9-11 was an inside job

[Russell Kanning]

The 911 commission didn't have any explanation of seven either do i

[KBCraig]

I'm not even going to claim that it was a controlled demolition. I just don't see that the total dramatic failure of all the load supports at virtually the same moment is possible. It would tip or partially fail... that thing drops like a curtain.

If 7 were constructed conventionally, the way the outside appears, I would agree. But, look at the actual design for the foundation and underpinning, where they changed it to a much larger building than originally intended, and you see how it really couldn't have collapsed any other way.

I won't say it was poorly engineered, just less than optimal. All the weight of the mechanical penthouse was carried by a cantilevered beam, which failed. When that portion of the building fell down, it pulled the rest of the building inward and down with it.

[Jim Johnson]

I'm not even going to claim that it was a controlled demolition. I just don't see that the total dramatic failure of all the load supports at virtually the same moment is possible. It would tip or partially fail... that thing drops like a curtain.

If 7 were constructed conventionally, the way the outside appears, I would agree. But, look at the actual design for the foundation and underpinning, where they changed it to a much larger building than originally intended, and you see how it really couldn't have collapsed any other way.

I won't say it was poorly engineered, just less than optimal. All the weight of the mechanical penthouse was carried by a cantilevered beam, which failed. When that portion of the building fell down, it pulled the rest of the building inward and down with it.

What you have described would have left the building roughly in the shape of a collapsed volcano; where the exterior walls would be left partial standing.  As well, the collapse wouldn't have looked anything like what was recorded.

[Tom Sawyer]

Just watched this video that attempts to explain Building 7's collapse.

Building 7 Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

The video explains the "mechanical penthouse" interior collapse as 8 seconds before the complete collapse. The part that is difficult to understand is, considering the "mechanical penthouse" was off center, how all the exterior structure failed uniformly at the same moment. They show a computer model of the penthouse collapse but don't show the way the exterior failed. I'm imagining some way the walls could be pulled inward at the base, but again the symmetrical,coincidental part is difficult to accept.

[jaqeboy]

...How does NIST know which elements failed?...

Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.

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

[Tom Sawyer]

...How does NIST know which elements failed?...

Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.

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

Interesting info Jack.

I'm see that the Truthers aren't the only ones that can be accused of only telling the truth that helps their theory. The "7 hour fire" is one example... turns out that there were a series of fires over a 7 hour period. Any one area only had 20 minutes worth of fuel.

[Silent_Bob]

...How does NIST know which elements failed?...

Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.

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

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, '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." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [wmv download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

[Russell Kanning]

Exactly

[Jim Johnson]

This game is interesting.  http://www.physicsgames.net/game/Demolition_City.html

You can discover why blowing one column can't flatten a building.

[KBCraig]

If 7 were constructed conventionally, the way the outside appears, I would agree. But, look at the actual design for the foundation and underpinning, where they changed it to a much larger building than originally intended, and you see how it really couldn't have collapsed any other way.

I won't say it was poorly engineered, just less than optimal. All the weight of the mechanical penthouse was carried by a cantilevered beam, which failed. When that portion of the building fell down, it pulled the rest of the building inward and down with it.

What you have described would have left the building roughly in the shape of a collapsed volcano; where the exterior walls would be left partial standing.  As well, the collapse wouldn't have looked anything like what was recorded.

A building is not a pile of unconnected material; there are extensive vertical and horizontal ties. In order to look like a collapsed volcano, something would have to break those ties.

Otherwise, when one large section caves in, it pulls everything else in with it, which is exactly what we saw recorded.

[jaqeboy]

...How does NIST know which elements failed?...

Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.

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

Interesting info Jack.

I'm see that the Truthers aren't the only ones that can be accused of only telling the truth that helps their theory. The "7 hour fire" is one example... turns out that there were a series of fires over a 7 hour period. Any one area only had 20 minutes worth of fuel.

Yeah, Kevin Ryan is very good on actually reading the whole reports and finding the flaws/distortions in them. He has other longer and more detailed presentations. You should Google him. Most of these issues have all been brought up and hashed out and answered. There is extensive info and testing of how office fires work. They consume the flammable materials (carpet, paper, furniture) and move towards more fuel, so they sweep across a floor and don't stay in one spot long. There is a Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, led by Erik Lawyer - they might address those types of questions, as well.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

[jaqeboy]

We have almost weekly screenings in the Shire of a lot of this investigative work, including in other "deep politics" areas. The schedule is posted at the meetup group.

For example, on election night, we're screening Hacking Democracy, about the electronic voting machines. Details here: http://www.meetup.com/9-11-307/events/79917782/.

There's also a Facebook group with discussion and announcements: Merrimack Valley 9/11 Truth. There's an active Keene area group called the Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance - I'll find their web address and post it here later.

[Jim Johnson]

"None are more blind than those who will not see."

[KBCraig]

"None are more blind than those who will not see."

Ditto.

[Russell Kanning]

Hahaha