Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (107900)	6/11/2007 11:47:12 AM
From: cirrus	Respond to of 362423

Assuming that the demolition of Building #7 was planned in advance, what would be the point in notifying the media before the event? None. If persons unknown were crafty enough to plan this the last thing they would do would be to notify the media - unless they were taking credit, which no one has done. The premature news announcement was just one of dozens if not hundreds of erroneous news announcements broadcast that day. After a seven hour fire burning out of control, hundreds of firefighters already dead from the twin towers collapses, the remaining firefighters exhausted, equipment ruined, it seems rather reasonable to look at the mess of building #7 and say "pull it." - Meaning "pull the firemen". Let it go. Yes, "pull it" in demolition terms means "bring it down", but in the confusion of the day I doubt Silverstien was paying attention to demolition slang. There are factual reasons for the collapse, and they are much more scientific than someone watching a video saying "See, it fell in its own footprint. Had to be controlled demolition." NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse." boards.historychannel.com; The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (107900)	6/14/2007 11:25:26 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 362423

Bits of debris "apparently" set off minor fires in Building 7, which "apparently" caused its collapse into its own footprint. I agree with you - however, the plausibility of the twin towers collapsing due to direct hits by jets is completely negated when neighboring Building 7 collapses in the identical manner without having been hit. The most credible argument that 9/11 was an inside job is the purported attack on the Pentagon. With all the cameras and security surrounding the Pentagon, how is it possible an obviously hijacked plane could get anywhere near it. Why is there no film of the plane hitting the building. Any time before or after 9/11, a plane invading that space would have been escorted away or shot down. Given the circumstances of that day 'shot down' would have been the first response.