9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

I guess one thing missing in the discussions on this thread for the scientific-minded is the peer-reviewed papers, such as Steven Jones' breakthrough "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse." This paper should be digested for basic background on why scientists favor the demolition scenario.

There are a number of other papers available also at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Instead of lamenting how sad it is that someone might believe such a thing, the curious and the sniping critics can find plenty of material there to learn from or snipe at!

[MaineShark]

I guess one thing missing in the discussions on this thread for the scientific-minded is the peer-reviewed papers, such as Steven Jones' breakthrough "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse." This paper should be digested for basic background on why scientists favor the demolition scenario.

"Scientists favor..."  As if scientists are a monolithic block who are unanimous.  Sounds like Global Warming nonsense about a mystical "consensus" which in no way exists.

A few loons who call themselves scientists, but who regularly admit that they decided what had happened before looking at the evidence (something a scientist doesn't do), are hardly representative of "scientists" as a whole.  I can't think of any legitimate scientists who "favor the demolition scenario."

Joe

[jaqeboy]

For your copying and re-distribution, there are Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth flyers, banners, etc. at this page.

[jaqeboy]

OK, started a separate thread for the Boston 9/11 Tea Party and Conference: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12407.0

[ThePug]

I guess one thing missing in the discussions on this thread for the scientific-minded is the peer-reviewed papers, such as Steven Jones' breakthrough "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse." This paper should be digested for basic background on why scientists favor the demolition scenario.

"Scientists favor..."  As if scientists are a monolithic block who are unanimous.  Sounds like Global Warming nonsense about a mystical "consensus" which in no way exists.

A few loons who call themselves scientists, but who regularly admit that they decided what had happened before looking at the evidence (something a scientist doesn't do), are hardly representative of "scientists" as a whole.  I can't think of any legitimate scientists who "favor the demolition scenario."

Joe

And I'd also like to note that being published in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" doesn't count as "peer-reviewed". Faux-scientific-journals are a favorite trick of fraudulent pseudo-scientists.

There have been no peer-reviewed studies published in respectable scientific journals supporting any theory about what happened at the World Trade Center other than those that state the obvious- that the two towers collapsed from the massive structural damage from the aircraft collisions, compounded by the subsequent fires. WTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.

[ThePug]

WTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.

Building 7 was almost a block away from the twin towers. A dozen other buildings were either closer, or roughly as close, to the twin towers. They did not collapse.

It was aprox. 100 meters from the base of the nearest tower. As has been pointed out, the towers were aprox. 450 meters tall. The entire complex was built on a single basement.

As for the other WTC buildings- none of them were tall towers. They were relatively low, squat buildings so they didn't so much "collapse" as much as they were just buried.

[alohamonkey]

WTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.

Building 7 was almost a block away from the twin towers. A dozen other buildings were either closer, or roughly as close, to the twin towers. They did not collapse.

It was aprox. 100 meters from the base of the nearest tower. As has been pointed out, the towers were aprox. 450 meters tall. The entire complex was built on a single basement.

As for the other WTC buildings- none of them were tall towers. They were relatively low, squat buildings so they didn't so much "collapse" as much as they were just buried.

You're right.  The others didn't collapse.  Sorta weird

[KBCraig]

Alohamonkey, your second photo is incorrect when it says WTC7 sustained "minor fires". It burned for hours, with visible and obvious buckling and sagging to the roof and walls, before collapsing.

[alohamonkey]

Alohamonkey, your second photo is incorrect when it says WTC7 sustained "minor fires". It burned for hours, with visible and obvious buckling and sagging to the roof and walls, before collapsing.

It's one I pulled off the web.  I actually wish I could take the descriptions off the second photo.  I didn't add the descriptions and I don't necessarily think the photo needs misleading phrasing (or typos).  I think the photo speaks for itself.  Just look at WTC 6 versus photos of WTC 7 before it collapsed.  6 was in much worse shape and remained standing.  6 had worse fires and worse structural damage than WTC 7 but didn't collapse.  WTC 7 definitely had fires but keep in mind that this was the first time in history that a steel structure collapsed due to fire damage . . . I don't think WTC 7's fires were sufficient to create complete structural failure. 

I disagree with you though . . . I haven't seen anything that shows visible and obvious buckling and sagging in WTC 7 except for the 2-3 seconds immediately before collapse.  If you have something that shows the contrary, please provide it.   

[MaineShark]

WTC 7 definitely had fires but keep in mind that this was the first time in history that a steel structure collapsed due to fire damage . . . I don't think WTC 7's fires were sufficient to create complete structural failure.

Examples of steel structures failing due to fire have been posted previously in this very thread.

Combine severe weakening due to fire with a judicious helping of "seismic" damage due to being on the same basement as two huge buildings that collapse, and the results aren't surprising...

Joe

[KBCraig]

[youtube=425,350]WqVdESOo6D4[/youtube]

[KBCraig]

I haven't seen anything that shows visible and obvious buckling and sagging in WTC 7 except for the 2-3 seconds immediately before collapse.  If you have something that shows the contrary, please provide it.   

How about the words of the firefighters who were there (there's a photo, too)?

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Collapses

[alohamonkey]

WTC 7 definitely had fires but keep in mind that this was the first time in history that a steel structure collapsed due to fire damage . . . I don't think WTC 7's fires were sufficient to create complete structural failure.

Examples of steel structures failing due to fire have been posted previously in this very thread.

Combine severe weakening due to fire with a judicious helping of "seismic" damage due to being on the same basement as two huge buildings that collapse, and the results aren't surprising...

Joe

Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?

I've read through this whole thread in the past and I can't recall anyone posting examples of other steel structures that have collapsed at free-fall speed due to fire damage.  I'll look again but if you have proof of that, please provide. 

[kola]

KB, I think Stephen Barret of Quackwatch has some more "good evidence.  LOL

Kola

[alohamonkey]

[youtube=425,350]WqVdESOo6D4[/youtube]

lol