please say it aint so

There are many questions about 9/11 that the U.S. government seems loathe to answer, let alone ask themselves. While nearly everyone on the planet is aware that the twin towers collapsed, not all are aware that Building 7 collapsed. Building 7 was not struck by aircraft, but it burned and, presumably, this was the cause of its collapse - even though no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed in this way as the result of fire before or since 9/11. Many, many eyewitnesses report sounds and the flashes of what appear to be demolition charges that apparently caused Building 7 to fall in what seems to be a controlled collapse. The building fell into a nice, neat pile which, if the collapse were due to fire alone, is highly improbable. There are many videos of controlled-demolition building collapses available on the web and elsewhere, and Building 7 collapsed in exactly this way. Even more strange is that investigators who attempted to look into the collapse were turned away. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. government began shipping away the steel wreckage of all three buildings as fast as it could be collected - and before any of it could be examined by independent investigators.

These problems with the "official version" are only a tiny tip of the iceberg which more and more people are looking into, conspiracy wackos aside. It's about time.

Cockup vs conspiracy?

The basic facts are there...plane hits building.

After that, the world of cock up takes over, bad decisions are made, maybe difficult unpopular decisions get made....it will all be there.

I just feel intensely sad for the individuals who could have got out but were told by well meaning but poorly advised seniors or fire marshalls* to stay put and wait.

*I don't mean the professionals of the fire service...I mean the employees who are assigned the task of supervising the response to a fire. In my last company that's what we called 'em...the bloke who has to check that everyone in the office gets out if the fire alarm sounds.

I feel the political response was disasterous...but this is not the forum for that debate, indeed, maybe not even for this question which is possibly politically motivated.

This may not be (and probably isn't) the forum for the political side of this debate, but it certainly is for the technical aspects. Personally, I'd like to hear the opinions of the structural engineers on this forum.

Technical response:

I am no expert (not even close), but you state that Bldg 7 fell similar to a controlled explosion. I am sure you already know that in order to control a demolition it takes precisely planted and timed charges. Usually the building has to be pre-weakened in critical areas. This takes days, if not weeks to ensure the building implodes rather than explodes. None of this could have happened in the chaos after the planes hit the towers. (Perhaps it was done in secret during Aug 2001? Feds posing as janitors? Seems extreme)

My political comment:

The US govt was responsible for the attacks. In 1991 the towers were hit, we did nothing. Roughly every 24 months during Clinton's presidency America was directly attacked and we did nothing. We refused to take custody of bin laden from the Yemen govt, and he lived to fight another day. 9/11 was right on schedule with al queda's time table, and as far as I am concerned we have lived 5+ years without an attack meaning we must be doing something right...at least we delayed the cycle.

After every catastrophe there will be some things that appear to be unusual or unexplainable, look at the tsunami in Indonesia. Although some of the models were correct, some had to be redefined. And like most catastrophes some looked for and found ways to blame the US. I am proud to live in the most successful country in the world. We are not successful because of our govt, rather it is our freedom from government that allows natural human prosperity. Freedom is natural, thus it works.

I am proud to live in the most successful country in the world.

Good for you Mevel. There's nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism, but please temper it with history...

The US may have been / be the most successful country in the world at the moment, just as Britain was 100 + years ago, but times do change. There are many other contenders in the world for the title you describe the US as owning, ready to take over.

Maybe that is where the 'Great' in Great Britain went wrong? Failing to change with the times...?

John.

I will temper my patriotism by re-phrasing the statement, substituting the word "Lucky" in place of "Proud." But I respectfully request that you not just review, but learn from history.

It is not 'Americans' that are the key. Heck Americans are simply a melting pot of humans. It is a well engineered government that makes the difference. Ours was designed with a minimalistic / restrictive approach, along with a fail safe priority in the direction of the governed.

When you define 'greatest' it requires mass prosperity among the governed. Winning the industrial revolution by breaking the backs of it's own citizens is one way to engineer a government but I cannot consider the society as great.

We humans-(earthlings), are all equal, and simply just require full freedom to profit from unique individual innovation, creation, or education. Any society can prosper if it is not held back by it's govt.

Yes, government is a necessary evil; but like any evil it creates a temptation to indulge it. It is happening here in the US, and you are right, we are sliding from it. To be fail safe though, our design must allow us equal opportunity to destroy or enjoy the 'experiment'.

There are numerous 'great' countries (by my definition) through out the world today. In my personal circle of humans Great Britain is still considered great. I wish all countries could fit my definition of great then 'greatest' would be irrelevant.

In fact I am offering up to the world, for free, a full set of engineered plans that will build a govt guaranteed to produce great societies. It comes with the WARNING:Plans are 200+ years old, and must be used as originally written- amendments not included-they are user supplied. The challenge for today's humans is to engineer a means for implementation. I would think someone on this site could do it.

Just one political comment! Does anyone out there conceive of any politician successfully covering up anything? In any conspiracy the have to be people involved, and the one thing you can guarantee is that, no matter what the penalty, someone will blab. I think what starts the theory's in the first place is a lack of any response in the first instance. After a while, we forget that the people in charge are/where as shocked as everyone else, and probably where unable to respond. Anyway, I don't believe it! And if it's true, best call for Moulder and Scully.

Just because something hasn't happened quite that way before means nothing...

'what appear to be demolition charges' ...!...that is just bad reportage..

'what appeared to be similar to....' maybe.

If we follow your sort of logic...then the famous Tacoma Narrows bridge failure was obviously due to hydraulic rams attached by government agents to shake it to bits! A nothing like it had been seen before and it appeared as if it was being shaken!

Evidence should be based on carefull observation not a assumption of cause.

My Brother was once in court as a witness, he was asked if the defendant was drunk. He said he could not possibly say, but could only report what he observed e.g. The defendant was walking in an unsteady manner. This of course could be due to any number of factors other than drunkenness.

Just because something hasn't happened quite that way before means nothing...

'what appear to be demolition charges' ...!...that is just bad reportage.. (emphasis mine)

-----

How would you know? Were you there? Were you, too, an eyewitness, or did you get your "facts" off the Evening News just like everyone else? With a simple wave of your hand you dismiss wholesale the eyewitness accounts of many people who saw these events firsthand; some of whom I'm sure were amply qualified to make an accurate assessment of what they saw (engineers live in New York City, too. Surprised!). It is highly likely that in the mix there was bad reportage, but here you report on something you didn't see firsthand at all and expect others to take your "authoritative" viewpoint (based, evidently, on the official version) as gospel? At least these people saw something. Here you merely parrot the party line having seen nothing at all firsthand! Yet you expect others here to take viewpoint as authoritative merely on the basis that you disagree? Gimme a break, pal.

I feel you grasp of language is somewhat lacking.

I dissmissed nothing at all.

I suggest you re-read my post slowly and attempt to understand it.

I can say 'this object appears red'

It does not mean it is red.

it could be white but illuminated by a red light, or i could have red green colour deficiency like approximately 1 in 12 males.

The other point allready well made by someone is that the placing of demolition charges is a time consuming task which would have been observed by the buildings occupants.

And another point...

'Assesment of what they saw...'

A WITNESS SHOULD REPORT WHAT THEY SAW....

NOT ASSESS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am incensed by your reply, so I shall deconstruct it. Your comments in bold.

1. "How would you know? Were you there? Were you, too, an eyewitness, or did you get your "facts" off the Evening News just like everyone else?"

I did not say I know anything or that I was there.

2. "With a simple wave of your hand you dismiss wholesale the eyewitness accounts of many people who saw these events firsthand;"

I did not dismiss their accounts...I merely questioned the interpretative content of their accounts.

3. some of whom I'm sure were amply qualified to make an accurate assessment of what they saw (engineers live in New York City, too. Surprised!).

As I said before a witness should report what they see...not interpret it.

I don't believe any individual ould make an accurate assessment of such a complex event in real time from one point of observation.

Many things are open to many interpretations especially complex events, hence my Tacoma Narrow Bridge analogy. (An engineer should know this regardless of where they live)

4. It is highly likely that in the mix there was bad reportage,

Ah something we agree on.

5. but here you report on something you didn't see firsthand at all and expect others to take your "authoritative" viewpoint (based, evidently, on the official version) as gospel?

I did not report a 'viewpoint' at all! I merely questioned the interpretation of events.

6. At least these people saw something.

Yes, and they doubtless tried to report what they saw as accurately and perhaps emotively as they could. (It being very traumatic).

7. Here you merely parrot the party line having seen nothing at all firsthand! Yet you expect others here to take viewpoint as authoritative merely on the basis that you disagree?

Again! I expressed no 'viewpoint' at all! and certainly no 'party line'

8. Gimme a break, pal.

I will happly give you a break, e.g. the oportunity to respond in a considered and lucid manner.

Regards

Del the Cat

About a year afterwards I was directed to a French web site where the author , a prominent scientist and well known figure, put forward pictures and a detailed scientific question about the airplane that hit the pentagon.

In essence the evidence was not of a large twin engined plane hitting the side of the pentagon at all, it was that a truck of explosives had been driven up to the side and detonated...

What I believe is that it was a very useful episode for the politicians to secure agreement to their policies towards other nations...

Just as the gulf war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or removing Saddam H. it was purely economic to protect the oil reserves in Iraq as well as to protect the American dollar pricing of oil, as Iraq was showing other OPEC countries that pricing in Euros was the way forward....

John.

Hum, I have always believed in conspiracies in the Political Realm, as far back as King James in England, at least according to the varied stories I have read.

Keep me posted for additional ideas and thoughts on this important train of thought.

While I'm at it, lets have another shot.

There was a very similar post to this a day or so back...

This is meant to be a scientific and engineering forum.

So let's at least make a pretence of being rigorous in our arguments.

And let's have a name.

Hi Del... are you referring to my post?

If you are I can't give you the name or website address as it was 4 or so years ago and my memory doesn't hold every web address I've visited

John.

Not you thanks!

It was Europium's reply to my post which was ill considered.

Not to worry Del, go out have a few pints of real ale and remember this is only a forum, one person's remarks may seem arrogant perhaps even rude, but the typed word over the internet can so easily be misconstrued...

John.... Cheers!

Cheers Electroman!

Good advice...

I just had a touch of the old transatlantic cultural paranoia kicking in...

Del

It's not a conspiracy. If the CIA was as good as the theory says they supposedly are, then we wouldn't have a conspiracy theory, now would we? If it was true, we wouldn't know. The guy who started it still lives. He'd be dead.

CIA=American KGB, just see the Litvinenko case... ex KGB criticises prime minister(ex head of KGB) and exposes minor secrets. Ends up in a hospital bed with ²¹⁰Po in his system.

All that can be assumed is that the CIA would have done something similar(yet cleaner) to the guy who started this conspiracy theory. Put it together, it doesn't work.

All this conspiracy talk reminds me of a saying I particularly like...

"When you have listened to two eyewitness accounts of the same auto accident, it makes you wonder about history" - Unknown.

John.

That, and "Get two people and have at least three philosophies"

And "If you ask two people for the time and get two different readings, you cannot trust either one"