initial impact. Morgan contends that there wasn't much damage done to the buildings based on what the building looked like from the outside (an attempt to try to persuade people that they couldn't have fallen on their own).

The second plane that hit the south tower was going about 503 MPH. Film taken from a camera on the Brooklyn bridge gave an accurate measure of the speed (the camera had a progressive 25 frames per second, which makes it an ideal source for determining speed compared with regular interlaced TV cameras).

The kinetic energy at 503 MPH is about 37% higher than the plane that hit the WTC1 going at 429 MPH. Since this plane (which is the same type and weight as the one that hit WTC1) also went in but didn't come out (with the exception of an engine and wheel), the intial damage done to WTC2 must have been significantly larger. An estimated 7 to 20 inner core columns were damaged. It's not inconsistent that WTC2 collapsed first.

.

 

To even compare the two is ludicrous.

 

So physics support the fact that the buildings fell at free-fall speeds (in under 10 seconds), while dispersing pulverized concrete (indicating explosives) all over the area? Most of the debris left over from the collapse literally had to be scooped up in buckets.

Um, no. I doubt the people who were in the sub-basements, who witnessed the machine press and parking garage completely blown out, were trying to make anything consistent with their "ideoligical views." They saw what they saw.

I doubt the multitude of firefighters, who reported explosives in the builidngs, were trying to make anything consistent with their "ideological views."

 

So what about Building 7, Shaggie? What is your reasoning behind that? Keep in mind Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

Have you even seen the footage of the collapse? Probably not.

 

Here is a link featuring a multitude of links regarding the controlled demolition of the towers and Building Seven.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs

 

Does anyone else agree that Shaggie is intentionally ignoring vital evidence, while highlighting everything that is the establishment's official line? Either that, or he has spent a minimal amount of time researching the official story? Perhaps both. I'll stop short of saying he's COINTELPRO.

Talk about being swayed by "ideological views!"

 

So Rat, you predicted the invasion of iran and syria, neither of which happened, and said social security privatisation was only planned to prevent the stock market from falling 50%. There was no privatisation, and the stock market went up. Anb then there´s the demise of the US economy which you are constantly predicting.


But your ability to get things 100% wrong only seems to make you less willing to doubt anything you read on your conspiracy websites. Lets take the WTC 7 story. The most important question about WTC 7 is who fucking cares? If you polled Americans, 99% of them would say they had no idea what WTC7 is or what happened to it. When the giant conpiracy of tens of thousands of people far and wide across the world planned 911, they said what exactly. "Lets demolish WTC 7 for no particular reason, just so we can take down one more building?" And why? Why not just WTC 1 and 2?

I know its against your priciples to answer questions until you have received to official answer from your official conspiracy websites, but I thought i´d ask anyway.

 

I watched WTC7 collapse live on TV on 9/11. Ashley Banfield of MSNBC was there on the street when it happened (I remember her telling a young woman on the street to protect her little child and run and the dust cloud that came toward them). During that day, the fire crews were reporting that WTC7 would likely collapse. It was making creaking noises and windows were breaking as the structure became more strained.

WTC7 had a different type of column and truss plan compared with the towers due to a substation and vaults in the basement area. It had a large area of floor plan with long trusses spanning a vault area. It also differed in that it had diesel tanks for generators that held as much as 42,000 gallons of fuel.

WTC7 had main columns on floors 5 to 7 that were damaged by debris from the collapse of the towers. Fires had burned on floors 7,8,9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 throughout the day. The fire crews gave up on WTC7 an hour after WTC1 collapsed.

There were two progressive collapses on WTC7. The first one was on the east side that progressed from the bottom to top and was evidenced by a kink in the building and a collapse of the east penthouse. The other propagated from east to west along the bottom and initiated the global collapse. WTC7 collapsed globally from bottom to top (opposite of the towers, which collapsed from top to bottom) This is not surprising since it's initial structural damage caused by the WTC1 collapse occurred near its ground floors the ground floors. Fires were also burning in that area most of the day.

.

 

If someone could show me that the govt demolished WTC7 intentionally, I'd actually be happy about it. It was risky for fire crews to even be in that building after the damage it incurred from the tower collapses. It would have made sense to intentionally demolish it. Most of the fire crews knew that it would have to be intentionally demolished after it had become that unstable.

The fire department wasn't capable of doing a demolition on WTC7 and it couldn't have been set up in a matter of hours. 'Pulling' is a phrase used in Europe long ago for literally pulling a main column of a small building to cause it collapse. When it comes to demolition, that term doesn't really apply to buildings the size of the towers and WTC7.

The WTC7 collapse is more disturbing and important from an engineering and safety perspective. It should have been designed to remain standing under those circumstances.
.

 

No, not ludicrous. I compared them because McCormick is an example of how quickly long trusses and connections can fail when the steel is unprotected and weakened by a fire. That structure collapsed in only 30 minutes. It gives insight into fire-induced collapses for those who have the discipline to look rationally at a phenomenon.

.

 

Or more rightly those who refuse to examine rationally the completely incomparable designs of the two buildings or the fact that (as previously pointed out) even the McCormick collapse only involved the roof not the entire structure in controlled demolition, free fall fashion.

 

1) No, we haven't invaded Iran or Syria... yet (the key word is YET). But it's clear that the invasion of Iran is right around the corner. Whether it happened last year or happens this year is pretty irrelevent to me.

2) As far as the stock market, I honestly don't pay much attention to it because it can fluctuate so rapidly. The stock market really means very little in terms of the long-term. What I do, however, pay attention to is the devaluation of the dollar and the current deficit.

Also, I have no recollection of saying anything about the stock market falling 50%.

People should be very concerned about the collapse of WTC-7! Why?

1) We were told - courtesy of the official FEMA report - the building collapsed due to fire, despite the fact that photographs taken of the building just prior to the collapse show only minor fires on only 3 or 4 floors. This building was not hit by a plane, and was located further away from the towers than buildings that were directly across the street, which received relatively little damage. WTC-7 is nearly an entire block away from the towers. Yet, it collapsed.

2) The building was admitedly demolished. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC complex, said the building was "pulled," which is the universal term for controlled demolition.

3) The footage of the building's collapse speaks for itself. We see the crimp in the middle of the building just prior to the collapse (this was the building's central collumn being blown out). Explosive squibs are clearly visible. Then again, you would not know this since you've probably never taken the time to view the footage.

4) If Building 7 was blown, which it most clearly was, it says a lot about what happened to the other buildings.

As to why Building 7 was blown? Building 7 housed the NYC headquarters of the CIA and FBI, IRS, Secret Service and the Office of Emergency Management. Building 7 also housed documents relating to several SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. On the morning of September 11th, Guiliani conducted the emergency response from this building. Speaking of Guiliani, he would later admit to having prior knowledge that the buildings would collapse. The question is, how did he know the buildings would collapse, and why weren't the rescue workers in the towers notified?

To put it simple, there was a lot of sensitive material in the building that needed to be destroyed, including material relating to the attacks.

 

The conspiracy theories get wilder as time goes on. So there was a conspiracy to blow up WTC7 to hide the conspiracy to blow up WTC7.

That sounds like 'we may have to postpone the 2004 elections because terrorists want to postpone the 2004 elections'.

Silverstein didn't demolish WTC7 and never admitted to such a thing. Pull is not a universal term for demolition. People knew from the damage that WTC had incurred that day that it would probably have to be demolished anyway. Pull is a term used by firemen meaning to pull the crew from the building when it's too dangerous.

WTC7 was across the street from the north tower, not a block away. The Verizon building west of WTC7 also incurred damage. Check out the photos on the web. However, WTC7 took the brunt of the damage from the WTC1 tower collapse with respect to buildings on the north side of WTC1. There was debris from the WTC1 collapse all the way to the north side of WTC7. The south side of WTC7 facing WTC1 had even more debris and damage.

.

 

Sure. Even though a steel-structure building had NEVER collapsed prior to 9/11 - let alone one not hit by a plane. I can show you at least a half dozen highrise fires that literally burned for days, at much greater temperatures, yet never collapsed. WTC-7 was also an over-engineered building that was made to withstand multiple bomb blasts. Yet, I am supposed to believe that fire brought it down? Please.

Yet more establishment rhetoric about the fuel tanks.

It has not been proven that the buildings sustained any structural damage, WHATSOEVER, other than for what the "official" reports say. There are no pictures indicating any structural damage to the building.

WTC-7 was located much further away from the towers than other buildings (not owned by Silverstein) that received little to no damage, with the exception of broken windows and other minor damage to the buildings' facades.

 

1. So first you said definitely 2005, now it is maybe 2007, at least until 2007 comes when you postpone again or decide that it never mattered anyway.


2. So the stock market was important when you predicted it would fall, but now that it doesn´t do what you predict, its "not that important" and you "don´t really pay attention to it". Plus its "too volatile". Well, how many of the last 100 years have seen a 50% decline? Maybe two or three? It seems you are never really wrong, even when your are.

3. Did you pay attention to the appreciation of the dollar? Or is is "volatile" when it is going up, and a sign of doom when it is going down? And why the deficit? You always go on about the record deficit signalling imminent doom, but when i point out that debt to GDP is actually quite low, you never seem to have an answer.

4. Pull can mean lots of things. You dictate what it means to us and then say we aren´t allowed to listen to Silverstein when he says that´s not what happened. Calling this "an admission of demolition" is totally dishonest.

5. "As to why Building 7 was blown? Building 7 housed the NYC headquarters of the CIA and FBI, IRS, Secret Service and the Office of Emergency Management. Building 7 also housed documents relationg to several SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. "

So all these agencies - which were all along part of the 9/11 conspiracy as well as the global illuminati conspiracy which is a century old - have been collecting incriminating files on themselves and they decide the only way to get rid of the evidence is to fly a plane into a nearby building and then wait a while and decide to set off pre planted demolition charges so the building will collapse for no apparent reason. This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

There are pictures. Read the NIST report and other photos on the web that people took. The southwest corner of the building was scooped out by WTC1 debris up to about 12 floors. The south central side was also damaged. There are pics of the fires burning on multiple floors. The south side of WTC7 was gashed by debris from the WTC1 tower collapse.

Fires in other high-rise buildings didn't burn at much greater temperatures than the WTC fires.

WTC7 wasn't 'over-engineered'. It's fireproofing wasn't all that great. It had sprayed on foam fire protection. Other buildings have used a cement-like coating on the steel beams which is better than sprayed on foam.

WTC7 was also vulnerable because it used a number of load transfer trusses on the 5th to 7th floors to transfer loads around an electrical substation in the basement. Failure of those trusses could lead to a disproportionate collapse. A similar situation happened with the partial collapse of the Murrah federal building in 1995.

.

 

So show us the pictures, Shaggie!

As far as the NIST, I might as well just have Bush tell me what happened on 9/11.