PDA

View Full Version : Hate to bait conspiracy theorists, but... WTC 7 Collapse findings to be revealed


DroppinScience
07-07-2008, 10:32 AM
Apparently NIST is going to release its final findings on what caused the collapse of WTC 7 (i.e. the third building, vastly smaller than the other WTC Twin Towiers) pretty soon. No matter what is printed, I'm 100% sure it's going to be savaged by 9/11 "truthers."

My question is: if it was indeed fires that caused the collapse, where did the fires come from? Did they spread from the Twin Towers' own rubble? I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of that.

I'm all ears.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/05/10135/

Published on Saturday, July 5, 2008 by BBC News
9/11 Third Tower Mystery ‘Solved’?
by Mike Rudin

WASHINGTON - 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.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

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.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two’s “The Conspiracy Files”:

“Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings.”

‘Smoking gun’

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

“Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

“Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance”, says Gage, “they don’t go straight down through themselves.”

Conspiracy theories

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

* Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
* The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
* The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
* In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had “only a low probability of occurrence” and more work was needed.

But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.0705 20

The collapse of Tower 7

“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.”

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They’re confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.

“It’s a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before.”

Other skyscrapers haven’t fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.

Steel structure weakened

It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn’t have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.

The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

© 2008 BBC

Echewta
07-07-2008, 12:24 PM
Interesting. 8 years later? How long did it take for them to put together the report on Kennedy's death?

Anyway, I don't think you should be worried about bating conspiracy theorist with this one. Its not like people are saying it was a UFO flown by Castro that brought the building down. Sounds like people have serious and possible concerns about the collapse and shouldn't be considered a negative.

Funny how the conservative media strikes fear in those who question the results of the goverment. Why on earth shouldn't we just trust what the government says?

D_Raay
07-08-2008, 01:58 AM
Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
nuff said... what it means I don't know and I am not saying it's a conspiracy, but then again...

Echewta
07-08-2008, 10:30 AM
This seems to be common for most disastors. Clean up ASAP, regardless of the time it would take to study, look for clues, etc. You certainly don't want to find out the building wasn't made properly. Think of all the people that would get in trouble...

D_Raay
07-08-2008, 11:34 AM
Actually it's not at all common. There are rules and protocols that must be followed. While I understand what you are saying, it is completely negligent to handle the clean up in this manner.

Which leads me to 2 conclusions; either there was a conspiracy, or the city of New York is incredibly corrupt. I am inclined to believe the latter with Guiliani being in charge at the time. You can probably find some remains still buried in potholes across the city.

NoFenders
07-08-2008, 03:50 PM
or the city of New York is incredibly corrupt.


Say it aint so!!:eek:





:cool:

mathcart
07-09-2008, 05:48 PM
I don't know why this such a sticking point for 9/11 truthers and the like. Tower Seven housed the city's Emergency Management "Bunker"- which Guilliani refused to move after the terrorist attack on the WTC in the mid 90's. There was like an industrial diesel refinery to power the city down there- along with the offices (and files) of other emergency related gov't offices (read CIA, FBI, etc). There was probably a lot of highly sensitive' illegal stuff down there that they were "keeping us safe" with. They blew it up. Period. I would have a lot more respect for our government if they just admitted it- just say that it was top secret or whatever and had to be dealt with that way and move on. Hiding it just serves as yet another tactic admission of the shadiness of what was going on, but I know we should all expect that from our (republican) politicians at this point.
just sayin'...
(Google this stuff if you ain't in the know- its all out there, I'm just feeling a little too lazy to do it)

alien autopsy
07-09-2008, 07:28 PM
get over the 9-11 "truthers" and find the truth for yourself. savaged by the truthers? come on.

im looking forward to hearing what researchers and educated professionals have to say about this. especially architects and engineers for 9-11 truth.

we know the building was brought down by demolition based on the testimony of several firemen/chiefs, media reports and also the building owner himself. video analysis done by professionals including demolition experts, research scientists and university professors has proven that the building was brought down. lets see what NIST has to say.

alien autopsy
07-11-2008, 08:47 AM
if the government admitted that they took down wtc 7, inevitably we would have to come to the conclusion that explosives were placed inside the building well in advance.

-there are no eyewitnesses (to my knowledge) that report seeing demolitions teams entering the building as it was being evacuated.

-successful demolitions typically take months of planning, and cannot be accomplished in the span of a few hours.

if explosives were placed in the building well in advance, then it raises all kinds of questions and concerns as to why? and then points to the two larger towers and raises some very uncomfortable questions with them.

the NIST report will not offer any facts supporting reality. The team is nothing more than well paid (millions), selectively appointed "experts" whose job it is to be a well paid selectively appointed "expert".