Collapse video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cab_1215243770&p=1


9/11 Third Tower Mystery 'Solved'


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.

FIND OUT MORE...
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST
Visit The Conspiracy Files website or catch up using the iPlayer


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.



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.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Minimal debris hit building 7 but it folded like no other iron frame building in the history of iron building fires.

Folded.

Just like a controlled demo job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM


What's the buildings owner have to say along with Guiliani and FEMA officials?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Most of us over here were pretty shocked when it happened. When the furore had initially died down, I was speaking to an ex-army friend, who stated: - From his point of view, "there was no way that, That collapse was natural due to fire etc", & that's all he would say on the matter.

His military profession: - Explosives expert.

Personally, on looking at the video, I would agree, but then again, I'm no expert.

---

Minimal debris hit building 7 but it folded like no other iron frame building in the history of iron building fires.

Folded.

Just like a controlled demo job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM


What's the buildings owner have to say along with Guiliani and FEMA officials?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

Thought we went through this on a 9/11 thread a while back. Why not post some of the links I gave you there (e.g. this), so an enquiring mind can see a little more of the evidence? I like how in that 2nd link the only demolition they could find using the word "pull" was of WTC6. Shame they did show the bulldozers pulling on the cables they'd attached to the building to pull it down. Why no footage from the south side of the WTC7, showing the big holes, fires and smoke billowing out? Why no aerial photographs of the debris field showing the building did not fall in on itself like a regular demolition, but southwards across Vesey Street?

Oh, and here's something new:

This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

P.S. What's the source of your "minimal debris" comment?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Most of us over here were pretty shocked when it happened. When the furore had initially died down, I was speaking to an ex-army friend, who stated: - From his point of view, "there was no way that, That collapse was natural due to fire etc", & that's all he would say on the matter.

His military profession: - Explosives expert.

Personally, on looking at the video, I would agree, but then again, I'm no expert.

Maybe your friend heard from former colleagues of the secret operation to get hundreds of pounds of explosives undetected into three buildings in the city that never sleeps? Or maybe not. Perhaps he just jumped to the wrong conclusion based on lack of evidence showing reasonable alternatives. Do you remember the Guardian's Points of View commercial? The WTC7 stuff that Mr Gray posts is like that without the "whole picture" part at the end.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Have a look at the videos again bobby,

They speak for themselves. As for the explosives moved in, in the city that never sleeps... Well... lets just say it's a piece of pie with the right permits. I'm sure it wasn't done by rookies with vans and trucks with "TNT" written on the side panels.

Whoops, and the debris that hit bldg 7 is compared to the other two buildings that got smashed by the two main towers in video two. Neither of them collapsed.

Why?

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Most of us over here were pretty shocked when it happened. When the furore had initially died down, I was speaking to an ex-army friend, who stated: - From his point of view, "there was no way that, That collapse was natural due to fire etc", & that's all he would say on the matter.

His military profession: - Explosives expert.

Personally, on looking at the video, I would agree, but then again, I'm no expert.

Maybe your friend heard from former colleagues of the secret operation to get hundreds of pounds of explosives undetected into three buildings in the city that never sleeps? Or maybe not. Perhaps he just jumped to the wrong conclusion based on lack of evidence showing reasonable alternatives. Do you remember the Guardian's Points of View commercial? The WTC7 stuff that Mr Gray posts is like that without the "whole picture" part at the end.

An explosives expert with over 35 years experience jumping to conclusions? If this was true, there'd be many more dead soldiers & civilians on the casualty lists during the 70's & 80's, with his being one of them.

---

Most of us over here were pretty shocked when it happened. When the furore had initially died down, I was speaking to an ex-army friend, who stated: - From his point of view, "there was no way that, That collapse was natural due to fire etc", & that's all he would say on the matter.

His military profession: - Explosives expert.

Personally, on looking at the video, I would agree, but then again, I'm no expert.

Maybe your friend heard from former colleagues of the secret operation to get hundreds of pounds of explosives undetected into three buildings in the city that never sleeps? Or maybe not. Perhaps he just jumped to the wrong conclusion based on lack of evidence showing reasonable alternatives. Do you remember the Guardian's Points of View commercial? The WTC7 stuff that Mr Gray posts is like that without the "whole picture" part at the end.

An explosives expert with over 35 years experience jumping to conclusions? If this was true, there'd be many more dead soldiers & civilians on the casualty lists during the 70's & 80's, with his being one of them.

Saw it first hand at Keele University while I was an undergrad. A "suspiscious" box was at the door of the SU the night after an Irish benefit event. Robot sent in, the experts took no chances and opted for a "controlled detonation" and shot at a toolbox. Wrong conclusions are easy to jump to with insufficient evidence. If your friend based his/her conclusion on the images presented on 9/11 then it would be easy enough to believe that s/he thought s/he watched a controlled demolition (as the images presented in Mr Gray's videos show), but when you take a look at other images, then a different conclusion can be reached.

As for Mr Gray's point about buildings closer not collapsing, this is not true, the Marriot hotel was partially destroyed during the collapse of the first tower, and finished off during the collapse of the second. WTC's 5 and 6 were not tower blocks, they were contructed of concrete and steel rather than steel alone.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I don't know bobby,

I've never see a building made of just iron.

Even without that data it is kind of a joke that building 7 went down like the twin towers, with workers walking away from it saying "Watch that building. It's coming down". Then you hear the owner talking about getting a call and deciding to "Pull" it. It takes time to "Pull" a building.

Like Richard Marcinko says, the bad guys always leave evidence laying around for the good guys to find.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Like Richard Marcinko says, the bad guys always leave evidence laying around for the good guys to find.



.

and yet all you can produce are conspiracy theories that no one will attach their own name too.

Imagine my surprise.

---

I don't know BSR,

The guy who posted the first clip is the guy who posted the write-up,

Click the link and look for the author if it is important to you. He is just repeating what others have said. Nothing new.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Steel weakens when it's heated. If there was diesel in Tower Seven maybe that's what caused it to collapse.

---

I don't know bobby,

I've never see a building made of just iron.

Even without that data it is kind of a joke that building 7 went down like the twin towers, with workers walking away from it saying "Watch that building. It's coming down". Then you hear the owner talking about getting a call and deciding to "Pull" it. It takes time to "Pull" a building.

Like Richard Marcinko says, the bad guys always leave evidence laying around for the good guys to find.



.

Quite, you don't know, and neither do I. As far as people walking away saying the building is coming down is concerned, that's precisely wire the fire chied pulled his people out of the area 3 hours before the eventual collapse, he feared that it would come down on top of them, and he'd already lost a too many of his crew that morning. The only incident of "Pulling" a building that I've seen is when the building is literally pulled down, not when explosive charges are used. It's ludicrous to suggest that WTC 7 was destroyed in this manner, the equipment to pull on the cables would have to run over the remains of WTCs 1 and 2.

As for building construction, my apologies I meant structural support. WTCs 3, 4 and 5 where 8 stories and less, they were built along traditional lines for such buildings, wooden molds are assembled, steel rods are set up in them and concrete is poured in, i.e. steel reinforced concrete. WTCs 1, 2 and 7, as well as the Marriot, used steel girders with a light protective cover over them. Sure there was wood, plastic, glass, and other metals used in decorating all of them, but the basic construction methods were substantially different between the tall and short WTC buildings.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Steel weakens when it's heated. If there was diesel in Tower Seven maybe that's what caused it to collapse.

Not only was there diesel to fuel backup generators, there were huge transformers in the base of the building. These were a central distribution point to Lower Manhattan, as the following shows:

Things are moving faster on the 7 World Trade Center site than elsewhere in part because the Consolidated Edison Company had its Trade Center Substation there, with 10 transformers through which many Lower Manhattan customers received power. Con Ed says it must restore at least four of the lost transformers by the summer of 2003. That has contributed a sense of urgency to the search for a solution, beyond the economic interest that Mr. Silverstein has in rebuilding.

There was a similar distribution point on the north east corner of the East Village, wheere East 14th Street meets the FDR. This was housed in a dedicated ConEd building. I use the past tense because in July of 2002 the transformers there exploded. When those things go up, the heat is intense (they are generally oil cooled), and the noise of the accompanying explosion is quite something. There's footage of one going up here.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"Pull" is a demo term for the moment you detonate when demoing a building.

Schematic of building 7

* Modified:

Better breakdown






It would take days for it to burn down, but it didn't. It collapsed in world record time. Perfectly into it's footprint.

*Modified:

Talk about obvious.

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Pull" is a demo term for the moment you detonate when demoing a building.

To quote Rush, why? Cos you sez so? Show me something other than a CT video that says this to be the case, better yet some pre-9/11 handbook of explosive building demolition. The only place I've ever heard that is in the CT videos of the demolitions of 4 and 5 where the videos are cut before the buildings are pulled down with cables.

Schematic of building 7






It would take days for it to burn down, but it didn't. It collapsed in world record time. Perfectly into it's footprint.

Thanks for the link to the schematic, it says:

Structural System
Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building.

Couldn't put it better myself.

As for the images, could you put in links that do not require accounts on ufodbase?

As I've already mentioned, WTC did not collapse perfectly into it's footprint. Courtesy of the site you linked you can see for yourself that it fell over Vesey Street (on it's south side), and Greenwich Street (to the west) in the 4th picture down here.

On the wider question of how long it would take for WTC to burn down, who knows? That didn't happen. It suffered structural damage as the result of debris and had massive, uncontrollable fires raging for several hours. Are you now a structural engineer with expert knowledge of WTC 7 to say that something else caused the collapse? Or is it a layman's hypothesis?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Well...

I've addressed the structure of the building but your now jumping to the "Pull" word so lets see what I can find:

Controlled demolition expert's reaction to watching WTC 7 fall

Any comments on the ironwork in building 7?

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

It collapsed in world record time. Perfectly into it's footprint.

Three times in a single day... That's no conspiracy, that's a miracle... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Well...

I've addressed the structure of the building but your now jumping to the "Pull" word so lets see what I can find:

Controlled demolition expert's reaction to watching WTC 7 fall

Any comments on the ironwork in building 7?

Just watched that, didn't hear "pull" mentioned once. The expert was shown footage from the north side of WTC 7, if he'd seen pictures from the south, showing the amount of damage there, and the extent of the fires, who knows, his opinion might've been different.

And yes, the word "pull" does seem to be key, at least among the CT sites I've seen, a lot is placed on Silverstein's use of the word. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, it's not used interchangeably with "blast" by demolition crew, but is used by firefighters when referring to personnel being removed from the scene, e.g. "pull out".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It collapsed in world record time. Perfectly into it's footprint.

Three times in a single day... That's no conspiracy, that's a miracle... ;)

Not for the vast majority of people in the buildings, nor their families.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...