University of Alaska study on WTC Building 7 concludes it could not have come down due to fires

[NakedRare]

You appear either A) extremely ignorant or B) paid to post nonsense pretending that this is a difficult issue.

You expose yourself dramatically here...

There's really no dissent among the professionals.

Here are clear examples that illustrate just how wrong you are:

1) 9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

2) CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

3) MILITARY LEADERS

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said: "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!" U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

You will find several more examples from INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS, SCIENTISTS, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LEGAL SCHOLARS and many more right here: http://www.911summary.com/

 

[EnterTheNinja]

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

So did the Jews do it or not?

 

[7437]

Oh, the Rchitects and Engineers for 9/11 truth say that the official story si a lie. THere is a shocker

 

[DoomPatrol]

You appear either A) extremely ignorant or B) paid to post nonsense pretending that this is a difficult issue.

You expose yourself dramatically here...

And here comes the misinformation campaign.....

Here are clear examples that illustrate just how wrong you are:

1) 9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

This is in regards to interrogations. It has literally nothing to do with what was being discussed and it has nothing to do with the science behind the collapse.

I think it's pretty clear the government obstructed information about Saudi royalty and government involvement, but that doesn't change the fact that the buildings collapsed from aircraft impacts and fires, not a controlled demolition.

2) CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

Again, I'm not claiming that the Saudi government wasn't complicit on some level. It's pretty clear that money supported the hijackers came from higher ups from Saudi Arabia.

Also Abdussattar Shaikh is super well known. He was informing for the FBI on youth in the city. He did have two hijackers stay with him for a while, but he also housed and worked with hundreds of newly arrived immigrants at his facility. The hijackers purposely lived lives to not arouse suspicion. They drank, went to clubs and generally refrained from acting like terrorists. Again, this isn't some secret. Shaikh was one of the leaders of a major mosque in the city. There aren't too many of those you know?

3) MILITARY LEADERS

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said: "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!" U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

He clearly didn't know. And again, this is that false expertise I'm talking about. Dr Bowman was a fighter pilot, and he did work on a program with ballistic missiles. Neither of those make him an expert on the military readiness on 9/11.

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.


Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum. We know what military units are on standby and who was responsible for the entire process down to the minute. So unless you want to point out which jets were supposed to intercept the aircraft and didn't, these comments are completely baseless. Do you know who disagrees with these two people? NORAD and everyone else responsible for intercepting aircraft.

You will find several more examples from INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS, SCIENTISTS, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LEGAL SCHOLARS and many more right here: http://www.911summary.com/

I'm sorry, let me clarify. 99.99% of the professional community knows that these conspiracy accusations are retarded and baseless. 0.01% are using misinformation and ignorance as a means to spread hyperbole.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

SP covered this best, but essentially as someone that works (and has worked for over ten years now) for the Federal Government....

There's no way in hell they could A) keep this a secret, and B) be competent enough to actually plan, undertake, and enact something like this.

It's one thing to say release tainted mosquitos into Georgia, or do the shady Tuskegee syphilis experiment. But detonating a bldg., next to the world's financial center, in the biggest and most crowded city in the entire nation?

sorry playa, no way any Federal Agency (and certainly not a conglomeration of them working together hahaha) could achieve that.
The same FED government that screwed up Katrina that bad, is also the one that planned this master conspiracy to do what exactly? get defense MIC contracts?

no

 

[NakedRare]

And let's not forget... besides the fact that all those other buildings that burned longer and hotter remained standing, not one person reported steel beams melting in those buildings and several eyewitnesses reported molten steel in the rubble of wtc7.

Bottom line here: The very idea that the wtc7 fire burned hot enough to melt steel is antithetical to all known science.

In before some idiot claims that all the eyewitnesses are either lying or didn't know what they saw.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Windsor fire actually partially collapsed. You want to know which part? The only part that was steel framed in a manner that was steel framed in a similar manner to WTC 7. The rest of the reinforced section that was completely different structurally than WTC 7 stayed standing though.

And of course, every building is unique. These buildings all had vastly different designs and conditions under which the fire occurred. There was also vastly different responses by emergency services. It's just silly to pretend like something needs to happen every single time to be possible. Sometimes your car will break down due to a part gone bad. Does that mean that the part should fail for all similar cars under moderately similar conditions? Of course not. That's not how things work in the real world.

 

[Victor Maitland]

controlled demolition...





the whole thing was orchestrated by elements of the deep state and Mossad.

 

[NakedRare]

SP covered this best, but essentially as someone that works (and has worked for over ten years now) for the Federal Government....

There's no way in hell they could A) keep this a secret, and B) be competent enough to actually plan, undertake, and enact something like this.

It's one thing to say release tainted mosquitos into Georgia, or do the shady Tuskegee syphilis experiment. But detonating a bldg., next to the world's financial center, in the biggest and most crowded city in the entire nation?

sorry playa, no way any Federal Agency (and certainly not a conglomeration of them working together hahaha) could achieve that.
The same FED government that screwed up Katrina that bad, is also the one that planned this master conspiracy to do what exactly? get defense MIC contracts?

no

Look, if there is any truth to what you say about the federal government not being "...competent enough to actually plan, undertake, and enact something like this."

Then how on earth can you believe that 19 idiots led by a man on a dialysis machine, in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan could have pulled this off?

And I don't think that any credible person believes this was the work of "our government." I think you need to think of it more in terms of foreign agents within our government and understand that these people do NOT care any more for the average American than they do for the average Afghani, Iraqi, etc..

 

[DoomPatrol]

And let's not forget... besides the fact that all those other buildings that burned longer and hotter remained standing, not one person reported steel beams melting in those buildings and several eyewitnesses reported molten steel in the rubble of wtc7.

Bottom line here: The very idea that the wtc7 fire burned hot enough to melt steel is antithetical to all known science.

In before some idiot claims that all the eyewitnesses are either lying or didn't know what they saw.

Bottom line, you're wrong. And yes, if someone thought they saw liquid steel, they were wrong. They most likely misidentified it. I'm not sure who you think is claiming to have seen molten steel, but the most common source is Mark L from Controlled Demolition. It was later found that he was just repeating something he heard from someone else who was wrong.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

These are photos from the 5th night of the Plasco fire. This type of heat is really common in building collapses.

Bottom line. You only look for things that support your desire for a conspiracy to be real rather than the actual truth.

 

[helltoupee]

And here comes the misinformation campaign.....



This is in regards to interrogations. It has literally nothing to do with what was being discussed and it has nothing to do with the science behind the collapse.

I think it's pretty clear the government obstructed information about Saudi royalty and government involvement, but that doesn't change the fact that the buildings collapsed from aircraft impacts and fires, not a controlled demolition.



Again, I'm not claiming that the Saudi government wasn't complicit on some level. It's pretty clear that money supported the hijackers came from higher ups from Saudi Arabia.

Also Abdussattar Shaikh is super well known. He was informing for the FBI on youth in the city. He did have two hijackers stay with him for a while, but he also housed and worked with hundreds of newly arrived immigrants at his facility. The hijackers purposely left lives to not arouse suspicion. They drank, went to clubs and generally refrained from acting like terrorists. Again, this isn't some secret. Shaikh was one of the leaders of a major mosque in the city. There aren't too many of those you know?



He clearly didn't know. And again, this is that false expertise I'm talking about. Dr Bowman was a fighter pilot, and he did work on a program with ballistic missiles. Neither of those make him an expert on the military readiness on 9/11.

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.


Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum. We know what military units are on standby and who was responsible for the entire process down to the minute. So unless you want to point out which jets were supposed to intercept the aircraft and didn't, these comments are completely baseless. Do you know who disagrees with these two people? NORAD and everyone else responsible for intercepting aircraft.




I'm sorry, let me clarify. 99.99% of the professional community knows that these conspiracy accusations are retarded and baseless. 0.01% are using misinformation and ignorance as a means to spread hyperbole.

I'm not really into the 9/11 conspiracies, but I had always heard about the infamous Cheney "stand down" order as one of the planes was approaching the Pentagon (?) ... what do you make of this? Was Cheney concerned that shooting down an approaching plane might cause more damage over the surrounding area, or do you think this was just hearsay about what Cheney ordered?

Just genuinely curious as I've never really heard an explanation for why he would do that ... ... ?

One of the other things that always perplexed me, much more so than the falling of the towers, was the notion that "terrorist-hijacking training exercises" were scheduled and being conducted on 9/11 that caused a lot of confusion and lack of response time with NORAD. I had always heard that Cheney was the one who insisted on these mock training scenarios being conducted on 9/11, but have no idea how absurd or legit this idea was.

You seem to be fairly knowledgeable about military protocol, what's your opinion on the above?

 

[NakedRare]

 

[DoomPatrol]

Look, if there is any truth to what you say about the federal government not being "...competent enough to actually plan, undertake, and enact something like this."

Then how on earth can you believe that 19 idiots led by a man on a dialysis machine, in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan could have pulled this off?

And I don't think that any credible person believes this was the work of "our government." I think you need to think of it more in terms of foreign agents within our government and understand that these people do NOT care any more for the average American than they do for the average Afghani, Iraqi, etc..

Because a government conspiracy is a million times harder to orchestrate than getting together and deciding to take flying lessons and crashing hijacked planes. It really isn't hard to plan a suicide terror attack. They didn't even have to keep it a secret afterwards.

Saying the government conspired to attack it's own people, kidnap and lay a false trail of evidence internationally against foreign nationals while having them interact with dozens of civilians during the lead up to the attacks in a manner that matches what a terrorist would do, then disappearing and covering up all the witnesses, and finally keep it a complete secret for decades is just as easy as agreeing to learn how to fly so you can steal planes at the same time one day in the future is fucking crazy.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I'm not really into the 9/11 conspiracies, but I had always heard about the infamous Cheney "stand down" order as one of the planes was approaching the Pentagon (?) ... what do you make of this? Was Cheney concerned that shooting down an approaching plane might cause more damage over the surrounding area, or do you think this was just hearsay about what Cheney ordered?

Just genuinely curious as I've never really heard an explanation for why he would do that ... ... ?

One of the other things that always perplexed me, much more so than the falling of the towers, was the notion that "terrorist-hijacking training exercises" were scheduled and being conducted on 9/11 that caused a lot of confusion and lack of response time with NORAD. I had always heard that Cheney was the one who insisted on these mock training scenarios being conducted on 9/11, but have no idea how absurd or legit this idea was.

You seem to be fairly knowledgeable about military protocol, what's your opinion on the above?

I don't think Cheney had any say at that time. It was lower level commanders in NORAD and the FAA who really dropped the ball. Flight 77 which flew into the Pentagon was only in the air for 1 hour and 17 minutes of which nearly half of it was it's normal flight path. By the time this was happening, they were already scrambling jets to track other possibly hijacked aircraft and there was a lot of confusion going on. NEADS wasn't even informed to be looking for Flight 77 until literally 3 minutes before it hit the Pentagon. At that point, they had jets about 150 miles out.

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

I think a lot of it was just getting caught off guard. Until 9/11, most hijackings were political and nobody got hurt. NORAD wad focused on external threats and the idea of planes being used like that was seen as highly unlikely. There were some critical shortcomings from the FAA and NORAD that were exposed that day, but I find it hard to really place blame on anyone too badly for the response.

At that moment too, they were falsely trying to intercept what's now known as "phantom flight 11", where they thought 11 was coming down to hit somewhere in Washington when in fact it had impacted one of the towers.

Here's a good summary of the response that day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

My problem with the accusations like that regarding Cheney is that the military and FAA independently kept meticulous records of the timelines that day. We know who called who, at what times, and what the messages were. There's no record of anything to suggest a stand down order. In fact, I don't think the military would even have to lie if they had shot down a plane, like it's suggested with flight 93. I think it they had actually shot it down, then they would have been completely justified I'm doing so.

People always vastly overstate our military readiness, especially when trying to state our readiness pre-9/11. It really was a different America back then. People were much more complacent with security because terrorism was so rare and minor back then.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Main differences are the scale and exterior facade.

As far as the mode of collapse, they are both extremely similar. Both had progressive collapses straight into their footprint (because duh gravity). Both times the exterior collapse occurred after the interior failed. The only difference is the Plasco Building had a hard exterior and the WTC7 had a mostly glass exterior, so the facade of the Plasco was a little more rigid and resistant to crumbling.

Then why are some still saying that a fire bringing down a building is impossible? Isn't this a good example of such an occurrence?

 

[splendica]

You appear either A) extremely ignorant or B) paid to post nonsense pretending that this is a difficult issue.

You expose yourself dramatically here...



Here are clear examples that illustrate just how wrong you are:

1) 9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

2) CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

3) MILITARY LEADERS

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said: "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!" U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

You will find several more examples from INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS, SCIENTISTS, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LEGAL SCHOLARS and many more right here: http://www.911summary.com/

Agreed 100%. As a layperson, there are just way too many things that were off with this whole event. Even starting with the fact that it was targetted in 1993 by a ground-level bombing, AND, that prior warnings had been given that all major buildings were identified as targets of terrorism (including planes). There is just no way these planes would have got there in the first place and then many things during and afterward that don't add up.

 

[EnterTheNinja]

I have studied this for 15 years. Read tons of books (from both sides). Watched countless documentaries (from both sides) and watched an enormous amount of unbiased footage of all the events on my own. To me it's not a matter of conspiracy theories or truthers. To me, it's completely asinine that anyone could believe the official story. Open your eyes. Use your brain. Think.

It's funny to me, that us "truthers" are considered tin foil hat wearing idiots, when we have actually studied this topic. Looked at it from all angles. Listened to experts. Yes EXPERTS. Pilots, architecs, engineers, controled demolition experts, etc... Yet, others just watched Fox News and took their word for it. Who's the idiots?

And let's not forget... besides the fact that all those other buildings that burned longer and hotter remained standing, not one person reported steel beams melting in those buildings and several eyewitnesses reported molten steel in the rubble of wtc7.

Bottom line here: The very idea that the wtc7 fire burned hot enough to melt steel is antithetical to all known science.

In before some idiot claims that all the eyewitnesses are either lying or didn't know what they saw.

Yep. I agree 100%. It's crazy that there are people on here that DON'T question the official story. It makes no sense.

So This:

Turned to this:

Yet this:

Became this:

Totally makes sense!

Wanna know what else makes sense? That the 3 towers defied physics and was able to crush through 47 floors and 110 floors of steel and concrete at near free fall speeds.

For anyone that doesn't know, free fall speeds means the rate at which something falls without ANY resistance. Here's the definition:

"In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and moves along a geodesic."

So 110 floors (wtc 1&2) or 47 floors (wtc7) was able to fall where gravity is the only force acting upon it, not being slower down by steel, concrete, office furniture, etc... for the pancake effect? Ok.

The NIST report is so flawed and full of shit. They made the computer program that showed how WTC7 collapsed. . Let me repeat that so people can let that sink in for a second... NIST created the program that they showed how it happened. And when other scientists, architects and engineers wanted to see/use the program to test for themselves, NIST would not allow them to.

Imagine if Jon Jones made a computer program to show how he did not use steroids.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Then why are some still saying that a fire bringing down a building is impossible? Isn't this a good example of such an occurrence?

Because some people are really desperate for a conspiracy to be real for some twisted reason. They will twist facts and obfuscate the truth to fit their narrative rather than objectively looking at the whole set of facts in proper context.

I think that deep down some people really want there to be an evil shadow government controlling everything. Maybe it's easier for them to accept than the idea that we're actually vulnerable to attack from poor people with little power. Maybe they enjoy feeling smarter than "sheep" around them for "being woke" and seeing the "truth". It's easier to feel smart that way rather than actually learning hard math and engineering or getting involved in politics.

I just know that if I really thought the government was capable of pulling something like 9/11 off, I wouldn't respond to it by being snide on internet forums. That would be some truly frightening and evil shit.

 

[splendica]

Great video.