9-11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth - The Twin Towers

Fuente:

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_08.htm

Información:

The Twin Towers

Many of the peculiar anomalies violating the laws of physics in the collapse of Building 7 are also present and problematic in the collapse of the Twin Towers. With one obvious distinction - an airplane hit both the South and the North towers. According to official government reports, the collision of the airplanes into the buildings, combined with the intensity of the fire ignited by the planes' jet fuel, weakened and brought the two massive structures down. While this hypothesis is perhaps feasible in theory, the video and physical evidence of the Towers' collapse does not support it. Instead, the evidence again points to a number of tell-tale specifics that make an intentional demolition of the Towers an infinitely more viable hypothesis - a hypothesis that has never been considered by official government inquiries.

The first evidence of intentional demolition is the sheer size and power of the two buildings. It is well known that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of jumbo jets. Two hits from Boeing 707 jumbo jets, in fact, is what the architects famously said the towers could withstand. And it is true. The buildings seemed to do just fine after the impact. So the official story had to quickly turn, like with Building 7, to the 'intense' inferno as cause for the Towers' eventual demise.

READ MORE

"Inferno Heat, Not Impact, Brought Down Towers, Experts Say."

Bijal P. Trivedi
for National Geographic Today
September 17, 2001

But this official assertion brings us right back to the problem of fire from jet fuel and debris reaching a high enough temperature to weaken and collapse steel. Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?

READ MORE

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

WATCH VIDEO

MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

It should also be noted that the same catastrophic impact of the airplanes and subsequent raging inferno that supposedly brought two of the tallest buildings in the world down in the matter of one hour somehow spared the passport of one of the alleged hijackers. It is worth clarifying that that passport, like yours and mine, was made out of paper. A well-known, highly flammable material that somehow exited the pocket of a man flying a jumbo jet into a building at 500 mph, then floated unscathed through the initial impact, zig-zagged its way through a thundering firestorm that supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel (approximately 2500 degrees Farenheit), and fluttered unharmed onto a Manhattan sidewalk to be collected by an industrious FBI agent tipped off by a citizen on Vesey St. It is important to note that the author is not making this up. Here is the AP report. We are spoon fed these absurdities by a mass-media whose inability for deductive reasoning is trumped only by our own.

A. Unreasonable Speed of Collapse

Besides the theoretical arguments supporting the hypothesis that intentional demolition, not fire, brought the Towers down, the huge volume of video evidence shows conclusively an array of specific details of the Towers' collapse that are wholly consistent with the particulars of intentional demolition. The first detail is the speed with which the Towers fell. Despite the huge amount of mass and material sitting underneath them, the tops of both Towers, like with Building 7, collapsed to the ground at close to free-fall speed. To put it more bluntly, if a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down. This is virtually the same speed it took the actual top 15 floors of the North Tower to collapse. With the entire in-tact, undamaged, unaffected 90 floors worth of core building sitting underneath it, somehow providing NO further resistance to the falling building than air itself. (Remember that the impact zone of the aircraft and the subsequent fire was from floor 90 up. No other part of the building could have possibly sustained any serious damage since heat and fire go up. And the government's official theory is that the top 15 floors essentially destabilized and failed, and its then unsupported weight began to pile drive downwardly onto the rest of the 90 as yet undamaged stories.)

Somehow, in a gross violation of the laws of physics, the remaining 90 floors and core of the North Tower sitting under the damaged section of the building offered little more resistance to impede the speed of the Tower's collapse than air itself. This is another unequivocal impossibility. The only thing that can account for the speed of the Towers' collapse is controlled demolition - where cutter charges and explosives were placed throughout the core of the building, timed to explode and pop out sections of floors and beams to clear a path and create the vacuum that was necessary to account for the tumbling speed of the Twin Towers. Almost exactly like these firefighters in this video surmised on the morning of September 11 before the story got officially rewritten.

WATCH VIDEO

link

B. Squibs

An up-close analysis and review of the cascading collapse of the buildings shows more evidence of explosives and cutter charges. One of the exclusive, tell-tale signs of demolition are the presence of what the industry calls 'squibs'. Squibs are horizontal puffs of debris and smoke that explode laterally out from the side of an imploding building. They are a result of the force of the detonation of the charges that ignite to weaken a building's core columns, allowing the upper floors to crash unimpeded in the straight-down trajectory of a demolished structure. Of huge importance is the fact that squibs explode far below the level of falling debris, detonating in the seconds before the arrival of the rest of the falling building from above. For an initial example of a squib, click on this video, and observe the lateral explosions just below the main explosion initiating the onset of collapse.

WATCH VIDEO

9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001

Defenders of the 'official story', like Popular Mechanics and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are now trying to say that these squibs are the result of a 'syringe effect', where the collapsing mass of the building above compacts the air below, building up the air pressure like in a syringe to such a degree that it bulges and bursts out the sides of the building in horizontal puffs of smoke. But this explanation is absurd. The squibs shown in the videos are all small, cylindrical, tight puffs of explosions that are exact replicas of other known squibs seen in official building demolitions. Like this one, whose squibs look identical to the above video of the north tower. How is it possible that the compressing air pressure of a massive building totaling millions of square feet was channeled into narrow, neat cylinders of force that blew little round holes through very localized blast spots, cylinders that just happen to look exactly like those of officially demolished buildings?

Obviously, if the compacting air pressure of this 'syringe effect' was a reality, that pressure would have built in massive waves that would have released themselves in huge outward blasts, exploding in wide surges, decimating whole banks of adjacent windows and floors. This is not what happened. The squibs were neat and tight, like in the first example given above, and in the next clip below. Watch on the left façade about 1/3 of the way into the clip, far below the falling debris, the obvious squib and explosive gas ejecting from the side of the building. The clip is especially effective if you pause the video, then use the frame by frame slow motion tabs on the right side of the clip's tool bar.

WATCH VIDEO

link.

Moreover, the next clip clearly shows enormous squibs at the top of the building, at the onset of the initial explosion, before the building had a chance to fall and build up the supposed syringe-like air pressure. Watch the right side of the building and look for the two massive horizontal puffs of gas exploding one after the other laterally and below the falling debris. Again, use the slow-motion tabs for best viewing.

WATCH VIDEO

link.

And while squibs take out the core center interior columns that support the external mass of the building, exploding far below the level of the main collapse event to clear a path for the disintegrating mass to fall unimpeded straight down, this clipdemonstrates how that main mass of falling building debris was initially pulverized into manageable chunks of rubble and dust. Remember that the mass of a truly collapsing building left alone is not going to fall symmetrically downward. One part of the building will fail first, then the entire remaining mass will lean and yaw to that side and carry on falling in that asymmetrical direction, following Newton's most basic law of motion. But this is not what we observe in the fall of the Towers. They both fell with almost identical, perfect symmetry. And the only way to account for this symmetry and its violation of the natural laws of physics is to surmise that the buildings, as they fell, were being acted upon by an outside force; i.e. well-timed, specifically placed explosives guiding the fall of the building and its debris straight down.

Look at the clip again. Or this example. This initial explosion is not a collapsing building. This is a dramatic, highly explosive event. Look at the lateral force being generated by the blast. Look at the huge sections of neatly cut steel beams being hurtled laterally in front of the lighter dust particles of concrete, a scenario only possible through some kind of explosive event. 

Look at this stillphoto. How is this massive, multi-colored explosion being generated by the simple collapse of the top quarter section of a building falling in on itself? Imagine cutting off the top section of a massive tree. Would the rest of the tree underneath that falling section explode symmetrically beneath it as the top section rained down? The fall of these Towers was not a collapse. It was a violent, dramatic, almost perfectly symmetrical explosive event.

WATCH VIDEO

Watch it here in slow motion.

This aforementioned symmetry of collapse that can be observed in all the video evidence must not go uninvestigated. It is perhaps the most dubious of all the characteristics of the Towers' collapse. If an airplane was to plow into one side of a building, leaving a big enough wound and fire behind to sufficiently weaken its integrity and initiate the onset of its collapse, then we can rightly guess that the collapse would begin within that wound and fire zone. We can rightly guess that the top of the building sitting above the wound and fire zone would lean and be drawn in the direction of the lateral failure. Again, like a cut, falling tree. And in fact, in the case of the South Tower, this is exactly what happened. Observe in this videohow dramatically to the side the top of the building initially leans. Or look at this still photo to see the same.

WATCH VIDEO

Observe in this video how dramatically to the side the top of the building initially leans.

According to basic laws of physics, the top of that building should have continued to fall to the side, and, unless acted on by another force, it should have landed on adjacent buildings and side streets below. It did not. It was either somehow drawn back into the center of the collapse, or it was pulverized to dust before it hit the ground. Either way, based on this video evidence, the government's official explanation for total building collapse - i.e. its 'pancake theory', or 'pile driver' theory, wherein the unsupported weight of the upper sections of the damaged building fall unimpeded down onto the levels and floors below, driving that next floor into the one below it, and then the next one below it, and on and on in a downward collapse - this theory can no longer be of any use. The video clearly shows the building has fallen to the side, asymmetrically, meaning the entire vertical façade of the building away from the airplane entrance hole did not fall straight down onto the floors below itself. It fell sideways toward the hole, and whole sections of the far, undamaged side of the building should have been left sticking up into the air like fractured limbs. Remember, there were 47 massive central steel support beams holding these buildings vertically up. How does the asymmetrical collapse of the materialattached to those beams account for those beams being sliced into neat 25 and 30 foot sections, collapsing straight down into nice neat piles of rubble in the buildings' own footprint? Again, if you sliced the top of a massive tree off near its top, you would not expect the entire tree underneath it to explode into dust and splinters. The tree has vertical integrity. So, too, did these buildings, and something tore them down.

So, the question becomes, what happened to the top of that building? What happened to the asymmetrical nature of the first part of the collapse? How did the falling building, if we are to believe in the laws of physics, regain its symmetrical disintegration. A symmetry that can readily be seen in this video. Remember that if a building truly falls down on its own, without the use of guiding explosives, it is not going to fall symmetrically. It will lean to the side that weakened first, and begin to collapse in that direction. But the two towers, and Building 7, each collapsed straight down in a symmetrical fall.

This symmetry was clearly produced through precisely timed waves of mammoth explosions that ripped the building apart. We have been told that the huge pyroclastic flows of dust and debris exploding from the building were, like the squibs, caused by the 'syringe effect; i.e. the vertically pancaking building thrusting its excess debris laterally. But how could weakening steel causing vertical collapse produce such MASSIVE surges of horizontal explosions at the top of the building at the onset of collapse? Watch this video again, and play the first 5 seconds in slow motion. Where is the lateral force coming from? The clip is showing explosions near the top of the building, at the start of collapse, long before the huge mass of the building could build up enough power or energy to eject cement and steel with such devastating force. And watch from below again. If, for the moment, we allow ourselves to at least consider that explosives might have been used, doesn't it looklike explosives are being used to pop out the floors one at a time?

WATCH VIDEO

video

Crimes are investigated and solved all the time through observation and inference. And yet not even one of the official investigations conducted by the government ever even consideredexplosives as a possible hypothesis for the buildings' collapse. Why? Dr. Steven Jones, a BYU physicist and professor minding his own business in Utah, did consider this possibility. And his work shows that when considered as a hypothesis, explosives and intentional demolition account for all of the seeming anomalies and mysteries of the Towers' collapse - anomalies left unsolved and uninvestigated by the government's wholly unreliable and dubious official explanation.

Dr. Jones has, in fact, turned his research focus full-time on to the mysteries and anomalies of the Towers' collapse. And time after time, in experiment after experiment, he uncovers more and more data that consistently, and without exception, conforms perfectly to the intentional demolition theory. A theory that accounts for the impossible speed of the buildings' collapse, the appearance of the tell-tale squibs, the symmetry of collapse, the devastating explosiveness of the collapse, the eyewitness accounts of underground explosions, etc. etc.

READ MORE

Dr. Steven E. Jones latest comprehensive, peer-reviewed paper and analysis on this science, "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method".

Dr. Steven E. Jones original peer reviewed paper, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse", with full graphics and photos.

C. Thermite

Professor Jones is an expert in thermite, a highly volatile and potentially explosive reaction in which aluminum metal is oxidized with other metals to create an incredibly hot and potent reaction that can cut through metal as thick as steel and iron in fractions of a second. The military uses thermite charges as anti-tank explosives, and to destroy structures like bridges and buildings. Packed properly, civilian demolition crews can also use thermite as primary cutter charges to quickly and efficiently sever the steel support columns of buildings they are intentionally bringing down. Professor Jones believes a well-known explosive version of thermite was used to fell the Twin Towers.

What is of essential importance is that this theory of Dr. Jones can be easily tested. Thermite reactions leave behind identifying markers and traces of specific metal compounds and residues that are exclusive to its reaction. And while most of the source material and would-be evidence of destroyed beams and building debris was illegally cleared and recycled, Dr. Jones did manage to find a piece of a steel support beam from Clarkson University, a section of beam that had been used in a sculpture dedicated to the victims of 9/11. He also acquired dust particles of pulverized concrete saved from an apartment in a building adjacent to the WTC. Testing residue from the beam and dust with an Electron Microprobe, Dr. Jones found compounds wholly consistent with thermite reactions - abundant Iron, Zinc, Sulfur, Manganese, Fluorine, and, perhaps most suspiciously, Barium, a highly toxic substance found in military grade explosives, not in building material, airplanes, or office supplies. For more info on this research, scroll down to page 28 on this website.

D. Lateral Explosions

Below are numerous other clips and stills of the suspicious looking explosions, some of which Jones has argued were detonated with thermite. Conventional explosives were surely also used to dismantle the floors and the standing building debris, and they can be seen below producing powerful lateral ejections of huge, multi-ton steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally from the core of the building. Again, what can possibly account for the generation of this kind of explosive, instantaneous lateral force? Observe in this video, toward the beginning of the clip, the violent, outward trajectory of the beams and core debris. Watch low on the building as the video plays, below the level of collapse to see the ejected beams and the strongest evidence of explosives. Or this video, slightly clearer, showing the same. These lateral explosions are, again, near the top of the building, at the onset of the collapse, long before enough momentum and mass could account for such horizontal force.

In this still photo, it is scientifically impossible, if the official story is considered, to account for the already enormous mushroom cloud of pulverized dust and debris appearing so close to the start and onset of collapse. 

Not enough weight from the above floors has yet fallen down on the below mass to create enough explosive power to account for the size and speed of the photographed blast. "First we have explosive ejections of dust and pieces. Thick dust clouds spewed from the towers in all directions at about 50 feet per second. Solid objects were thrown ahead of the dust cloud. That's a feature of explosive demolitions of structures. Some pieces of the perimeter were thrown laterally as far as 500 feet. Here's a gash in 3 World Financial Center, about 400 feet away from the North Tower, and it's several hundred feet up."

"Energetic ejections of dust occurred well below the rapidly descending demolition wave in each tower. Squibs which you can see in animations show rapid ejections of high velocity gases, over 200 feet a second. The aluminum cladding was blown 500 feet in all directions, littering surrounding buildings for considerable distances. It wasn't as if the towers exploded in a single explosion. They exploded in what's called a smooth wave. They started exploding and the explosion continued; it sounded like a huge ocean wave roar."

E. More Videos

Below is a number of other video clips showing clear evidence of squibs and internal detonations:

WATCH VIDEO

Watch on the left side, way down low on the falling building the explosion that appears and long precedes the rest of the falling debris.

Obvious squibs can be seen here in a slow motion video, on the front façade, and from the right hand side of the tower.

This clip begins with two huge squib explosions, then 2 more can be seen as the building crumbles - one pops out on the front façade, the remnants of the second can be seen blasting out from the right side of the building. Notice the symmetrical timing and location of the two explosions. Again, use the slow motion option for better viewing.

Watch the corner spine of the building here in slow motion. Observe the massive, cascading explosions below the level of falling debris.

A good synopsis of the squibs can be found in this clip from "Loose Change".

For a general overview of many, many clips of the Towers' demise, click here.

And for the best feature length documentary-style production I have yet seen in regards to 9/11 and, specifically, the collapse of the WTC buildings, click here. 

Leer más»

9-11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth - WTC Building 7

Fuente:

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm

Información:

WTC Building 7

While these intelligence failures suggest at least the reasonable possibility of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, there is a mountain of physical evidence that directly implicates high-level government knowledge and participation in the planning and execution of September 11. Perhaps the most damning evidence lies in the bizarre collapse of WTC Building 7. Anyone familiar with the story of 9/11 knows about the collapse of the WTC North and South Twin-Towers. But a third high rise also fell that day. At 5:20 p.m., the massive 47-story steel frame Building 7, untouched by the hijacked airplanes, imploded in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition - at near free-fall speed, straight down, and with scientific precision into a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings.

WATCH VIDEO

The official explanation for the collapse is fire - as in fire weakened the building's structural support steel to the point where it could no longer hold its own weight upright. The magazine Popular Mechanics has tried to posit the theory of lethal structural damage caused by the falling debris of the North Tower as reason for Building 7's collapse. But no existing public photographs, nor videos, show anything near their claim that 1/3 of Building 7's façade was gouged out. Furthermore, even if structural damagewas significant, this would not account for Building 7's eventual symmetrical, box-like collapse, where all four corners, and all four facades of the building fell simultaneously straight to the ground. And most significantly, the official government explanation is still fire. So this essay will stay with fire as the stated cause.

Flames were visible on 3-4 floors of the building, having been apparently ignited by falling debris and ruptured diesel tanks at the base of the structure. And while relatively minor in severity, these fires were apparently responsible for the building's demise. But fire as the cause for collapse poses a number of significant problems - problems that break fundamental laws of nature. Firstly, fire from diesel fuel and building debris does not remotely approach the necessary temperature required to weaken and melt steel. Steel is melted and forged in sophisticated blast furnaces at incredibly high temperatures. Secondly, even if fire did cause the necessary weakening of the buildings steel support beams, each of those more than 50 beams would have had to weaken and fail at theexact same time to account for the symmetrical downward trajectory of the collapse. A wildly contentious scenario. Dr. Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at BYU who specializes in the fusion of metals, has comprehensively and scientifically debunked the possibility of Building 7 collapsing due to fire (or the minor damage to the building's façade from the falling debris of the North Tower). A video and transcript of his detailed lecture arguing controlled demolition as cause for collapse can be downloaded here. Or his power-point presentation with audio can be downloaded here

READ MORE

In the spring of 2007, Professor Jones published his second major paper on 9/11 -

"Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method"

Professor Jones' meticulous research explains why no other steel frame building has ever suffered a total collapse anywhere on the planet before or after 9/11 due to fire (remember, Building 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft). Including WTC 4, 5, and 6, which were more intensely pelted by debris from the Twin Towers' collapse, and had fires of equal intensity burning for many more hours than the adjacent Building 7. (For more examples of other intense high-rise building fires that did not cause collapse, click here or here.

Jones specifically references the fire at the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain in February of 2005, which did not result in total structural collapse. This 32-story high rise burned fiercely for 20 hours, with flames shooting hundreds of feet into the air, gutting the entire building. And while significantly more severe than the fires of Building 7, which burned for only a few hours on only a few floors, the Windsor Building flames did not bring the building down. The damage from the fire did produce a partial collapse, and this collapse behaved exactly in line with the laws of physics and nature. Part of the building fell in an isolated collapse into the street below, leaving a huge, gaping wound in the middle of the high-rise with exposed rebar and debris hanging hundreds of feet into the air. The inferno did not produce a symmetrical, straight down, box-like, virtual free-fall total collapse witnessed in the fall of Building 7. Strategically planted, well-timed explosive devices are what weaken steel symmetrically and create coordinated downward implosions. Not random fires scattered throughout a building.

Another, and perhaps stronger, piece of evidence for controlled demolition of Building 7 is the speed at which the structure fell. It was a 576-foot tall building, and a conservative estimate of available video evidence shows that it fell in 6.5 seconds. A marble, with nothing but wind resistance in its path, would fall to the ground from the same height in roughly 6 seconds. Somehow, the top of this building fell to the ground in a perfectly symmetrical downward trajectory, with 47 floors of steel, concrete, and thousands of tons of upright standing debris in its path providing huge amounts of vertical resistance, at virtually free-fall speed. Allegedly because of random fires on a few floors. This is a physical and mathematical impossibility, violating laws in the conservation of momentum covered at length in this paper by Dr. Kenneth Kuttler here. Or go to the June 2006, Volume 1 edition of this online journal here.

It is important to note that even if Popular Mechanics is right in its assertion that damage to Building 7 from falling debris of the Towers caused its collapse, this still does nothing to explain the impossible speed at which it fell. Only controlled demolition, as Dr. Kuttler states at the end of his computation, resolves the observed rate of collapse. Because in a controlled demolition, waves of progressive explosions from the top down would remove sections of resistant columns and supports, providing the vacuum-like pocket needed to account for the 6.5-second collapse. No other hypothesis, including the premise narrated in the 'official story', accounts for this speed.

Because all available evidence points to this controlled demolition as the most logical reason for Building 7's particular collapse pattern, serious questions now need answering. To wire a building of that size for implosion requires weeks of careful study and planning. Which means whoever wired the explosives knew far in advance of the September 11 plot. So who? And why? Perhaps Larry Silverstein has an answer. In July of 2001, 2 months before the attack, the new leaseholder of the Twin Towers and Building 7 took out a huge insurance policy on his buildings. In it, there was a special clause 'in case of terrorist attack'. As a result of the collapse of Building 7, Larry Silverstein pocketed almost $1 Billion, $500 million of it in profits. For the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he also owned, Silverstein argued in court that he should be compensated twice because two separate airplanes flew into his two separate buildings. And this, according to his argument, constituted two terrorist attacks. He won this argument, and was awarded $7 Billion for the Towers' collapse, quite a return for his initial investment.

A short time after September 11, Silverstein further implicated himself when he made a grave verbal blunder in an interview for a PBS special where he admitted that he and the fire authorities decided to 'pull' (implode) Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11 as a way to avoid incurring more loss of life. The video clip of this blunder can be viewed here. But a last minute decision to 'pull' by Silverstein and the authorities would have been flatly impossible because of the weeks required in the planning and planting of explosives. When asked to explain these strange, incriminating comments, Silverstein refused, for two years, to clarify. Until finally his office released a statement claiming that what Silverstein meant by 'pull' was to pull the firefighters out of the building before it collapsed. But this is another in a long line of nonsensical statements made by principals in the 9/11 debacle. Silverstein and the 'officials' to whom he was speaking knew that firefighters had been evacuated hours before the alleged conversation and subsequent collapse took place. For further analysis on this subject, click here: It is worth noting that on the morning of 9/11, all of the buildings making up the WTC complex not owned by Larry Silverstein managed to remain upright, despite equally heavy fire and structural damage.

Perhaps a government official from the CIA, Department of Defense, the IRS, the SEC branch investigating the infamous Wall Street corporate fraud cases, the Secret Service, or New York City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) knows something about Building 7's odd collapse. All of those agencies strangely had offices in Building 7. The presence of OEM is particularly disturbing. They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor. Equipped with bulletproof windows, bomb-proof walls, and hurricane resistant windows, the office housed a sophisticated command center with top of the line military communication and logistical equipment. Perhaps Building 7 was a command center of a different kind, used as the true Ground Zero for the operation carried out on 9/11. A command center that became a crime scene after 8:46 a.m. that morning. A command center that needed to be destroyed.

Perhaps this OEM department could also explain the miraculously coincidental fact that on September 10, FEMA officials, in conjunction with NYC authorities, had arrived in the city and set up a command post near the World Trade Center for an extensive simulated terrorist attack operation to be carried out on September 12. Perhaps Mayor Rudolph Giuliani could shed some light on this subject. He confirmed this miraculous coincidence in his own testimony to the 9/11 Commission, all of which, unsurprisingly, never made it into their 'official' Report. "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

How in the world is this wild coincidence not front-page news of every newspaper in the country? Why in the world was FEMA in NYC, down on Pier 92 near the WTC, on the night of September 10th ready to 'go into action' on the morning of September 11th? Did certain leaders in the U.S. government know full well what was about to happen? Can this 'terror drill' possibly be a random coincidence? Did they send in good men and women from FEMA and other emergency services under the guise of a prospective 'terror drill' to be at the ready to quickly clean up their mess? Did they orchestrate the entire operation, and then swoop in, fully armed and prepped, to prove and prop themselves up as the ready saviors they have spent the last five years reminding us they are? And if Giuliani becomes President, what grounds, what lasting image do we suppose he will be using to bolster his campaign?

Perhaps this is just wild conjecture. Perhaps there is a simpler answer to the questions raised by Building 7's collapse. But ultimately these questions are not an investigator's responsibility to answer. They are the responsibility of the investigator to raise. The responsibility in answering those questions lies with the official storytellers. They are responsible for plugging any holes in their narrative. Questions that arise regarding Building 7 are simply part of the natural speculation inevitably aroused by its suspicious collapse. They are important questions. They are the type of questions that, as stated before, the 9/11 Commission was formed to answer. But, incredibly, the Commission did not even allude to the existence, nor the absurd collapse, of Building 7.

It would seem logical that the collapse of a massive 47-story building (which is as big as the Bank of America Building in San Francisco), the first steel frame high rise in history to collapse solely from fire, which also housed the offices of important government agencies in downtown Manhattan, would warrant an investigation. Or at least a citation by the government commission assigned to thoroughly investigate the events of 9/11. It would seem logical to think that structural engineers, chefs, and wood-burning stove owners around the world would be interested to know that steel has suddenly become susceptible to fire. It would be logical to think that the tell-tale shock wave, 'squibs', internal box-like implosion, freefall speed, and neat footprint rubble pile clearly pointing to a controlled demolition of Building 7 would interest those investigating its collapse. But the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention its existence. Nor does NIST, the government agency assigned to investigate the collapse of the Twin Towers. Like the 9/11 Commission, they did not mention its existence, its collapse, nor the bizarre specifics of that collapse - which so contradict official accounts.

WATCH VIDEO

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Only FEMA has officially reported on Building 7's demise. And while their report hints at fire as the cause of the building's fall, even they admit the inherent weakness of that premise. "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." That the necessary evidence to further investigate Building 7's collapse, (i.e. the steel beams, trusses, and support girders) was quickly and illegally cleared, shipped overseas, and recycled - before photographs could be taken or qualified investigators and explosives experts could be called in to sift through the evidence - only deepens the efficacy of the hypothesis that a well-planned, high-level intentional demolition caused the collapse of WTC Building 7.

It should again be noted here that Popular Mechanics magazine has tried to debunk some of the issues raised by the 9/11 Truth community - both in a feature article in March of 2005, and a recent 2006 book. Besides the inherent absurdity of a magazine tackling the research that should be undertaken by Congress and an independent Special Prosecutor with full subpoena power, their work is riddled with the same inconsistencies and conveniently isolated and selected bullet points they claim undermines the very research they are attempting to debunk. For a comprehensive and specific critique of their work, see the following link.

Update: In an extraordinary development, a 9/11 blogger has uncovered live BBC news video footage from the afternoon of 9/11 showing its reporters detailing the collapse of WTC7 (the Salomon Brothers Building) 23 minutes before that building actually collapsed. The following video is a recap of some of that footage. Notice the extraordinary fact that as the female reporter speaks, the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen confirms what the male lead reporter had been saying for the first 15 minutes of the broadcast, namely that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, and that very building is standing wholly upright directly over the reporter's shoulder!

WATCH VIDEO

Live BBC news video footage.

How is this possible? Who knew what when? "We might reasonably guess that before making its way to the BBC by whatever means, the information originated among the authorities in New York. Andthat is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?" This is not a suggestion that the BBC was 'in' on the conspiracy. They are just passing on a report. So where did that report originate? And how could the sources of that report possibly know a giant building with some peripheral fires was about to fall? There isno historical precedent for that. It is a clairvoyance beyond any reasonable explanation.

For a more detailed, written analysis of this story, click here. It should be noted that the BBC has given an absurd response to 911truth.org in regards to this strange string of events. And to no one's surprise, the archival video library in which this massive blunder was discovered has removed the clip in question from its stacks.

A. WTC7 videos:

WATCH VIDEO

A short, well-produced 15 minute video on the smoking gun that is WTC 7. 

For a look at the best feature length documentary-style production I have yet seen in regards to 9/11 and, specifically, the collapse of all the WTC buildings, click here. . For footage directly related to Building 7, fast-forward the video to the 56:20 point.

Leer más»

Fuente:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Información:

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 13:59 GMT, 2 November 2011

 
 
 

522

View
comments

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.

Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Burning: This side view of Building 7 as it burns shows the extent of the fire in the building even though it is across the street from the main World Trade Center complex

Buckling: The windows in the upper right corner show how the building's exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures

The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated. 

The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.

Though the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.

The video was made by a local news reporter and was released through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Shot from the north side of the building on Barclay Street, and between the buildings in the background, the video shows the mass of raging fires taking place on the grounds of the World Trade Center.

The complex: Building 7, highlighted in blue, is shown burning in the video

Evacuated: There were no casualties in the building as everyone had left

THERE ARE STILL MORE OUT THERE... A HOST OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES STILL SURVIVE 

The main split in conspiracy theories comes from the divide over the role of the U.S. government in the attacks, with some feeling that authorities 'let it happen on purpose', while others think that they played a more diabolical role and 'made it happen on purpose'. 

Some of the theories argue:

-That no planes were used in the attacks, saying that the aluminium of the planes would not be able to penetrate the steel that made up the Twin Towers; instead, the New York buildings were subject of an internal, controlled demolition

-The Pentagon was shot with a missile by U.S. government officials

-That the U.S. purposefully avoided shooting down the planes and causing confusion to prevent military planes from scrambling in time

-.... while others are on the opposite end, some say that United flight 93, the one that crashed in a Pennsylvania field, was shot down by U.S. army jets

-That Israeli agents were involved, as FBI agents found five of them filming the New York attacks from the roof of an apartment building and celebrating afterwards

Though Building 7 was separate from the main World Trade Center complex, there were two pedestrian bridges connecting Building 7 to the main complex across the street, linking the buildings by the third floor.

In the video, viewers can see the glowing flames on what appears to be the sixth floor of the building, and as the camera zooms in, you can even see the metal bars of the exterior buckling. 

It is unclear when exactly during the day the video is shot, but considering the fact that the building is still standing it must be well before it's collapse which happened at 5.21pm. That said, the news reporter is the only person we see on the street, so the mass confusion and evacuation that took place earlier in the morning in the midst of the attacks had settled at that point.

At points, the news reporter seems clearly aghast, saying 'It's a surreal environment' and  'It's almost impossible to describe'. 

Official investigators say that after the South Tower fell at 9.59am and the North Tower at 10.28am, the pieces of the rubble did irreparable damage to Building 7, causing it to burn by floor by floor, getting progressively weaker along the way.

The investigation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that the collapse was caused by a combination of the damage from the debris - and not the impact of the debris itself- and lacking water in the fire sprinklers throughout the building.

The largest tenant of the 47-story building was the bank Salomon Smith Barney, but there were also offices of the CIA, the Department of Defence, utility company ConEd, and the Internal Revenue Service.

In the shadows: Building 7, the reddish building pictured to the left of the North Tower that is about half it's height, was considered part of the WTC site

Office space: Building 7 housed offices of the CIA, Department of Defence, utility company ConEd, and bank Salomon Smith Barney which was the largest tenant

Because of the time span of the events, everyone was able to evacuate the building and there were no casualties within Building 7.

Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result. 

 

More...

• Rampaging weightlifter killed by Tasers after running amok at gym
• Central Park horse dropped dead after suffering severe pain from chronic stomach ulcers

Unless the damage is limited to one area, it will have a domino effect, moving on to lower floors in the building until it entirely collapses.

Conspiracy theorists take issue with that account, believing instead that the government was involved in the placement of explosive devices throughout the New York buildings, and even go so far to say that the incident at the Pentagon was caused by a missile rather than a plane.

Through the rubble: Looking around the buildings, viewers can see the blaze still alight where the Twin Towers had fallen

Destruction: All of lower Manhattan was caked in dust from the collapsed buildings

WATCH VIDEO HERE:

Share

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html#ixzz2fwvFBJL9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Leer más»