Could Vancouver 2010 be the next 9/11?

[JThiessen]

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[rawfuls]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Ah, never thought about the fire bringing the steel structure down (in terms of temperature to melt)...

[_paralyzed_]

Holy jebus, why can't I ever be interested in something that is profitable? I've been pouring over articles and videos. I'm ending up with more questions than answers, but learning,always learning....

You level headed guys make a lot of sense. So what do you make of building 7 going down? If anybody can make sense of that to me I am going to have to re-think my entire life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Inform me.

[JThiessen]

Originally Posted by _paralyzed_

So what do you make of building 7 going down? If anybody can make sense of that to me I am going to have to re-think my entire life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Inform me.

Please note: the following is an opinion only. Please hide your children.

My take on #7 is that is was a casualty of location. It got hit by debris from one or both towers - but the significant damage likely came due to subsequent structural failure below ground level. You had over a million plus TONS of material falling literally right across the street from it. I dont know about you, but I think there may have been just a little bit of a "thud"......
causing a crater effect that took out the front of #7.

Have you ever seen preparation for a building demo. They work for MONTH's prepping the structure, and laying in charge lines. The sequence of explosions would have been visible in almost ANY of the footage of the buildings coming down. You would have seen a series of them going up the structure, then back down. There were what, 40,000 people that worked in those buildings? And not a one mentioned anything about any "strange" work being done? Pre-Cutting beams in an office environment? Everyone within 3 floors would have known about that.

Finnster eluded to the keep quite aspect. Something of this magnitude could never have been kept secret. If there is one thing I have learned about people, is they cant keep their mouths shut. Only in the movies can something like this occur. Let's see - I'm a criminal mastermind, and I need some minions to execute my plan. I call all my friends, and they call all of theirs....wait, only 40% like it, 50% dont care one way or another, but that pesky 10% that think I am morally the equivelent of Lincpimp's great step dad are a real problem....so to keep with the Hollywood theme, I have to execute them ALL and make it appear natural...wow. Now after the fact, NONE of my loyal minions see that they can make bucko big bucks by telling the real story? Nobody got their toes stepped on, and wants some revenge?
Just too grand of a scale to have been a feasible theory.

[_paralyzed_]

I watched videos over and over again of the tower's collapse. It conicides with NIST findings.

I still don't like building 7. It was "pulled" The owner of the building ordered, "pull it" and it went down. Had it fallen on it's own I can see your crater theory, but there had to be explosives in the building in order to be "pulled", and they surely didn't set those amidst the chaos of that day.

Silverstein stating he ordered the "pull"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA&NR=1

edit:I like PBO's take. The aliens did it! Ahhhhh

[JThiessen]

To me the "pull it" meant get the firefighters out of there, not to blow it up.

[PBO]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

To me the "pull it" meant get the firefighters out of there, not to blow it up.

Yep, as in let's not continue fighting to save it because it's a lost cause & critical failure is imminent

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

To me the "pull it" meant get the firefighters out of there, not to blow it up.

You think so? If that's what he really meant, so be it, it doesn't matter anyways, doesn't add much to the wealth of other evidence.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Please note: the following is an opinion only. Please hide your children.

My take on #7 is that is was a casualty of location. It got hit by debris from one or both towers - but the significant damage likely came due to subsequent structural failure below ground level. You had over a million plus TONS of material falling literally right across the street from it. I dont know about you, but I think there may have been just a little bit of a "thud"......
causing a crater effect that took out the front of #7.

You have a valid argument there with there being a 'thud'; each planes strikes were 0.9, and 0.7 on the New York local Seismic activity respectfully... at the time of collapse, each tower had 2.1 and 2.3, but second tower collapsed first. The thing about that though, is that Seismic activity PRECEDED the Towers collapse, and was not due to the buildings momentum impacting the ground.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Which would make perfect sense if they were brought down by means of demolition.

Have you ever seen preparation for a building demo. They work for MONTH's prepping the structure, and laying in charge lines. The sequence of explosions would have been visible in almost ANY of the footage of the buildings coming down. You would have seen a series of them going up the structure, then back down. There were what, 40,000 people that worked in those buildings? And not a one mentioned anything about any "strange" work being done? Pre-Cutting beams in an office environment? Everyone within 3 floors would have known about that.

Again, you are right that everyone would know about it, as they were told that there would be complete system power downs for 36 hour periods up to 3 weeks before 9/11. This can be verified and backed up.

Interview with Scott Forbes, an employee of WTC complex, Senior Database Administrator for Fiduciary Trust:

SF: "In my office on the 97th floor in WTC 2 (South Tower), as usual except that myself and a lot of my colleagues were also working the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9."

SF: "Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems."

SF: "I suppose at that time I would have been working one weekend in every 6 or 8 weeks, so it was not unheard of. Working in Technology you get used to working 'out of business hours.' I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented."

When asked about how many power outages there were since he worked there, he says:

SF: "None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was. To shutdown all of our financial systems, all inter-related and with connections and feeds to may outside vendors and suppliers was a major piece of work. Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc."

When asked about how many floors were powered down during this time:

SF: I can't give you the absolute numbers, but I know it was the 'top half ' of WTC 2, so I'd say from floor 50 or so.

When asked about what the Port Authority-NY/NJ power downs were for:

SF: As far as I recall it was for re-cabling, though I don't remember the wording on official documents or the detail, as I wasn't in the Management Loop.

Finnster eluded to the keep quite aspect. Something of this magnitude could never have been kept secret. If there is one thing I have learned about people, is they cant keep their mouths shut. Only in the movies can something like this occur. Let's see - I'm a criminal mastermind, and I need some minions to execute my plan. I call all my friends, and they call all of theirs....wait, only 40% like it, 50% dont care one way or another, but that pesky 10% that think I am morally the equivelent of Lincpimp's great step dad are a real problem....so to keep with the Hollywood theme, I have to execute them ALL and make it appear natural...wow. Now after the fact, NONE of my loyal minions see that they can make bucko big bucks by telling the real story? Nobody got their toes stepped on, and wants some revenge?
Just too grand of a scale to have been a feasible theory.

Regardless of what you may think can be kept quiet and what not, keep this in mind, 90% of the media companies are owned by 5 Corporations, and those corporations have stakes in many other companies, and there are many (look it up) politicians/royal families (of which all presidents are related), many in high ranking power that have stakes/shares/ownership of these companies and/or media companies.



For the real smoking gun on WTC 7, does the name Barry Jennings ring a bell? He was the emergency worker, head of the department. They were told to evacuate the building before the twin towers were even coming down. However, IIRC, he went back in to make sure everyone was out, and he encountered only one other person, someone who worked there, who said they should get out. As they were moving down the stairs, there was a massive explosion, and the stairs collapsed. He went back up and heard several more explosions if I recall correctly. Anyways, check the link to the video of the interview with Barry Jennings, look him up, he is legit, and 2 years ago, he died from undisclosed circumstances. He was told by media that those were fuel oil tanks exploding, he says he knows what he heard, oils tanks don't blow up with such force, he heard explosions, bombs going off perhaps.

LINKS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6...eature=related

I am not trying to seem cocky like some have suggested, I am just trying to show you the plethora of evidence to a contrary story to the official one. I could go on and on about this subject, and related. I haven't even touched all the slips of the tongue of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc... like why would Bush be sitting in a preschool classroom (reading a book upside down mind you, LOL), have been told that planes hit the Towers and not even move a muscle! Also, when asked by an audience member went through his mind when the towers were hit: he said that when he saw on TV the first tower being hit (before the second one was even hit)... this is simply impossible as the video of the first strike was surfaced the next day, so what was Bush looking at then? Why would Rumsfeld slip up over the plane being shot down over Shanksville? Cheney had the very same slip up as wel. I haven't even mentioned the whole situation going on with "Northern Command" where Cheney had complete control over the 'exercise' at the time about, what do you know! A terrorist attack with planes hitting buildings! Look it up, there was soo much confusion going on with the whole exercise where the planes that were actually headed for the WTC building were noticed, and monitored, "...is this real world or exercise" then they were given specific orders NOT to intercept the planes. Look it up.

Or what about all the video surveillance that was confiscated within 5 mins of the Pentagon being hit! Off the top of my head, there was at least a gas station, hotel, and at least one other one I can't remember what it was that had direct video surveillance pointing in the exact direction of the Pentagon crash, all forcefully confiscated within minutes.


Another tid-bit about the 99 year lease of Silverstein:

One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9] Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10]

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

Again, Theissen, first, those temperatures MAY be likely in an open air environment, but not in an enclosed area of around 100 feet to the core columns, there is only so much air to fuel the fire, you can't just add other combustibles in that situation and expect the temps to increase. Second, the buildings are over engineered by more than 2 times. Speculating on my part... I am trying to fathom how a jet liner slowed by the outer walls, then the mass in between the plane and the core columns didn't reduce the planes inertia enough for the plane to severe 30% of the core columns... which is outstanding speculation on their part. (9/11 commision report... well if you have ever read that book, it reads like a novel, I kid you not.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down.
What do you mean by that? They DID fall straight down...

They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Now just think about what you are saying... the core columns would have to be taken out INSTANTLY floor by floor perfectly timed for the building to come down in a pan cake manner, ANY deviation from that would cause it to topple over. It is impossible for a building with a structure of it's magnitude to fall as virtually free fall speed without some external force removing the massive resistance of the core columns, not even taking into consideration each floors strength (more resistance), then all the internal material (non-load bearing walls, cubicals, furniture, it all adds up). To support the demolition conspiracy, there were rivers of molten steel pouring out where the planes hit the towers. This is most likely what melted the infamous fire truck below the Twin Towers... the truck had the whole front of the truck melted down to a few feet, much like you would see with a Thermite (or Thermate) ignition.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

First paragraph there is already a lie, the steel was sent off to China before ANY investigation could even be done, so by reduction, the whole report cannot be trusted. Just reading the rest, it is PACKED full of speculation, they don't even use any math to back up their claim that the resistance from the floors below were minimal compared to the mass coming down on them, and that is what caused a free fall speed. Uh, wait a minute, so Newtonian laws state that when resistance is equal to or less than a force on a object, then suddenly that resistance is magically removed from the equation? Or that it simply disappears at a predetermined point? What happened to equal but opposite reaction? I guess terrorists have a Jehad on the USA, enough that the Laws of Physics simply didn't apply to any of the events on the day of 9/11.