Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"

On Sep 13, 2:36 pm, wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:14 pm, wrote:





In misc.survivalism wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:
"That was no American Airlines jet"

If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the
passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret
hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring
all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted
to secret landing sites?

Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not
the AA planes.

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing
that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their
passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

To the above list, I'd add, what about all the commercial plane
wreckage recovered at the WTC site? And eyewitness testimony always
takes into account ALL the eyewitness testimony. Just because 2
people say they saw something else, while thousand say they saw
commercial airliners, means zippo.. There are clear videos of
commercial jets hitting the buildings that were made that day by
individuals and the news media. Where are all these eyewitnesses that
we have to find them on Utube? To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

Oh, and then what about this fellow Bin Laden and his cohorts
releasing videos where they take credit for 911? Is he part of the
conspiracy too? LOL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

George Bush told us in the Whitehouse Newsletter
that he watched the first tower get hit.
Think about that! YOU never saw the first hit,

They say, "Rank has its priveledges."

WINSMITH wrote in
oups.com:



George Bush told us in the Whitehouse Newsletter
that he watched the first tower get hit.
Think about that! YOU never saw the first hit,

They say, "Rank has its priveledges."


WTF are you talking about?

In article .com,
wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:14 pm, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:
"That was no American Airlines jet"

If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the
passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret
hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring
all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted
to secret landing sites?

Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not
the AA planes.

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing
that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their
passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel



Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
'security checks'.


"Cleared the towers" ???????????????????????????/

I don't think you ever saw the towers except a few seconds at a time
in a twoofer video.

As someone who as managed 24-hour operations in Manhattan towers and
been the on-site representative of "the customer" for full-floor
bare-beam-and-concrete revelation, I say bull****. thousands of pounds
of explsoive and material would be required and you have to do
paperwork to use the loading dock and the freight evators any time of
day or night, expecially night.



Plus, how did the third building crumble to the
ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? Nobody
mentions the third building.

Hours of fire with no water for firefighting,.



WTC7 fell because of some combination of falling debris, exposure to
fire from adjacent buildings, time, poor fireproofing, thousands of
gallons of stored diesel fuel, lack of water for sprinklers and
firefighters and the strange steel framework that was kludged over a
pre-existing electric utility substation. There may be other
factors. If there are, they will be published in the next NIST report.


Twoofers think it's OK to take the words of NY firemen literally and
claim that when a fireman says "explosion" he means man-made explosive
yet when a few dozen firemen are on record as saying that WTC7 was on
fire all day and beginning to collapse even before noon because of those
file their words can be dismissed.


------------------
Here' a clip from Firehouse Magazine, April 2002

Early in the afternoon you have Chief Hayden sighting it with a
surveyor's transit: (Firehouse Magazine) "By now, this is going on
into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional
collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good
portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty
sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a
bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had
put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to
collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran
up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the
afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this
thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

----------------------------

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why
it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to
develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make
any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just
going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story
building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of
what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we
started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface
removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to
pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

----------------------------





1. Index to statements of 26 NY Firemen that say that they knew, all
day, that WTC7 was eventually going to collapse.

2. Statement by several NYFD Chiefs, on site, about how they managed
the evacuation of WTC7 due to anticipation of collapse.

1 -------------------------------------
An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of
emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe
either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following
table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to
expectations of collapse.

These numbers are in the form of nnnnnnn.pdf appended to this URL

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l

FILENAME QUOTE
9110085 was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing; imminently
to collapse
9110413 in eminent collapse
9110398 a possible collapse
9110486 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110103 going to collapse
9110179 might collapse
9110170 threat of collapse
9110217 concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing
steel would result in the building collapsing
9110256 an imminent collapse on
9110200 they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure
9110150 a potential for collapse
9110467 concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110502 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when,
but it's definitely going to come down
9110021 they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately
9110055 just waiting for 7 to come down
9110301 in danger of collapsing
9110222 concerned about seven coming down
9110222 The most important operational decision to be made
that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center
9110327 heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down
9110117 around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.
9110246 in dead jeopardy; stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes,
because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down
9110472 the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110409 was going to collapse; is coming down
9110462 definitely in danger of collapse


2 -------------------------------------

Evacuation of Collapse Zone (From Firehouse magazine, citations below)

Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in
preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly,
becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and
around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published
in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision:

Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined
that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the
incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations
commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be
established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower
had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of
terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the
firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after
the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC
collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to
collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that
day. 1

--------------------------

Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire
cheifs.

Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Cheif Nigro ordering
people away from the building:

Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side
of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at
that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take
everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a
good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." 2

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro's describes his reasons for creating the
collapse zone:

The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear
the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7
World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A
number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the
building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity
was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the
firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical
decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of
time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day,
communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. 3

Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire
chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.

Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural
condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini
had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its
stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was
well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described
to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural
components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan
Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff
chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in
accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not
too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for
that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and
maintain that strategy. 4

Professional photographer Tom Franklin provides some detail about
the timing of the evacuation:

It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade
Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse. 5 It was 4:45
p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground
Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to
fall. 6

Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine described being surprised
by a fireman certainty that the skyscraper would come down:

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary
firefighter. ... Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman
indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. 'That
building is coming down,' he said with a drained
casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a
skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New
York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of
the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe tomorrow morning.' This was
around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the
building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled. 7

Battalion Fire Chief John Norman describes the size of the collapse
zone -- 600 feet in radius:

After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to
make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being
maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that
area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were
searching. 9 Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying
to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7
is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the
command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and
this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot
radius from that building. 10

Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation
by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7:

Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself,
how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some
point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out
there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side
alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of
there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want,
Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've
got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of
chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said
to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back
up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual
company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this
way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey,
we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to
them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down
and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One
comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't
get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire
out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable
resistance. 11 References

--------------------------


1. World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
2. WTC: This Is Their Story, firehouse.com, 4/2002
3. Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
4. Postcollapse Command, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
5. Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, page 204
6. The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation,
Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002
7. The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, 3/27/2006
8. Interview with Indira Singh. 'Ground Zero 911,
Blueprint for Terror, Part One', Guns & Butteer, 4/27/2005
9. Search and Rescue Operations, Fire Engineering, 10/2002
10. WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse.com, 5/2002
11. WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse.com, 8/2002

3
3 ----------------------------------
3



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 63&sec=&spon=
Dec. 20, 2001

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gyxng

....The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the
collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause
of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high
temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building
and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for
those conditions.


..At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief
James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest
corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged,
possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been
breached.

Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse,
heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was
coming from that part of the buildin

....They have also asserted that structural damage from falling
debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse.

Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding
the city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied
spaces of a building posed serious risks.

4
4 ---------------------------------------
4

The following is from the document cited below.,

Figure L-22a and L22b on page L-20 in ths document shows serious
damage to the SW corner of WTC7. Fig. L-32a shows the scene at the
base of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1.

By 2:30PM

. In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20,
and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of
Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.

. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the
south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m

. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward
the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.

. From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were
observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:

. Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11

. Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30

. Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the
south face Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:

. Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the
face above the fire was covered with smoke

. Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face

Looking at the east face:

. Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward
the north side

All From http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf
Section L is very readable,


The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly
used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and
to pull the firefighters from the building.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html Note

he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a
"large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that
it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell.

In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building
and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did
with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near
what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack.

All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled
demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and
fire, just like the towers.

Table L-1. Timeline of WTC 7 collapse as observed from the northwest.
Time Interval (s) Total Time (s) Observation from CBS Video

0.0 0.0 - First movement of east penthouse roofline downwards
0.9 0.9 - East penthouse kink between columns 44 and 45 (Fig. L-25)
- First 2 windows at Floor 40 fail between columns 44-45 (windows 9 and
11 from east end)
0.3 1.2 - 4 more windows fail at Floor 40
- East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building)
0.5 1.7 - 3 windows break at Floor 41, Floor 43, Floor 44
0.5 2.2 - East penthouse completely submerged (Fig. L-26)
1.8 4.0 - Windows break along column 46 at Floors 37 and 40
3.0 7.0 - West penthouse and screenwall begin to move downward into building
- Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above Floor 21)
0.2 7.2 - West end of roof starts to move
0.5 7.7 - East end of roof starts to move
- Kink formed in north facade along column 46-47
0.4 8.2 - West penthouse and screenwall submerged
- Windows fail between Floors 33-39 around column 55
- Global collapse initiates (Fig. L-27 and L-28)


(From page L-27 of
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_...ndixl.pdf*lots of pics
and supporting info in the PDF.


http://web.umr.edu/~explosiv/Clip_Demolition.avi


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

At 0:20 seconds: "The bulding had been weakened this morning"

at 0:50 "weakened by falling debirs [from WTC1]

1:20 Building is still standing but burning


H. Meyers
ambulances and there were other bodies that were
kinds of staged waiting for removal.
Q. When you reported into the command post,
you reported to Chief Nigro; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did he give you any specific assignment?
A. Yes, he did. Chief Nigro directed me to
continue monitoring conditions at the site.
Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center.
We were very concerned with the collapse potential
there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site
safety in that no additional people became injured.
Also, to do what I could while up at the site to
organize some sort of command or control.

p 4
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera...ts/9110382.PDF



D. Nigro
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110154.PDF

p 6 We stepped over small airplane aviation
parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at
the building. I looked up

P. (Burns (?) dies and Nigro is acting commander (verify)

At some point after I was briefed, I took
command of the operation from the Chambers Street post


P 10 The most important operational
decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had
damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story
building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington
Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I
ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to
protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue
operations that were going on at the time and back the
people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did
collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people.
We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half
after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7
World Trade Center collapsed completely.

P 13-14 Q. Stepping back for a moment to when you were
coming over the Brooklyn Bridge, could you make a
determination based on a visual from that distance how
involved or fully involved the fire was and how many
floors?
A. It looked to me like it was involving about
10 floors of the building, and the way it was burning,
14
D. NIGRO
I stated to Chief Ganci on the way there that I didn't
believe we could extinguish the fire.
Q. That was based on what?
A. The number of floors I think. The volume of
fire on the number of floors. To my recollection, we
had never put out a fire that involved that many floors
in a high rise building in this city before.
and was told that Chief Fellini was at the forward
operations post at West and Vesey, from which the






-------------------------------------

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf


Is .Pull. Used by Demolitions Professionals to Mean
..Demolish a Structure With Explosives?.
No.
Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with
his expert opinion:
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of
a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional
demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a preweakened
building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull'
the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our
research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in
late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been
logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size
of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.
In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including
this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and
debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pulldown
of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring
simultaneously throughout the site. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc


From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the

Facts http://tinyurl.com/pkeqq
Book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts

Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for
controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic
Associates.
Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark
Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being
used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to
cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.


View of WTC7 From WTC Tower


http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/
wp-content/uploads/2007/05/viewofwtc7and1.jpg

Timing ^ good video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw


Fireman saying WTC will fall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk


-----------------------------------------------





Does the picture show the other 3 sides, or a view from the roof?


Now, for the rest of your non-fact-filled paragrah;


Steel looses 50% of it's strength at 500C/950F. See [1]

You didn't include dimensional expansion. Heating steel beams 500C
expands them by about 0.5% (6 inches per 100ft), but only where it's
hot. The rest of the structure stays the same. This creates terrific
stresses which can tear joints apart.

WTC7 had a huge tank of diesel fuel and a pump powered by a UPS
system. [2] The pump delivered 50 gal/minute (from memory) to an
internal fire that burned for hours. Sustaind heat removes the
strength from concrete and the temps were high enough to weaken the
structural steel.

WTC7 was hit by some very large beams from WTC2, falling hundreds of
ft.

WTC structure was unusual in that it was built over an existing power
substation. This resulted in points in the structure that made it
subject to failure from all of the above. [2]

Don't let this bit of factual analysis disuade you from posting "truth
Movemnt" crap all over Usenet, possibly under multiple handles,
in the future.

Have a nice day.

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.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5



[1] http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/go....action=results

* How does the strength of steel vary with increasing temperature?

Plain carbon manganese steels behave similarly when heated, in
that the yield strength decreases approximately linearly with
increasing temperature at the rate of around 0.1% of room
temperature strength per 10C increase in temperature. This means
that most steels have about 50% of their room temperature
strength at 5000C. Above this temperature, the rate of softening
increases more rapidly. Addition of alloying elements such as
molybdenum and chromium slow down the rate of softening and
allow the steel to be used at higher temperatures.

However, other factors are important at higher
temperatures. These include creep where the material will fail
over a time period at a stress level much lower than the
strength of the steel. Further, oxidation of the surface
accelerates rapidly. For these reasons, plain carbon steels are
not generally suitable for applications above 4000C.



[2] http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

----------------------------------------------------------

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uo95x

New York Times

December 20, 2001

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON

Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank
for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a
47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a
hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.

The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground
floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel
generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in
the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design
changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have
run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the
tank in place.

But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position
could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it
caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called
''disaster.''

Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris,
and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the
building.

Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7
World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the
110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and
set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings.

Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever
collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining
whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level --
played an important role in the building's stunning demise.

The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood
and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof
enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact
met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall
fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of
the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port
Authority's chief engineer.

The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate
the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said.

''We made sure that it was in agreement with the code,'' Mr. Lombardi
said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry
enclosure.

A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not
authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been
addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the
department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said
he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be ''a
stretch.'' The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he
still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe.

The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not
have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the
towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with
the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to
often take additional precautions.

A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis
E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination
that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was
essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source
and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was
deemed to be susceptible to floods.

''We put it in the area where we needed to put it,'' Mr. McCarton
said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the
collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said.

He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by
the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery
collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's
planning.

No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade
Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and
recovery efforts under way at the scene.

The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse
of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the
disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures
typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised
questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions.

At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James
Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of
the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by
falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached.

Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse,
heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was
coming from that part of the building.

The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding
the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the
possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground
floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have
also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more
likely culprit in the collapse.

Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the
city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of
a building posed serious risks.

----------------------------------------------------


The Verizon building in this story was next to WTC7, on the corner of
West and Veasey. It can be seen in the foreground in this WTC7-on-fire
video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3495


January 6, 2003

Herculean Effort to Restore a Landmark Battered on 9/11

By GLENN COLLINS


....Nevertheless, according to George Famulare, Verizon's manager of
corporate real estate, "the building is a tank." Built with
reinforced concrete and steel, its floors can hold 250 to 300 pounds
per square foot, constructed to support the giant electromechanical
switching assemblies that were replaced long ago by electronic
alternatives.
...
During the collapses, steel projectiles from the towers hit the
Verizon building, sliced the mains and left water cascading into the
building's five subbasements, filling the lowermost vaults like a
swimming pool. A javelin of steel actually speared through the
sidewalk concrete and lodged in the basement. The building's fuel
oil tanks were submerged in water, then burst.
...
Upstairs in the formerly sacrosanct, climate-controlled clean rooms
that housed hundreds of telephone cabinets bearing computer
switching cards, the walls had gone unimaginably missing;
firefighters established their hoses there to fight the raging fire
in 7 World Trade Center.
...
Now, much of the 14 floors of damage to the south-facing wall has been
refaced with custom-fabricated brick from Stone Creek, Ohio. Gone is
the 7 World Trade Center debris that was stacked up to Verizon's
fifth floor.


----------------------------

Penthouse collapse Fullverison

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

---------------------------------------

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
for blocks around.

There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.

There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

I know how they did it.
Bush's evil scientists stopped time long enough for the demolitions
crews to enter and rig the building. Then those crews were placed
into suspended animation for fifty years so they wouldn't talk.
It'll all come out.





On 14 Sep 2007 15:37:56 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
for blocks around.

There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.

There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is
that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through
structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the
demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo
such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives
possible, for reasons of both safety and economy.



There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Yes.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.

I have no answer.


There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have said
repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems pretty far-fetched
to me.


(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead. Does he
shed light on the CD allegations?

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is
that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through
structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the
demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo
such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives
possible, for reasons of both safety and economy.


Like this demolition job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

I figure that the microphine is about a half a mile away from the
blast.

(That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2, or 7.
That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as massive and
that the largest beams are that much stonger.)


There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any of
the buildings at WTC.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

On Sep 14, 10:18 am, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
'security checks'.

Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for
implosion? Do you have an analysis?

Plus, how did the third building crumble to the

ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc?

I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the
towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that
this could not have caused the collapse?

Nobody

mentions the third building.

I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions
based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to
rethink your position.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

I can't recall the amount of hours, but it can easily be found. It was
days and they called it security sweeps I believe. Re-wiring the
security devices. That's what they said all the wire was for.

On Sep 14, 11:28 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article .com,



wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:14 pm, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:
"That was no American Airlines jet"

If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the
passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret
hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring
all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted
to secret landing sites?

Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not
the AA planes.

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing
that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their
passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
'security checks'.

"Cleared the towers" ???????????????????????????/

I don't think you ever saw the towers except a few seconds at a time
in a twoofer video.

As someone who as managed 24-hour operations in Manhattan towers and
been the on-site representative of "the customer" for full-floor
bare-beam-and-concrete revelation, I say bull****. thousands of pounds
of explsoive and material would be required and you have to do
paperwork to use the loading dock and the freight evators any time of
day or night, expecially night.

Plus, how did the third building crumble to the
ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? Nobody
mentions the third building.

Hours of fire with no water for firefighting,.

WTC7 fell because of some combination of falling debris, exposure to
fire from adjacent buildings, time, poor fireproofing, thousands of
gallons of stored diesel fuel, lack of water for sprinklers and
firefighters and the strange steel framework that was kludged over a
pre-existing electric utility substation. There may be other
factors. If there are, they will be published in the next NIST report.



Um, sure it did.

In article . com,
wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:18 am, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
'security checks'.

Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for
implosion? Do you have an analysis?

Plus, how did the third building crumble to the

ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc?

I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the
towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that
this could not have caused the collapse?

Nobody

mentions the third building.

I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions
based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to
rethink your position.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

I can't recall the amount of hours, but it can easily be found. It was
days and they called it security sweeps I believe. Re-wiring the
security devices. That's what they said all the wire was for.



Why would "security sweeps" require the occupants to leave?

There are multiple layers of security under management by different
organizations.

You can't get the of supplies in the loading dock without paperwork at
any hour.

You can't use the elevators at any hour without advance notice and
paperwork.

Only people that never managed facilities inside a big building could
think this is possible.










--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001