66 responses to “WTC North Tower Collapse, New Discover(?)”

1. 

   Green Monkey

   January 5, 2009 at 11:11 am

   
   

   Juris wrote:

   Would anyone care to tell me why the US would want to destoy so many of its citizens and prime property top implicate OBL? Might not the destruction of another building with fewer people suffice? Oh. I know, too simple an explanation? Incidentally, has responsibility been denied by OBL?

   Below is #16 snipped from John Gold’s article “The Facts Speak For Themselves” which I linked to in my last post above.

   Note there are several embedded links in the original not included here:

   Fact #16

   Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry explained, “though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.” In 1995, Zelikow wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice called, “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft.” While at Harvard, “he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

   Between 1997 and 1998, Zelikow helped to write a report that said “Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously… it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.” They predict the consequences of such an event: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great ‘success’ or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

   Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’” In 1997, Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a report about John F. Kennedy that is “riddled” with errors. Zelikow wrote the pre-emptive war strategy for the Bush Administration. Zelikow said that the “real threat” with regards to Iraq’s WMD was to Israel. Zelikow tried to prevent the 9/11 Commission staffers from talking to the Commissioners. Zelikow tried to insert a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 into the 9/11 Report, but the families, and the staffers fought against it. It has been alleged that he may have taken direction from Karl Rove who, according to Philip Shenon, was concerned about the 9/11 Commission because “in the wrong hands… [it] could cost President Bush a second term.” The allegation regarding Rove drove the September Eleventh Advocates (formerly known as “The Jersey Girls”) to call for an entirely new investigation. Only Rawstory.com covered that story.

   In early 2003, Philip Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a complete outline of the final 9/11 Report. Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton decided to keep this outline a secret from the commission staffers. When “it was later disclosed that Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline of the commission’s final report at the very start of the investigation, many of the staff’s investigators were alarmed.” He rewrote the 9/11 Report to be more favorable of Condoleezza Rice. During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families called for the resignation of Philip Zelikow, but were denied that request. After the 9/11 Commission was finished, Philip Zelikow was given a job with Condoleezza Rice at the State Department.

   (paragraphing added
   by me {GM} for ease in reading).
   http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949

   Regarding Osama Bin Laden (also known by some as Emanuel Goldstein), he is not wanted by the FBI for 911 crimes.

   From #16 in Project Censored’s Top 25 Censored Stories for 2008.

   #16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

   Osama bin Laden’s role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” poster.

   On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.

   Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

   Haas pauses to ask the question, “If the US government does not have enough hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to ‘smoke him out of his cave?’” Through corporate media, the Bush administration told the American people that bin Laden was “Public Enemy Number One,” responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” bin Laden and the Taliban, yet nearly six years later, the FBI said that it had no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.

   Though the world was to have been convinced by the December 2001 release of a bin Laden “confession video,” the Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered.”

   In a CNN article regarding the bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the US military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.”

   Haas attempted to secure a reference to US government authentication of the bin Laden “confession video,” to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and US Congress, along with corporate media, presented the video as authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, notes Haas, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The participants identified in the video would be indicted. The video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why, asks Haas, is the bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

   http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/

   Regarding the WTC towers being valuable real estate assets:

   On 9/11: Was the Asbestos-Laced World Trade Center “Disposable”?

   SNIP

   THE WORLD TRADE CENTER: OBSOLETE AND PLAGUED WITH PROBLEMS

   Those who thought the World Trade Center comprised some of New York’s most desirable office space may have been mistaken.

   In “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” author John Perkins reflects on a walk he took through lower Manhattan shortly after 9/11:

   “I recalled reading that the World Trade Center was a project started by David Rockefeller in 1960, and that in recent years the complex had been considered an ALBATROSS. It had the reputation of being A FINANCIAL MISFIT, unsuited to modern fiber-optic and Internet technologies, and burdened with an inefficient and costly elevator system. Those two towers once had been nicknamed David and Nelson. Now the albatross was gone.” [3] [with emphasis added]

   More detail comes from Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall in their new book, “9/11 Revealed”:

   “The WTC began in disaster, just as it ended. A grossly misconceived Soviet-style land-development catastrophe…[it] was OBSOLETE LONG BEFORE IT WAS FINISHED. …The oversized…site destroyed swathes of human-scale streetscape…the towers…stole light from buildings all across Manhattan. Their exterior-frame structure maximized interior space while minimizing views and making office workers depressed [the windows were barely wider than the 16″-wide steel exterior columns]. Space-saving on elevators that involved two changes up and down made for lengthy journey times. …It would take a full two hours to evacuate everybody in a fire.” [4] [with emphasis added]

   Morgan and Henshall go on to note that BY 2001, MUCH OF THE TOWERS’ OFFICE SPACE WAS EMPTY. The towers were due for a “mid-life rehab,” but building codes would have REQUIRED REMOVAL OF THE ASBESTOS FIREPROOFING lining the towers’ ceilings and steel framework. According to Morgan and Henshall, “Such a job would have been unrealistically expensive and physically impractical, with no gain in [rental] revenues.” [5] [with emphasis added]

   http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4373

   Loading…
2. 

   Micro Mock Engineer

   January 5, 2009 at 10:07 pm

   
   

   Trying to keep up with some of you is challenging. Nonetheless, I do find the discussion interesting at times, and persist with the hope that a few people will realize how easy it is to fall victim to false conspiracy theories that prey on our emotions and the basic human instinct to question and doubt. These traits are desirable and account for much of our success as a species, but the former (emotion) must be managed very carefully, especially when investigating traumatic events like 9/11.

   @Gearbox: you said “the truth is that the “topic” of this discussion is inadequate”. The truth is, the topic of this discussion is exactly where one should start if you are trying to solve this crime… the mechanism by which the buildings collapsed is extremely important as it serves as the foundation for the investigation. Never begin an investigation with an assessment of motives… that is to assuage our emotional instinct, and is exactly where most of the conspiracy theorists begin i.e. this looks fishy… must be an inside job… then proceed to filter the evidence for those elements that support your conclusion. Always start with what you know about the crime, e.g. two big planes flew into a building causing major structural damage… fire ensued… building collapsed… testimonies of those on the scene at the time… forensic reports of the investigators etc. After you are comfortable with your understanding of what happened, and the details of the crime itself, then you should move on to means, motive and opportunity.

   But don’t worry Gearbox… I can always tell when you haven’t taken the time to think your contribution through properly, when I don’t see the Aggghhhhhhhhh at the end. 🙂

   @Straight talk: I could find nothing in that link you sent me that speaks to firemen gaining access to the 106th floor of any of the two towers. Have you been drinking again? You will need to clarify.

   Some firemen did make it to part of the crash zone of the south tower (78th floor) and indeed there were some survivors who managed to escape from some floors in that crash zone. But this does not in anyway conflict with anything the I have presented – undoubtedly the fire got progressively worse after the crash, as one would expect in an abundance of fuel (all the combustibles in the offices), air and the absence of any sort of fire fighting or suppression… it would have gotten particularly bad in those floors of the crash zone… of these, the 78th floor is the one where fire might be expected to be the least intense as it was an open lobby impacted by the wing tip… ask yourself why the firefighters that managed to get that far didn’t go any further.
   There is an abundance of evidence of fires on floors below the crash zones… several survivors testimonies attest to this… many of the conspiracy sites even use this to suggest that there were explosives in the building at lower levels… I will not waste time providing you with links as I am sure someone as versed as you are in the conspiracies would be aware of accounts of intense heat and explosions in the basement (perceived by some in the area to have preceded the crash, and used to suggest explosive detonations), fireballs in lower lobbies, burn victims from lower floors who managed to escape before the collapses etc. I was just correcting you on a point of fact… but I think your confusion stems from a belief that this was my explanation for the collapse. My explanation is, as the official report says, severe structural damage caused by the planes, followed by structural weakening due to the ensuing fire, followed by the momentum (mass x velocity) of 12 to 28 stories (of WTC1 and 2 respectively) falling on the supporting structure below which was unable to absorb the energy through deflection. Then why did they free fall? More hogwash… from some of the video angles available you can see sections of the towers standing up to 25 seconds after collapse initiation… remember the spire you ‘conspiricists’ like to bring up when it suits you?
   In any event, the massive debris clouds make accurate estimates of the fall time unreliable. Even the seismic records are not accurate enough to provide a reliable fall time… they do however give a very good indication of the noise-level and sequence of ‘explosions’ during the event.

   @BAFBFP: The Arabs? LOL. I would never paint the perpetrators with such a broad brush. They were a fundamentalist Islamic group by the name of al-Qaeda… which does not restrict membership to Arabs, just nutcases.

   @Green Monkey: Buddy…I en know where to start wid you. The best I can do is suggest that you invest one-tenth of the time you spend on conspiracy sites reading the less exciting official reports, then weigh all of the information in the balance.

   @David: You called and I answered the best I could. I feel wunna in dat BU house luv nuttin more dan to see MME getting licks from dah gang uh conspiri-cysts. We will all know the truth, like Crazy say, in time to come. 🙂

   Aggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

   Loading…
3. 

   Micro Mock Engineer

   January 5, 2009 at 10:33 pm

   
   

   But Straight talk… I en dun wid you just yet.

   Your comment “It cannot have been the weight, as they would have always carried that weight…” suggests that you don’t understand the difference between static and dynamic loads. So… I have designed an experiment for you to conduct at home that might help to illustrate the difference.

   Get a cricket ball, place it on the top of your head and try to balance it for a few seconds… shouldn’t be too difficult. Now, hold the ball with your hand fully extended directly over you head and release it. What you should feel is the difference between a static and a dynamic load… I say ‘should’ because some of us have harder heads than others 🙂

   Loading…
4. 

   Straight talk

   January 5, 2009 at 10:58 pm

   
   

   MME:

   You ain’t said nothing to counter my concerns.

   I’m no conspiracist, i have looked at all the available evidence and, like some members of the 9/11 Commission, have realised there are some serious, crucial questions which remain to be answered for the truth of this murderous event to come out.

   One indisputable fact is that the Kean/Hamilton Report is flawed, they themselves have acknowledged the fact that they were lied to.

   That must be sufficient reason for a fresh, truly independent inquiry to be held.

   No subpoenas, no FAA reports into any of the 4 plane crashes (another first for 9/11), remind me again what was the remit of the investigation.

   Oh yes, “to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.”

   Full and complete it is admittedly not.

   You again have failed to explain how the lower non-affected core members failed during a non-visible pancaking of the floors.

   Show me evidence of over 100 pancaked floors.

   I saw none.

   I did see pulverised plumes of concrete and steel being ejected, yes ejected, at speed, not falling by gravity.

   What caused the central core to fail all the way to the ground?

   Burning carpets and desks on the 78th floor?

   A fire so intense a poor lady was hanging out of the hole pleading for rescue for 15 minutes after the impact had burnt out.

   Good god man, I presume you have never warmed yourself by a kerosene stove. Would it ever warp or melt?

   Anyway I’ve done with WTC1 & 2 , there are so many more inexplicable events which occurred on that day which demand enquiry.

   Whether it was a total SNAFU or a deliberate act, I don’t know.

   What I do know is that pertinent facts and evidence are being hidden or disregarded, and I just wonder why?

   Perhaps we should all just say “What actually happened was after all the billions spent, we were totally defenceless against 19 Arabs with Stanley knives.”

   I say BS.

   Loading…
5. 

   Micro Mock Engineer

   January 5, 2009 at 11:27 pm

   
   

   Pancakes ST… you hungry. What pancakes you and your conspiracists keep talking bout?!?

   You hear me mention pancakes even once?

   You read the official NIST report yet?

   ROFL

   Here is EXACTLY what NIST says in the official report on the incident:

   “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”

   A simplified FAQ for people who don’t have the time to read the report is provided by NIST here:
   http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

   ST… read the official reports nuh.

   Loading…
6. 

   Micro Mock Engineer

   January 5, 2009 at 11:31 pm

   
   

   Look… David, I caan handle de pressure on this thread nuh more more. I goin an help GP share some lashes on dah Israel/Palestine thread.

   Loading…
7. 

   David

   January 6, 2009 at 12:16 am

   
   

   @MME

   Thanks for giving GG a rematch. Maybe they will stop referring to you as mock 🙂

   Loading…
8. 

   Micro Mock Engineer

   January 6, 2009 at 12:55 am

   
   

   LOL David… I will be mock and micro till the Grand Engineer says otherwise.

   Loading…
9. 

   Green Monkey

   January 6, 2009 at 1:11 am

   
   

   David, all a body can do is look at the evidence from both sides and see which is more persuasive.

   I don’t know how much confidence I would have in a NIST report though, seeing as how the engineering geniuses at NIST (at least one, John Gross, with a PhD in Structural Engineering. See: http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gross ) couldn’t even figure out how to correctly measure the collapse speed of WTC 7 until a high school physics teacher embarrassed them by posting a Youtube video explaining how easily it could be done.

   Of course if WTC 7 did not collapse at freefall speed as NIST erroneously tried to claim was the case, it would have made it a lot easier to pass off a bogus “fire induced collapse” explanation to the public. Now they’ve come up with a computer model to explain how random fires and some damage to one side of the building caused the symmetrical, straight down WTC 7 collapse into its own footprint with a freefall component included, but (as per the AE 911 Truth video above) they apparently are not intending to release the data used in their computer modeling for other independent experts to check and verify that the computer model is valid. Something smells very rotten to me about that, but maybe being a “conspiracy theorist” I am just suspicious by nature. LOL

   Loading…
10. 

    Gear Box

    January 6, 2009 at 6:30 am

    
    

    Osama did fighting Russians fah donkey years and neva even get roun’ ta blowing up a ant hill in Russia den… but he fin’ a way to blow up three mega houses on 9-11.

    AAAAAAAAAAAghhhhhhhhh

    Loading…
11. 

    Green Monkey

    January 6, 2009 at 10:50 am

    
    

    The Exclamation Point at the End of the Story

    By James Moore

    Americans have a desperate need to believe. We want to trust our government and our leaders. Our default position is to accept without too much questioning the assertions of our presidents and the institutions of our government. Few of us are easily convinced yet today that America was involved in assassinations and the deposing of democratically-elected leaders of other nations, and as Hamas drops rockets into Israel and Israeli troops sweep through Gaza we conveniently ignore the incontrovertible fact that it was the policies of our outgoing president that put Hamas into power.

    Our citizens are not big on context. When the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers overthrew the U.S. puppet Shah Reza Pahlevi in 1979 and occupied the American embassy, we accepted the characterizations our leaders gave us that the Ayatollah was a madman. Perhaps, he was, but he was a madman of our own devise, whose foundational power grew from the CIA’s overthrow of a democratically-elected leader in the early 1950s, a man who was nationalizing energy company assets.

    (Side note from GM: You can read all about Operation Ajax, the joint CIA/MI6 covert op to overthrow democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh, here: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm )

    The Shah became our boy, bought billions of dollars of our armaments, let us have his country’s oil, tortured his opposition with U.S-trained forces, and was no real threat to Israel. High school history class, however, leaves out that part and the journalism that covered it, rare though it was, went largely ignored. The Ayatollah was a lunatic, our enemy, a threat to global peace, and that was all the American taxpayers needed to hear. Give us a bad guy so we can be good.

    America’s role as the unwavering good guy is a mythology that has sustained us but may ultimately be our ruin. We are not the knights of perpetual goodness on steeds of democratic glory saving the world from tyranny. Often, we have played the opposite role. Unfortunately, as the eight years of the Bush administration are coming to a close, we seem to still want to believe in our own righteousness, instead of scrutinizing our government’s behavior in our name. The founders, of course, had a different construct in mind. The United States became a nation on the premise of the simple notion that there was nothing more patriotic than the act of questioning authority, and that is the only way it will survive as a country of free people.

    Working people tend to turn to the media to handle this responsibility for our democracy. This is our mistake. There is, of course, as the wise man said, “no such thing as a free press unless you own one.” America’s media are generally owned by the corporate entities that have interests that do not serve the public. Consequently, when Brit Hume and Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer intone their stenographic journalism based upon the White House’s message of the day, we are all misled. Those who go further are shouted down or vilified as unpatriotic and ridiculed for not wearing flag pins on their lapels. Global conflict is reduced to the simplicity of a football game under the Friday Night Lights.

    Continued at:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-exclamation-point-at_b_155144.html

    Loading…
12. 

    Straight talk

    January 6, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    
    

    For anyone remembering that plane-shaped scar in a Shanksville field, but puzzled by the absence of wreckage, check out another strange coincidence of 911.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

    As with the three others on that day, no FAA crash investigation.

    Loading…
13. 

    Green Monkey

    January 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    
    

    Another video released by David Chandler of http://AE911Truth.org , this time on the WTC1 collapse.

    The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.

    [I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]

    –David Chandler, AE911Truth
    Embedded video at link:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/19053

    See Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti’s paper “The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers” here:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

    Abstract: In the past two years there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the explanations we have been given, by official U.S. government bodies, concerning the collapses of the
    three WTC buildings in NYC on 9/11/2001. It is probably safe to say that much of this growth can be attributed to the Internet publishing of a paper by Physics Professor Steven Jones in November 2005,
    which put forth the hypothesis that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were actually demolished with prepositioned
    cutter charges.3 This hypothesis is in tension with the present government explanation of impact damage and fires being the causes for the complete collapses of the buildings. My intent here is to show that any honest and objective look at all of the theories, for the destruction of the twin towers,
    including the present government explanation, will cause one to realize that only the controlled demolition hypothesis is sustainable. I believe an honest look at the evidence will convince anyone that the controlled demolition hypothesis provides the best explanation for the complete collapses of the towers, as well as the damage to the buildings and objects surrounding them. The remarkable collapse of WTC7 seems to have had a separate cause in its own controlled demolition. Video of the collapse of
    WTC7 can be viewed quickly at http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html before continuing,
    as it plays a part in understanding what probably occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

    It can be shown that due to the design and volume of the towers, the aircraft impacts and fires could not
    have been enough to cause them to collapse.

    Loading…
14. 

    Green Monkey

    June 30, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    
    

    29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

    More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports

    Gregg Roberts and Staff

    The facts are in. The evidence is conclusive. These experts lay it all out. For Some, the Doubts Began Early “Something is wrong with this picture,” thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings’ responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damagewas clearly not symmetrical?”

    Lomba was hardly alone in his discomfort. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.(1) They mainly kept their misgivings to themselves, though, as Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, BBC, the History Channel and government agencies such as FEMA and NIST
    offered varying and often imaginative theories to explain how fires brought the towers down.

    In 2006, San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, began raising technical questions among his professional colleagues about the destruction of the Twin Towers and 47-story WTC Building 7. Those who take time to look at the facts overwhelm-ingly agreethat vital questions remain unanswered, Gage has found. Today more than 30 structural engineers, experts in what can and cannot bring down buildings, have joined almost 700 other Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in signing the petition demanding a new investigation.(2)

    SNIP

    Artificial Symmetry

    The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and
    Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in
    Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses’ “totality and uniformity” and the fact that the mass of debris
    remained centered on the building
    core all the way down. The towers
    should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” writes Howard Pasternack, P.E. These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously,” but
    also “in sequential order,” wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s
    “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and …small, short-duration fires.”

    Continued at:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

    Loading…
15. 

    Green Monkey

    August 7, 2009 at 12:42 am

    
    

    Live Interview with Dr. Frank Greening (Streaming audio)

    Tuesday, August 4th, on Fair and Balanced: Dr. Frank Greening, former darling of the JREF anti-9/11 truth “debunkers.” During my recent hostile interview with Mike Pintek on Pittsburgh mega-station KDKA I was asked a question I hear all the time: Why, if the WTC “collapses” were such obvious demolitions, are there so many scientists who disagree? My answer is that there aren’t.

    Like Diogenes with his lamp, searching the world for an honest man, I have spent several years searching for an honest, independent scientist willing to defend the Bush Administration’s account of what happened to the World Trade Center. The only person I have found who even remotely fits the description is Dr. Frank Greening. A few years ago I lampooned Dr. Greening’s heroic yet doomed attempts to support the government version: We had some correspondence, and I found him to be a decent, thoughtful, ultra-meticulous kind of guy who just doesn’t want to leap to any conclusions — like official complicity in 9/11 — unless every other possibility has been thoroughly explored and exhausted.

    After exploring and exhausting many possibilities, Dr. Greening has grown increasingly skeptical toward the government’s position. Once the ultimate authority for the JREF anti-9/11-truth debunkers, by April 2007 Dr. Greening was expressing his disgust with their tedious nonsense here. Then almost exactly one year ago, Frank Greening blasted the ridiculous NIST report on World Trade Center Building 7 here.

    He is now collaborating with Dr. David Ray Griffin on Dr. Griffin’s forthcoming book about WTC-7, due out September 1st, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7.

    Click on link below for streaming audio of interview and embedded links.

    http://noliesradio.org/archived-popular

    Loading…
16. 

    Green Monkey

    August 7, 2009 at 12:54 am

    
    

    Re the previous post. I forgot to mention
    If you wish to listen to the streaming audio of the Greening interview , turn off the streaming radio first where it says RADIO: ON OFF HERE

    Loading…