Ten years of using it for Political point scoring is more than enough. Politicians just take focus away from the tragedy, and in an election year it could have been a circus.

Did your friends get body parts to bury? For a lot of people this is basically the grave of their loved one so why should they not go there on the anniversary?

Not one mention in the report of building 7 either.

@martin sure even 60% of the panel that sat on the 9/11 commission investigation said the whole thing was a farce & the investigation was being blocked at every turn.

Man, don’t ya just hate it when yer tights are stripped ? No wonder they feel insecure

You’re better then most because you believe in something that has no truth? Are you Christian too?

@Tony, just look at the facts regarding building 7. At what 1000’s of Architects, Engineers, pilots, professors of physics say regarding the incredible collapse of building 7.

Lots of things don’t add up. I don’t see how that automatically means it was an inside job though?! And definitely wasn’t for an excuse to go to war! It’s not as if America is shy of waging wars and organizing coups etc… They never needed to murder thousands of their own citizens before to invade countries for greed and conquest before. Just saying.

I never said it was an inside job, that would suggest a conspiracy. I just want to know what really happened to Bld7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

That’s what I was going to say… Controversial!

The 911 Conspiracy in 5 mins…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv6_mdSvZwE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Freudian slip of all time…Do’h…

…and I thought the cuckoo only came in April…..CUCKOO!

Very weird alright that somebody would take insurance out on buildings that had only been bombed one time before.

@Toorkeel, I’m always am amazed at the powerful arguments against a proper investigation of Building 7.

@Toorkeel, I’m always amazed at the powerful arguments against a proper investigation of Building 7.

The Beeb were in on it too, eh?

You’re the happiest person I know so.

So enlighten us and tells us what really happened in your own words.

Hey Ed you said you were a mechanical engineer in one of your earlier posts. I’m a structural engineer and I spent years arguing with truthers online over 9/11 but I gave it up because even if you showed them they were 100% wrong on something without a shadow of a doubt you would still see them repeating the same nonsense weeks later. But I have studied the collapse of wtc7 to a degree and I find the official explanation plausible. Quite apart from the structural mechanics of the collapse, the motives behind wanting to demolish it seem ridiculous. If I recall correctly the main one given by truthers is that the building was used as the command centre for the whole event, which was organised in advance, and that the building was demolished to hide evidence of this. Surely any logical person, simply in the face of such reasoning, would have to consider that to be nuts. The question I would have would be why they would put such a command post right next to the event? Why would that matter? Anyway I’ll leave this for now but maybe you could explain some of your own ideas.

Structurally, the building collapsed due to the fact that some primary floor beams (notably between column 79 and 44) supported long-span secondary floor beams (16m) on one side only and these primary beams weren’t supported laterally otherwise. The secondary floor beams were compositely attached to the concrete slab with shear studs but when the fire broke out there was differential thermal expansion of the secondary floor beams, which caused the shear studs to fail and for the primary floor beam to be loaded laterally so that it was pushed off its support. This in turn made column 79 laterally lose lateral support and buckle, as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse (bonus question to prove you’re an engineer: by what factor would the linear buckling strength of a column be reduced by if its effective length is doubled). An interior collapse occurred for several seconds before global collapse of the outer shell occurred, which fell, at least initially, at free fall speed or close to it due to the loss of resistance due to the interior collapse. The damage from falling debris from wtc1/2 played no part in the collapse other than to cut off the water supply to the building’s fire suppression system and to fire-fighters. Saying no other steel building in history collapsed due to fire is a bit disingenuous as I think you’d know that not all buildings are the same. You’d have to provide several examples of buildings with long-span floor beams asymmetrically framed into support beams, which were laterally unsupported, that were left to burn for hours without any attempt made to put the fires out where none of these building collapsed. Otherwise any comparison is flawed. Statistically speaking you would need many such examples of such fires to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions. This is also something you should know as an engineer.

Also, using the “pull it” line is downright embarrassing. He was obviously talking about the operation being carried out by the firemen as “pull it” isn’t even a term in demolition unless you count attaching cables to a building to literally pull it down. You don’t pull a demolition button but you do pull people out.

My EL531W Hi so let me get this straight because I really would like to know if what your saying is true.

You say falling debris played no part in the collapse. That it was fire alone that brought the building down?

Yes this is true. This is a finding of NIST and is in their report on wtc7 if you wish to read it. It can get quite technical so I’ve seen many people misread and misinterpret the report so you should be careful to double check things if you do. Clear examples of this can be found in the book “the mysterious collapse of world trade centre 7″ by D.R. Griffin where he seems to fail to understand that multiple computer simulations were produced and not just one.

Then isn’t every building in the world of 48 stories and higher build prior to 9/11 in danger of collapsing if a fire breaks out?

No not all buildings are the same. Height is only one way buildings vary but a smaller building could collapse the same way too. Really the design flaw was the long-span secondary floor beams framed into only one side of the laterally unsupported primary beams. Building with similar designs would be susceptible assuming they were allowed to burn for an extended period. In this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk ) produced by NIST they try to emphasise how existing buildings are safe but in my opinion all buildings with a similar design should have remedial work done. My guess is that they came to the conclusion that that would cost too much and the risk was small enough not to justify it. Also, since those buildings complied to design codes when built the building owners wouldn’t be too happy about having to pay extensive amounts of money to fix such a problem. Also, just identifying such buildings would require an extensive effort. I guess they figured altering the design codes in future was the only thing they could do that was practicable.

Actually now that I think about it the goal of an engineer is to ensure that a building stands up long enough for the occupants to be evacuated. It is not necessarily necessary that a building doesn’t collapse as long as it doesn’t pose a danger to lives. That’s why fire protection is measured by how long it protects a member and why in a balance beam RC design the steel is designed to fail first to give occupants some warning.

What I can’t understand based on what you said, Is if WTC1 and 2 are a different design to Bld7, yet all 3 buildings collapsed soley to fire in the same way for different reasons. To me WTC 1 and 2 do look like structural faliure as the buildings do seem to start to collapse at the point of the planes impact when studied closely.

So is your thesis that its just a massive coincendence that this very rare event ie: fire bringing down high rises happened three times in one day and almost never before or after .

I should clarify. The plane impacts had a significant effect on the collapse of the twin towers but the debris hitting wtc7, although causing damage, did not affect the structural collapse of wtc7. This is evidenced by the fact that the initial failure began away from the damaged area of the building. The plane impacts caused a reduction of roughly 15% in the vertical load carrying capacity of both towers by best estimates.

Also, the impacts of the planes blew away a lot of the steel’s brittle fire protection so the cases aren’t that similar. The twin towers also had multiple fires started instantaneously when the planes impacted but wtc7 required the fires to build naturally. The only anomaly is wtc7.

Building 7, just look up how it happened you obviously haven’t yet. But thanks you’ve come up with another great argument for not having an official investigation. “Dismiss all questions about building7.”

Martin, you’re doing a lot of bleating. Post up some of the stuff that convinced you (i’ll not accept any Rosie O’Donnell or Jim Corr transcripts).

And lizards disguised as humans walk amongst us as well don’t forget that.

@Nivag, just go to the url for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth: http://www.ae911truth.org . And why are you so angry “bleating” moi.

Not angry at all. That’s a lovely looking website with lots of well balanced essays. It immediately asked me to donate money.

Wow 4mins from me posting the url and you returning a review of the site must have given a good look. Says a lot.

Conspiracy nut.

Enjoy!

As they say in the US Nivag “you were owned” you added nothing to this debate but childish name calling. Where’s the images of the massive damage to bld 7 I asked for? I imagine the links will be included in your next torrent of abuse.

3 building collapsed vaporised steel, but a passport from one of the “hijackers” was found on the street.

Come on.

Owned??

Google images “wtc building 7 damage”

There are hundreds.

“The People of Ireland”‘s attitude it typical here – there was massive damage but yet a specific piece of paper survived, ergo an elaborate coup was perpetrated against the American people.

Hundreds of images of massive damage to bld7 after it fell none before.

@Cian for the record , I dont believe the holocaust never happened nor in lizard people or in fake moon landings. learn some new methods of descrediting people will you, maith an fhearr.Trying to link people with valid questions to tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs on a monumental event like 9/11 makes you look pretty bad.

Are you ignoring the photos of the structural damage to the south corner?

listen to yourself “damage to the south corner” its like you want to prove my point for me. That hardly constitutes massive damage and if even if there was massive damage to the south corner , lets say even the whole south side of the building was heavly damaged. What way would it fall? It would involve a topple towards the weak point. never never would it come straight down. We are back to the laws of physics again

structural damage to the south side would necessitate the bearing of the full weight on the remaining intact steel. This remaining, not built to maintain the extra weight and with floors weakened by the fires through the entire building buckled and gave way.

Next.

Sorry but your just embarresing yourself, yes it would buckle and give way , it would topple towards the weak pointas i said .Go out in your back garden and build a structure then destroy one side. it will fall against the weakside because of gravity or is also gravity and physics you dont believe in. How do you suggest it came straight down where did the resistance go: Answer there was none its plain to see on the footage.

Why are you not interested in the truth here , you said you watched the video. The building had its under infastructure removed fact you can’t dispute that.

Ahh hem Next..

Oh man.

Let me go through this again for the hard-of-comprehending: the remaining steel was not built to hold the entire structure and thus when weakened by the fires one every floor (not the localised peat briquette braziers you’d have us believe) this steel buckled and the floors fell. Buckled, not toppled.

You’re the one who’s embarrassing themselves here, Martin.

I’m only interested in truth, bud. I watched the video and was presented with a blatant falsehood regarding the fires supposedly being extinguished by 5:20pm. If the video producer is going to be that slack with such an important detail then the integrity of the whole video is called starkly into question.

Amazing!! your still not getting it. One more time only. As I’ve work stacking up with this back and forth. The entire inner steel core structure would have to be heated to the same temprature for it to come straight down like it did in the video ie: in ten secs. what do you think the chances of that would be. Otherwise under your hypothesis with only part of the steel structure giving way to weakened steel it would have rendered only a partial collapse. To say other wise is to ignore Gravity and Physics.

THERE WAS NO UNDERSTRUCTURE TO RESIST THATS THE ISSUE. WHERE DID IT GO?
HOW COULD FIRES ON THE UPPER FLOORS EFFECT THE MAIN SUPPORT BEAMS IN THE BASEMENT?

So James , tell us what you know about building 7. Explain its free fall collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Look up who owns popular mechanics now, and why the former editors and top investegators were forced out.

Lol I’m not getting into pointless debate. It would be like arguing with someone who says the moon is made of cheese.

Believe what you want, but I’m willing to bet you did not do that well in your leaving did you? I’m also taking a stab here in saying maybe just maybe you don’t have any degree? Only reason I bring that up is its normally, actually no always ignorant uneducated people that come up with these things.

To all others please don’t feed the trolls :)

Martin, it’s irrelevant who owns Popular Mechanics, as they were reporting on the findings of the investigation held by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

*waits patiently for the inevitable “Well NIST would say that, wouldn’t they?”*

James why is it you would need to try and discredit me, and not deal with the issue we’re talking about. As it happens I do have a diploma and a degree in communications. Also I think you will agree so do the many physics professors Architects & Engineers who agree a new investigation is required, which is all I’m asking for, why are you against this. Surely the result of a good education is the ability to ask questions when things don’t add up. Maybe its you who are not educated and are a taf bitter at those who did.

James. Want to bet…. Probably not…
I am a 15 year experienced qualified Mechanical Engineer from Trinity so stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it. Now answer my question. What needs to happen in order for a 48 story building to free fall for 3 seconds. Believe me I am standing beside one now in Perth Western Australia and I know for a fact it won’t fall because of a few fires. So answer my question, or butt out of a grown ups conversation.

ermm, what about if you drop a skyscraper on it?

Err if you dropped another sky scraper on it wouldn’t it be badly damaged then. I’m still waiting on those images of the massive damage. Have you ever even seen bld7 , it sounds like you never have. No visible damage right up to the point of collapse

Not even if you dropped one on it… Can get that the idea that for a building to free fall there must be NO resistance to impede its fall which can only achieved by removing all load carrying members instantaneously and simultaneously. According to you the only time this has ever happened of its own accord was on 911, never before or never after. All other examples were controlled demolitions. If you refuse to acknowledge this then you are intentionally fooling yourself. Which is understandable as nobody really wants to believe the alternative could be true. Your choice but ridiculing someone trying to open your eyes is poor form.

Are you Jim Corr?

@Whiskeyste, what have u got against asking questions , nothing about building 7 collapsing makes sence, dont take my word for it ,Thousands of Architetic’s and Engineers have formed a lobby group in the states backed by the families who lost people for a new 9/11 investigation based on the impossibility of the official story of building 7 being brought down by three localized fires.

Anybody who willingly refuses to research building 7 and reverts to Jim Core as defence deserves everything that’s coming.. Truly Sad response. Some people just don’t want to know the truth of 911.

Poppycock.

@nivag, good point, but I think its poppycock that three localized fires could bring down a 47story steel cored building in less than 10sec.

Not even one a building that had sustained massive damage form the collapse of a nearby skyscraper?

If it had massive damage how did it collapse straight down with all 45 massive steel guirders failing at exactly the same time and place. And can you show me a picture of this massive damage. I’ll save you the time none exists the building remains intact until its fall.

Thermal expansion caused the floors to fail. “Localized fires” sounds cosy. I might have a localised fire this evening in my sitting room. I’m assuming you’ve seen footage of these “localized fires”? They look pretty hefty to me.

http://video.popularmechanics.com/services/player/bcpid1745093293?bctid=1745050112

How is that thermal expansion has never brought down a steel cored building before. Not once in the history of engineering has a building been brought down by fire. They plan against that you know. Its not like fire is a new thing.

And Nivag I see you’ve abandoned your massive damage theory. One down how many more….

You saw that? Where did I say that? Unsurprisingly, you only see and hear what you WANT to see and hear.

Are you saying that damage from a falling skyscraper wouldn’t have in any way impinged on the integrity of a building?

Show me some EVEN-HANDED and BALANCED investigations and I’ll gladly study them. However if all you’ve got to offer is tinfoil hat agenda-driven bumpf then I’m not interested.

Well nivag if something happens that defys the laws of physics and that is not good enough for you to want a proper investigation then its you that has the agenda. And if you haven’t abandoned your massive damage theory to bld7 then l imagine you’ll be forwarding on a link to images that support your claim.

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

Oh! They were in on it too were they?

All the main steel beams would have needed to be cut at exactly the same moment for it to fall like it did, if it was any other damage that brought it down fire or otherwise there would not a have been a symetrical collapse.And I sorry but thats just the fact. You’ve just quoted witness’es that saw it fall, not sure what you were trying to prove with that attempt but anyway.

I never said anybody was in on anything I just dont acccept the unbelievable coincedence that fires or anything falling on it could have removed all the main struts at the same time in order for it to fall like it did.

It wasn’t a symmetrical collapse though. That appears to be the crux of your argument.

Also, the entire building was in flames, engulfed in smoke, every floor. Not “localized fires” as you say.

Every floor was not on fire thats just not true. Footage just before it fell shows no smoke coming from the front of the building. and footage through out the preceding hours show only three visible fires, this is backed up by Members of the NYFD.

Here look at this its very short. If you still believe this happened by furniture fires, I’ve lost all hope in you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Watch that video that you just posted and press pause at 1:07 — what you can see there is a building (WTC 7) from whose every floor smoke is billowing. There is no smoke billowing from the from the front of the building due to the actions of a common meteorological phenomenon known as wind (you may have come across this before, it was also in effect that very same day on the two towers, ensuring that although smoke could be seen billowing from one side of the towers – the leeward side – from the fires raging where the planes had struck, it could not be seen from the opposite side – the windward side).

“…but by 5.20pm most of the fires had been extinguished…” — this is a blatant falsehood. The FDNY had been ordered to vacate WTC7 in view of the danger of imminent collapse due to damage to the steel structure of the building.

Next.

I wish all these conspiracy theorists would crawl back under the rock they came out from under. You have no idea!

@Tom what conspiracy are you taking about?

What about this guff off the “sounds” that “sounded” like rhythmic demolition explosions that were “heard” immediately prior to the buildings coming down?

That’s exactly how I’d imagine i’d a building to sound as floor after floor collapse onto eachother. And quite loud too.

Predictive text. What a pain.

Free fall buddy. Free fall. Your suggesting that two members practically instantaneously caused all other to fail and building to pancake at free fall. Other nonsense. Look again and trust your eyes. If it quacks like a duck… That’s just the scrapping the surface. Here’s an experiment for you. Try look for evidence to prove I am right rather than wrong and then make a decision. If you are right then you have. nothing to worry about.

No not instantaneously. I’m saying an internal progressive collapse began to occur several seconds before the tower began to fall as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse. The failure of one member caused the floor to collapse, which initiated the progressive collapse. This is what a progressive collapse looks like if you’re sceptical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsE8CkZI6U

It’s like saying that it’s impossible to knock down a line of dominoes by knocking down the first one if you think this can’t happen. As the internal collapse progressed the whole structure lost support and began to fall.

Here’s a hint on how you’re supposed to do an investigation. You look at the evidence in an unbiased manner and draw your conclusions from the evidence alone. You do NOT try to prove your preconceived conclusions. The simple fact of the matter is that there was absolutely no motive to demolish wtc7 but the nature of conspiracy theorists is to jump on any unexplained phenomenon and fit it into their narrative.

They were given warning by the cabal of the plan to raze the building along with the towers thus ensuring the cover-up but they boobed with the timings. That’s the only plausible explanation I can come up with for what I saw there.

*gouges eyeballs out with teaspoon*

oh piss off

Who the hell watches Fox News in Ireland? Your parroting of this nonsense has become so repetitive you neglect to tailor it for your target audience! I bet a majority of people here think the Iraq war was illegal.

Head of Italian Supreme Court calls for criminal investigation into 9/11. States that the US knew about it before hand http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332580