9/11 : Ten Years?!

[dingodan]

[MENTION=12506]thejackal[/MENTION]

Good post.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Personally I don't look at one side, then the other, and choose who I believe or who I trust more. I try to understand the facts (as best I can) and I have explained what I think and why. If you have a cogent and specific argument regarding something I have said, please make it. Perhaps you can even correct me and increase my understanding. But telling me that I have to accept what someone else has concluded, and abandon my own judgement in favor of it, that is abit weak. Again if you do not understand something sufficiently to explain it yourself, you should'nt be citing it as an argument.

I find your patronising very amusing. Professionally, as stated on a previous thread I am an architect, and after A levels in pure and applied mathematics and physics, and 7 years studying the art of designing and constructing buildings, followed by now 15 years of working as a professional, I feel that I have been cogent enough during this discussion to offer as many informed comments and information as you yourself have made. If I do not understand something sufficiently to explain it myself, I will always turn to a fellow professional to do that for me, and appraise their judgement accordingly.

All I've done during this is to refute your own claims, while not actually stating what I believe. It is also not weak to accept a reasoned conclusion, even if your own judgement remains. I don't see how that is weak, if anything if you are able to prove it wrong it strengthens that judgement.

With regard to your final statement, we can only make a judgement call on the effects that the planes had on the building through predictive models, calculations and physics. This is all we have, and that is the best we can have given you cannot test these models against a real event i.e. the designers of the building only had predicative data to design against an aircraft impact, however they couldn't know every possible parameter.

In this case, I am not the one stating that those buildings couldn't have collapsed in that manner just through the impact of the aircraft, you are. You have the certainty that there must have been something else that collapsed the buildings as it goes against the laws of physics. It is impossible to know that for certain.

 

[dingodan]

I find your patronising very amusing. Professionally, as stated on a previous thread I am an architect, and after A levels in pure and applied mathematics and physics, and 7 years studying the art of designing and constructing buildings, followed by now 15 years of working as a professional, I feel that I have been cogent enough during this discussion to offer as many informed comments and information as you yourself have made. If I do not understand something sufficiently to explain it myself, I will always turn to a fellow professional to do that for me, and appraise their judgement accordingly.

All I've done during this is to refute your own claims, while not actually stating what I believe. It is also not weak to accept a reasoned conclusion, even if your own judgement remains. I don't see how that is weak, if anything if you are able to prove it wrong it strengthens that judgement.

With regard to your final statement, we can only make a judgement call on the effects that the planes had on the building through predictive models, calculations and physics. This is all we have, and that is the best we can have given you cannot test these models against a real event i.e. the designers of the building only had predicative data to design against an aircraft impact, however they couldn't know every possible parameter.

In this case, I am not the one stating that those buildings couldn't have collapsed in that manner just through the impact of the aircraft, you are. You have the certainty that there must have been something else that collapsed the buildings as it goes against the laws of physics. It is impossible to know that for certain.

But you have'nt. I wish you would bring your experitise to the discussion, rather than sending me to someone elses appraisal of someone elses conclusions. To keep things basic, can you help me to understand the processes by which it was possible for the entire structural steel frame of the buildings to fragment into pieces simultaneously. For me, the fires would not do it, and the impact of the plane would not do it, this is where I am stuck.

And building 7 has to be treated slightly differently because its collapse cannot be accounted for by the plane impacts (which may well turn out to be the reason for the collapses of WTC1 & 2, even though currently that does not make alot of sense to me).

Thanks for your help.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But you have'nt. I wish you would bring your experitise to the discussion, rather than sending me to someone elses appraisal of someone elses conclusions. To keep things basic, can you help me to understand the processes by which it was possible for the entire structural steel frame of the buildings to fragment into pieces simultaneously. For me, the fires would not do it, and the impact of the plane would not do it, this is where I am stuck.

And building 7 has to be treated slightly differently because its collapse cannot be accounted for by the plane impacts (which may well turn out to be the reason for the collapses of WTC1 & 2, even though currently that does not make alot of sense to me).

Thanks for your help.

Yes building 7 is completely different, which is why I've often left it out of the discussions regarding the towers.

With regard to the towers, these interested me greatly as a student, and I finally got to see them a year before their destruction on 10 Sept 2000. The external structure was beautifully elegant, and gave the building its distinct verticality. On the top you could feel the sway on a windy day, and the open roof deck was completely exhilarating. Tall buildings work in different ways, some like 7 are a grid of columns supporting floor plates as they go up like a layer cake, however the towers were different as the floors were only structural in that they tied the external structure to the central core. In other buildings the floor plates are load bearing and support the facade such as you will see on the Shard in London.

The 2 structures within the towers relied on each other for their collective strength, the outer skin would bow out if it wasn't tied to the inner, and the inner would wobble if not tied to the outer. Neither could stand on their own and would collapse under their own weight. The joining of these two elements is therefore essential. As far as I understand it, the steel beams were open lattice beams that were clamped to the outer skin. It is most likely that this fixing detail was a key component to fail both through the initial impact, and the fire thereafter.

If the air craft body is approx. 6m in diameter, and the wing span approx. 50m, on impact, the plane itself would have taken out at least a couple of floor plates through the crash along one side before disintegrating against the core structure. It is also likely that the shear force of the impacts would have stripped much of the fire protection. Once the fire took hold, the steel structure which was coping with the additional stress of dealing with the loss of part of the structure, was now losing strength due to heat. As the clamps failed in these areas, the outer skin would have started to bow outward putting stress on the ties above, which in turn would also be weakened due to the heat. This got progressively worse over the 100 or so minutes between impact and collapse.

The collapse occurs when all the weight above the impact zone, which remember because it is all tied together is like a complete solid block of mass is bearing down on the outer structure which is starting to bow outward, and an inner core structure that is no longer stable as it is not tied to the outer skin. The failure appears to be sudden, but if broken down in to a smaller time frame will most likely be a series of failures that finally break the horses back as it were.

The visual evidence of this is that the upper floors descend through the impact zone intact for the first seconds of the collapse, this is a huge mass now crashing down on the structure below. The weight of this creates the vertical destruction that gives the appearance of what you might expect from a controlled demolition.

The forces and masses we are talking about are so great that there is no structure that could possibly withstand the forces from the zone above. I did make the earlier point that had the planes hit higher up the towers, the mass above may not have been as great so as to have created the collapse, although there is little to know whether that would be the case.

Had the clamps and tie beams managed to have stayed intact, then the buildings would probably still be standing today. The total destruction is due to the fact in isolation, the elements of the construction were in fact relatively weak, the facade on it's own disintegrated, and the core was a concrete mass crushed from the weight above.

This is a plausible and satisfactory account of the collapses of the towers to this point, which despite the official investigations, has also been accepted by many journals and other construction bodies.

I really don't know enough about 7 to comment on that, as all my interest has been regarding the towers.

 

[drew]

I agree with your second point, why not just say, "hey it was unsafe, so we brought it down"? The problem arises when you consider what is required for a controlled demolition, namely planning and time. Deciding to bring a building down in a controlled demolition, and doing it the same day, is not really plausible. This then suggests planning before the day, and thats the problem.

Why do it a 5:20? who knows. But bare in mind that the following were tenants of WTC7:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
U.S. Secret Service
Securities & Exchange Commission
New York City Office of Emergency Management

This is pure speculation on my part, but one possibility, if you accept that this was indeed a military operation, would be to use the New York City Office of Emergency Management which I believe was on the top floor, to manage and coordinate the operation. This would be a great vantage point to watch everything (in NY at least) go down, and once it is over, destroy the evidence by bringing down the building from which the operation was executed. But that is purely speculation on my part. If you were going to 'destroy' the evidence you would also have to 'silence' everyone that was involved in the conspiracy including all those that laid the alleged explosives, the fire officer who supposedly said they were going to 'pull it' (although that's your interpretation). If you use the Kennedy assignation conspiracy then in that case there were numerous witnesses that died or had accidents that arouse suspicion. I'm not aware that is the case in this instance.

Bare in mind that not alot of people are even aware that this building collapsed and one of the reasons for this is likely the fact that it came down much later in the day. Because it is far less explainable than the other two collapses, it would be better for it to come down with less attention, as it did.

Wow you talk like you examined the wreckage, did you? We can only speculate, and that includes you. This would make WTC7 only the 3rd building in history to collapse from fire. The first 2 were WTC1 & WTC2. You believe that, fair enough. I don't.



Ok, thats what you think, fair enough. Note that he said "decision to pull...and then we watched the building collapse." It sounded like the building collapsing was as a consequence of the "decision to pull" but that is just how I hear it. I think you are picking an interpretation that suits your conspiracy theories. So the officer said we should pull 'it' which



So you mean they knew it would collapse? WTC1 & 2 collapsed unexpectedly. There were skyscrapers closer to ground zero than WTC7 that did not collapse. But were they hit by as much debris as WT7?



I believe they made a mistake, who said the BBC were in on it. The story of the collapse would have (I expect) come from the wire service. Where the story originated we don't know, but someone somewhere seems to have known it was going to come down, the story coming 20 minutes before the event.



Sounds great. Just does'nt bare out with a disciplined objective review of the facts.

Im glad you are giving an opinion on this, I find it annoying that you talk like you are correcting me, only to go on and give what is clearly your opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but to be fair so am I.

Has anyone mentioned that Larry Silverstein re-insured the buildings not long before 9/11? To cover them being attacked as being two seperate incidents rather than being considered one. That is the only thing that still makes me wonder a little bit, but not really. It's just one of those things, it looks bad but was innocent.

I think you will find that Silverstein only acquired the leases in July 2001 from the Port Authority and the problems he had related to the fact that there was a limit per occurrence. Insurers argued that it was only one occurrence but Silverstein argued that it was two and therefore he should receive double the limit. I think after court cases he pretty much got what he wanted.

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION], I'm a little confused. Are you arguing that the World Trade Centre Tower 7 collapsed because of a preplanned controlled explosion? You seem to be suggesting that it might have been used as a control centre for the attacks on towers 1 and 2 and that because it housed:

" thousands of documents relating to ongoing SEC (securities and exchange commission) investigations, including documentation relating to the Enron scandal, which of course would have been pretty convenient for George W Bush's good friend Ken Lay"

You have posted the youtube clip of Larry Silverstein saying that he agreed to 'pull it'(WTCT7). You have also said that it would take a couple of weeks preparation to set up a controlled demolition. Presumably the tower was in use in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11 so when did the preparations take place? Surely someone would have noticed? No matter, Larry Silverstein knew about it:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure whether they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse"

In that quote he implies that the fire department commander knew about it too. Or if he didn't, then he found out about it in that conversation. If he found out about it in that conversation, he would surely have been confused-if not downright angry- that his men had been battling a fire in a building that had been rigged to collapse anyway?! If the building had been rigged why would Silverstein give the reason for 'pulling it' as we've already had such terrible loss of life? If they couldn't control the fire in the tower why not let the fire do the job of destroying the building rather than risk people noticing it's collapse looking suspicious? The thing that really confuses me here though, is, if it was preplanned, why would Silverstein admit it?!

If it was preplanned as part of a cover up, why would they warn people that it was about to come down? Wouldn't this needlessly create room for people to ask questions like you have been asking? Wouldn't it needlessly add fans to the flames(no pun intended) of conspiracy? Why not let it go down wthout warning? I'm sure they wouldn't balk at a few more deaths after what they had done to Towers 1 and 2, and what they had lined up post 9/11. It would only add to the repugnant nature of the terrorist attack, no?

I'm also a bit confused about your claims towards Towers 1 and 2. As you said earlier, it would take a couple of weeks to plan and rig a controlled explosion of a building. There was no time leading up to the attacks to rig it. You mention that in one of the youtube videos it says that between 96-2000 a new security system was installed at the WTC, and that this four year window could have given them the opportunity to do it. It also mentions the companies links to 'the administration'. Wasn't Clinton the president from 96-00? Securacom's links were to the Bush administration? Or do they have other links too? Did they really rig the building and then leave it like that for a considerable period of time? Would no one have noticed?

Apologies if I've completely misunderstood your points. If I haven't could you clear up some of the questions so that I can understand better your arguments?

An excellent post and as Dingodan would readily admit, you have raised several questions as you are entitled to do. I have yet to see him answer them all!

Possibly because its not the 10th anniversary. It has reached the peak this year re 9/11 I believe. It will always be an important date for family and friends whatever anniversary it is. Also the 7/7 bombing although terrible did not change the World forever. 9/11 did, more than any single event in human history , even the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan imo.

Not sure that I agree. The dropping of the bombs ended a world war and the memory of their effect probably contributed to global peace for the following 50 years. Had the bombs not been dropped, what was the likelihood of the US and USSR eventually clashing with possibly global catastrophe?

Twat.

Honestly, people like you are worse than the so-called conspiracy nuts, because you just believe what you think, and you literally choose to ignore the facts.

When you have read, cover to cover, all 585 pages of the Official 9/11 (Kean/Hamilton) Report, David Ray Griffin's excellent "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", the NIST piece, the various rebuttals, and the rebuttals of those, or even the excellent (and short) Der Spiegel book "Inside 9/11", then your opinion on this subject may be worth listening to. Until such time, your opinions really do have no place at this debate.

Very good. You deserve a gold star from teacher for all your homework. Taking a holier than thou attitude does you no service. Anyone is entitled to be involved in the debate and ask questions. Just as the 'conspiracy theorists' ask questions of official explanations then equally questions can be asked of them.

So basically it was hit by a plane and that is different. As I previously said, in my opinion, that does not shatter the entire steel frame of the building. Nor does fire.

not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires Interesting that you claim that the fires were not being tackled. They were. In is interesting to note that the firefights on the 78th floor were dealing with two isolated "pockets of fire" that they felt they should be able to "knock [it] down with two lines". The impact of the plane in the south tower was 78th floor to 94th floor, meaning that even at the point of impact, it was not too hot for the firefighters to be there and working to put out the flames.

So are you suggesting that these fireman were claiming that there were only two pockets of fire in the whole building or is it more likely that they came across two pockets of fire but in all likelihood there were plenty more.

Not sure if I have seen it mentioned anywhere but what exactly is your sphere of expertise?

 

[thejackal]

[MENTION=12506]thejackal[/MENTION]

Good post.

Thank you, although I'm mindful of the fact that I'm largely wasting my breath. ;-)

 

[thejackal]

Very good. You deserve a gold star from teacher for all your homework. Taking a holier than thou attitude does you no service. Anyone is entitled to be involved in the debate and ask questions. Just as the 'conspiracy theorists' ask questions of official explanations then equally questions can be asked of them.

Now who's taking the holier-than-thou attitude? ;-)

You miss the point though: [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] wasn't asking questions, was he? He dismissed my point out of hand and followed it up with a "i dont have the time nor inclination to research if there is anything substantial to this link". Ergo, I think he should keep his ill-informed opinions to himself. His statement is a tacit admission that he doesn't even want to know what he's talking about.

I make no apology for having read voraciously on the subject of 9/11. I have a Yank passort, my mum's family are from Brooklyn and I was living in the US on 9/11. The whole subject is very close to me so I have made the effort to read over 30 books on the subject. There, I said it: "I'm a reader". "Look Bill!, looks like we got ourselves a reader!"

I'm just pointing out that one's firmly-held beliefs are not really worth listening to if that person takes pride in not caring about the facts.

 

[drew]

Now who's taking the holier-than-thou attitude? ;-)

You miss the point though: [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] wasn't asking questions, was he? He dismissed my point out of hand and followed it up with a "i dont have the time nor inclination to research if there is anything substantial to this link". Ergo, I think he should keep his ill-informed opinions to himself. His statement is a tacit admission that he doesn't even want to know what he's talking about.

I make no apology for having read voraciously on the subject of 9/11. I have a Yank passort, my mum's family are from Brooklyn and I was living in the US on 9/11. The whole subject is very close to me so I have made the effort to read over 30 books on the subject. There, I said it: "I'm a reader". "Look Bill!, looks like we got ourselves a reader!"

I'm just pointing out that one's firmly-held beliefs are not really worth listening to if that person takes pride in not caring about the facts.

Your post indicated that only those that had extensively read on the subject, in particular the articles/reports you referred to were entitled to join the debate. Not sure how that justifies you calling me holier than thou. Very odd.

 

[thejackal]

Your post indicated that only those that had extensively read on the subject, in particular the articles/reports you referred to were entitled to join the debate. Not sure how that justifies you calling me holier than thou. Very odd.

Ok, maybe 'supercilious' would have been a better choice of word.

I'm simply saying that at least read the official report and the other main documents on the subject. If you haven't - I'll say it again - then you don't have sufficient information to form a reasonably balanced view on this subject. "I don't believe any government would ever knowingly kill its own citizens", or "I don't believe a building would fall at freefall speed without explosive charges" are both just opinions formed without basis in fact, and not valid arguments.

The reason I quote the Kean/Hamilton report is that, apart from supposedly being the 'reference text', it is supposed to back up the US Government's claims but only leaves the reader with more questions, and the overwhelming sensation that they're being lied to. If you really care about it then do some research on the subject, and by that I don't mean reading endless threads of drivel on NSC. Download the report, read a chapter or two; find out about the various commission members who quit the commission in disgust at the obstruction they ran into, primarily from the White House but also from the FBI and the CIA:

"The official story could not possibly have happened... It's not possible. It's not operationally feasible... The Commission was a whitewash. " - Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing

"as a member of the Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover 9/11 up." - Senator Max Cleland, Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003.

"[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence" - Senator Mark Dayton, Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security

If you can't be bothered to do at least that then what are you doing offering up your opinion? It's worthless.

 

[beorhthelm]

There were two opportunities that I am aware of the power down on the weekend prior and the long term contract held by Securacom for installing the new security system.

one weekend is insufficient time to rig a building of such size, and explosives/detenators arent stable enough (according to experts) to be left for years if the security system refit was cover. so we have no opportunity.

Twat.

Honestly, people like you are worse than the so-called conspiracy nuts, because you just believe what you think, and you literally choose to ignore the facts.

maybe you didnt read the rest of my post where i qualify why wouldnt research it, based on general knowledge. the main point being that being a director is not necessarily mean anything significant. i used to work for compnay that had Miceal Grade as a director, he came in twice ayear for board meetings and otherwise had no involvment in the operations of the business. a Texan businessman being a director of a company with contracts in Dallas is of zero note. the fact they also cover another major US infrastructure is of no note. the fact that the brother of the president is this director is mildly of note. the fact he left that postion the year before the incident in question, returns this back to the no note catagory. having looked it up to prove the point, he wasnt an executive (you do understand this, right), had no apparent operational responsiblilties and wasn't at athe compnay at the time (which we already knew). what a waste of time.

 

[beorhthelm]

You talk about the supporting structure needing to fail simultaneously, watch the video! That's exactly what happens I know thats what happens, thats the problem. It shouldn't have.

you keep saying this like its a unchallenged fact. i've seen somewhere they explain that the fall was not at "freefall" speed, taking a couple of second more.

 

[beorhthelm]

...In is interesting to note that the firefights on the 78th floor were dealing with two isolated "pockets of fire" that they felt they should be able to "knock [it] down with two lines". The impact of the plane in the south tower was 78th floor to 94th floor, meaning that even at the point of impact, it was not too hot for the firefighters to be there and working to put out the flames.

its interesting how selective facts can create a false impression. quick search says the impact to the south tower was floor(s) 78 to 84. its evident to anyone wathcing the videos its was multiple floors.

But lets not pretend there is agreement amongst everyone and only "crazies" like me are asking these questions. There are good scientists, engineers, family members etc asking the same questions

there are also good scientists, engineers, family members who dont see the need to question it.

 

[thejackal]

maybe you didnt read the rest of my post where i qualify why wouldnt research it, based on general knowledge. the main point being that being a director is not necessarily mean anything significant. i used to work for compnay that had Miceal Grade as a director, he came in twice ayear for board meetings and otherwise had no involvment in the operations of the business. a Texan businessman being a director of a company with contracts in Dallas is of zero note. the fact they also cover another major US infrastructure is of no note. the fact that the brother of the president is this director is mildly of note. the fact he left that postion the year before the incident in question, returns this back to the no note catagory. having looked it up to prove the point, he wasnt an executive (you do understand this, right), had no apparent operational responsiblilties and wasn't at athe compnay at the time (which we already knew). what a waste of time.

Ok, well, I still think you're missing the point. I don't think the issue here is Marvin, rather the Bush family influence as a whole. Huge question marks remain over that company, specifically its ownership and the manner in which it went bust so shortly after the attacks - and none of this even begins to address the main point of the video you dismissed so casually: first hand, eye witness testimony of a power down over multiple floors of at least 1 WTC tower on the weekend preceding Tuesday 11th September 2001.

But haggling aside, the real issue is this: why has there never been a criminal investigation? All sides accept that the White House used extraordinary powers to ensure that there was never a criminal investigation, and used its influence to dictate the offical commission report's content. This much is accepted by both sides. So why no investigation?

I don't want to argue the toss over 9/11 any more than you do but, in the absence of anything remotely resembling a true investigation, this is all we got. The official report is truly laughable, and the list of very credible witnesses whose testimony does not feature in the final document is astonishing.

 

[beorhthelm]

... and none of this even begins to address the main point of the video you dismissed so casually: first hand eye witness testimony of a power down over multiple floors of at least 1 WTC tower on the weekend preceding Tuesday 11th 2001.

you didnt appear to even mention this earlier. i dont casually dismiss the video, i do so from working in IT, knowing thats its not unheard of and can be be for good reason. and as said, one weekend would not be enough for the amount of effort required to rig a building so large, so its fairly acedemic.

 

[thejackal]

you didnt appear to even mention this earlier. i dont casually dismiss the video, i do so from working in IT, knowing thats its not unheard of and can be be for good reason. and as said, one weekend would not be enough for the amount of effort required to rig a building so large, so its fairly acedemic.

I didn't think I had to mention it - sounds like you didn't watch the video in the first place.

I also work in IT and have dealt with power-downs, server migrations etc. Just because this happens in the course of normal life doesn't mean that it coudn't be used as cover for something else. It was scheduled at short notice, which is unusual in itself.

Also, your last statment is pure conjecture. I'm not convinced that charges were placed in the building, but surely one weekend would be enough if you had enough people to do it for you?

 

[Tummy Burger]

Apologies, I have not read the whole thread and this may well have been mentioned.

The ONLY thing that bugs me about the whole twin towers thing was HOW they came down. I watched a documentary a while back on the meticulous planning with computer software etc that goes into demolishing a building. You know when you see them fall down "straight" all in a neat pile. It takes weeks or months.

Yet on 9/11 Both towers neatly came down pretty damn straight. Were they designed in such a way

 

[tezz79]

Apologies, I have not read the whole thread and this may well have been mentioned.

The ONLY thing that bugs me about the whole twin towers thing was HOW they came down. I watched a documentary a while back on the meticulous planning with computer software etc that goes into demolishing a building. You know when you see them fall down "straight" all in a neat pile. It takes weeks or months.

Yet on 9/11 Both towers neatly came down pretty damn straight. Were they designed in such a way

Read bold seagulls last post (up the page a bit) pretty good reading mate

 

[Tummy Burger]

Read bold seagulls last post (up the page a bit) pretty good reading mate

Cheers fella. Just read it. That seems pretty thorough.

 

[beorhthelm]

Also, your last statment is pure conjecture. I'm not convinced that charges were placed in the building, but surely one weekend would be enough if you had enough people to do it for you?

i dont know why i have to watch the video *again* does Forbes say something he hasn't done before? there was a power outage in his tower the weekend before which he (though his hundreds of colleges dont) finds suspicious.

for conjecture, as i said earlier, watch some documentries on demolitions, where they take weeks to rig a completely empty, bare site. also find expert demolitions who have stated a demolition would be unfeasible and theres also comments that thermite wouldn't work. theres also data out there that the amount of explosives required for such a building would be hundreds of tons. for every engineer or architect counted as supporting the theory theres something "wrong" with the collapse, theres a dozen or more that dont. are they supposed to all be in on it, or have they looked at the data and decided that (as unlikly as it seemd) the collapse is prossible and pluasible so no further enquiry is required?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Yes building 7 is completely different, which is why I've often left it out of the discussions regarding the towers.

With regard to the towers, these interested me greatly as a student, and I finally got to see them a year before their destruction on 10 Sept 2000. The external structure was beautifully elegant, and gave the building its distinct verticality. On the top you could feel the sway on a windy day, and the open roof deck was completely exhilarating. Tall buildings work in different ways, some like 7 are a grid of columns supporting floor plates as they go up like a layer cake, however the towers were different as the floors were only structural in that they tied the external structure to the central core. In other buildings the floor plates are load bearing and support the facade such as you will see on the Shard in London.
.........

This is a plausible and satisfactory account of the collapses of the towers to this point, which despite the official investigations, has also been accepted by many journals and other construction bodies.

I really don't know enough about 7 to comment on that, as all my interest has been regarding the towers.

Bold Seagull - that is one of the most complete responses I have read on NSC. I salute you.

I stood on top of the WTC a few years ago. They were things of beauty, and it was exhilarating.