Your taxdollars paid for this. The federal government can now re-define physics as they please! ---------------------------------- According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001. This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse. The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition. Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument. However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory. His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference. "Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused." "There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down. Dr. Sunder disagreed. "We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort." While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound. Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible. "FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]." Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed: Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report. After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours. The Institute asserts that due to the lack of water supply, an “extraordinary event†occurred, and for the first time ever, steel expanding due to heat from the flames caused columns to separate from structural concrete. Column 79 was the first to fail, according to the report, which brought about a quick succession of failures in adjoining columns. "Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems" was a critical element in the collapse, said Dr. Sunder. The "kink" seen in the building's penthouse portion in video of the collapse was in-line with the columns which failed first. "If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he said. "It looks like they want to wrap-up this investigation and blame [the collapse] on normal office fires," said Gage during counter-conference. WTC 7's structural system is in "widespread use" in other buildings, he added, insisting that such effects may also be present elsewhere. The Institute's report also includes recommendations for the strengthening of building codes to avoid future thermal expansion-driven collapses. The collapse of WTC 7 is "no longer a mystery," Dr. Sunder claimed. The Institute's full report is available at wtc.nist.gov. Further details from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth press conference are forthcoming.
If 9/11 was prefabbed, staged, or permitted, building 7 is where "they" screwed up. I wouldn't consider any of the theories if it weren't for the way building 7 came down, and now this just adds another layer of silt to the unanswered questions.
Learning more about WTC7 Here. It's a very telling factor of one's thinking process when they post this type of thing in the "political" section and not the "science" section. Personal opinion and bias is no way to discern fact from fiction. Perhaps you all need to read my signature.
As this, currently, fits in with Science and Nature better than politics, I moved it. Just thought I'd clear up any possible confusion as to why by posting.
Sorry. I consider the 9/11 "attacks" and collapse of WTC towers 1,2 and 7 to be a political issue. I also didn't quote anything as fact, and I enjoyed the article very well as it told both sides of the story in an unbiased political manner. However, due to general content, I understand how this may fit better in science and nature. Science, Sam, is the only way to discern fact from fiction. I know this, and I know you know this.
They have political cause and political ramifications, but the substance of what happens should be relegated to science. Especially an article concerning structural engineering. Good for you, I didn't say "truth" once. You're the only one who has used the word "truth" so far in this thread. Me too, unfortunately your introduction comment was anything but. I'm glad.
Should I feel like you're attacking me? Because I do, and I'm not trying to impose or anything. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth ) I'm editing my post. Synonymical error. The message however, will not change.
There's no reason for me to argue this. I'm sorry Sam. I know you're not wrong, and I know I'm not right. You're intelligent and perspicacious; That speaks volumes to me. I respect your words and take them with a grain of salt. Once again, sorry.
Not attacking you at all, sorry for the misunderstand. My discourse can sometimes be overbearing, my bad.
I just find it particularly absurd that this type of "event" would have happend for "the first time Ever." Sounds like a steaming pile of shite if ya ask me.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bbc_wtc7_videos.html here is some shadiness to go along with WTC 7
That link wasn't completely objective either. Talk about hate, that guy despises conspiracy theorists almost as much as you! He tries to argue that the building didn't come down symetrically, which isn't even debatable. Perfect collapses due to diminished structural integrity, especially in a building with scattered damage, is not normal. Tries to argue that the news reports had forewarned knowledge of WTC collapse, even though it was a "new phenomenon" that nobody could have normally predicted. Uses both "pull firefighters" and "pull the building down with cables" as explanations for Silversteins quote saying "pull it", when he himself claims he was referring to firefighters. I find it a little odd 1. That they can't decide whether they pulled using cables or pulled out firefighters, and 2. that he would refer to plural peoples as "it" (he was clearly referencing the building, and later the firefighters) While I am sometimes appauled at the deception by so called "truthers" in the way they present their findings, the other side is equally devious in presentation. I'm not really convinced towards either "truth", I don't see how any rational person could firmly believe in one or the other. There are too many unanswered questions still, too many coincidences, and too many alternate motives to consider. The handling of the 9/11 investigation itself is a joke that raises some questions... And I hate when people argue against the "conspiracy theorists" with long debunking articles. I wouldn't respond with an article debunking the debunking articles. Respond point for point, or if you are sick of the topic all together I understand (so am I)
Beautiful ad hominem. It sure is, though, because the building DIDN'T collapse symmetrically. Ever hear of the WTC7 penthouse? Here is a more in-depth analysis. You're correct, but none of the WTC buildings including WTC7 were of convention structural engineering, and nothing that occured on 9-11 was "normal" Ummm, except for the fact that trained firefighters had witnessed The collapse of both WTC Towers WTC7 has sustained visible significant structural damage Fires Raged on multiple levels of the building. Not to mention, the building was visible being deformed. You didn't read the article. "Pull" in relation to the buildings was in reference to the remnants of WTC6, and explains how even if he WAS referring to demolitions, that the word "Pull" is not used to describe a control explosion resulting in demolition. It then goes on to explain that he wasn't even talking about demolition to begin with. They're just being thorough. How so? Broad claims. Care to be more specific? I can do my best to help you come to a better understanding. When one does what you've clearly done and simply SCAN an article, then I can see how somebody would feel confused or uncertain. Anything else would be plagiarism for me.
I appreciate your concern, I'm at work and 9/11 conspiracy theory sites and weed forums aren't exactly SFW, i'll give it a deeper read later and respond.
I don't trust our government one bit, and I still believe that they had very little to do with 9/11. The only "conspiracy theory" I believe is about the plane in Pennsylvania. Maybe those guys tried to rush the cockpit, maybe they didn't, but I am pretty sure that the plane was shot down. It was after the other 3 planes had already hit their targets, they knew where it was going, the remains of the plane were scattered over a 12 mile radius (if it hit the ground in one piece it would be more like a half mile radius for debris), and the response to the site for clean up was almost too fast. The buildings, though? I believe that some Al-Qaeda learned to fly commercial planes and crashed them into our buildings because of their extremist Islamic views and because we have been meddling in the Middle East where we have never had any right to be there.
if you really want to know what happened on 911 watch part 2 of the movie zeitgeist zeitgeistmovie.com
The website is www.zeitgeistmovie.com But you must be wary when watching that film. The overall message I took away from watching it is that you cannot believe everyting you are told. And there is something being told in Zeitgeist. Take it with a grain of salt, but do not take it as fact. I think Peter Joseph, the creator, wouldn't want it any other way either.
