Leanan (if you're out there) - What's your take on this one? Relevant? Seems to meet the criteria set out in the guys in uniform question. Just curious.
I would have said no. This topic comes up every few weeks and never results in anything or really makes any connection (direct or indirect) to peak oil. The name the commenter selected underlines that their interest is in the conspiracy not the energy implications.
But I don't think there is a right or wrong here. As the site grows, it is worth discussing how broad the topic range should be. I certainly don't believe my opinion is worth more than anyone else's and wouldn't want anyone to restrict their range of comments based solely on my feedback.
I didn't say there aren't indirect connections that exist. I said the commenters don't make the link - or even try.
There are probably indirect links between energy and just about everything. However the 911 issue comes up frequently and usually just rambles on without any progress or either side convincing the other. This thread is a pretty good example. Do you think this discussion is closely related to peak oil?
For what it's worth, here's my two cents with respect to questioning the official government version of why and how the Twin Towers failed.
There are many highly regarded, competent, and objective engineers and scientists who are not conspiracy nuts but who seriously question the official government version. I have read many of these arguments, and I must say that there are many technical reasons for being high skeptical of the official version.
It is too long to get into here, and I don't want to clog up thread space with a topic that really has nothing to do with the energy situation. But the official explanation that the towers came down because fire had weakened the floor trusses thereby resulting in a rapid and nearly perfect symmetrical failure of the entire structure has some serious problems with it.
I am an engineer, believe myself to be reasonable objective, am not a conspiracy fan, but I truly believe that something is not right with the offiicial explanation. While most of the focus has been on the failure of the two Twin Towers, the case of the failure of WTC-7 is even more bizzare and lacks reasonable explanation.
Again, this whole subject is best discussed in detail elsewhere, but I just want to go on record, so to speak, that this engineer has his doubts about what really took place on 9-11. I would suggest that you folks out there not automatically dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory, take a good hard and objective look at the various arguments and then arrive at your own conclusion.
But the official explanation that the towers came down because fire had weakened the floor trusses thereby resulting in a rapid and nearly perfect symmetrical failure of the entire structure has some serious problems with it.
And the idea that demolition charges had been placed beforehand (without alerting anyone?) exactly where the airliners would hit (and survive the impact and fire, how?) has much bigger problems with it.
I think this is a meta-conspiracy, created by Karl Rove [1]: the untenable demolition conspiracy theory is being used to divert and distract the fringe elements on the left, and make their position obviously crackpot and unpalatable to the middle while simultaneously discrediting anything else they have to say (e.g. that the nation is sliding into dictatorship).
In short, the people who propound this nonsense are unwittingly strengthening the hand of the power-grabbers in Washington. [2]
[1] Not really; I don't think Rove is quite that clever, and there are a lot of stupid people creating urban legends.
[2] I wish that was a joke.
And the idea that demolition charges had been placed beforehand (without alerting anyone?) exactly where the airliners would hit (and survive the impact and fire, how?) has much bigger problems with it.
No airplane hit WTC7. A bit of wreckage, but no plane.
Can you explain what happened with WTC7? Beyond 'it fell down'.
As for doing structural building work without notifying anyone, it can be done. Citibank and the midnight welding is an example.
"A bit of" one of the WTC towers is quite a bit. Other buildings, including a hotel, were destroyed by falling debris (at least one was hit by stuff from both collapses); why should 7 WTC have been any different?
In the cases of WTC 3, WTC4, WTC6 and WTC 5 enough to bring down PART of the building during the collaps of WTC1 and WTC2. Destroyed later as 'unsalvageable'.
For WTC 7 to be hit, mateiral needed to first go through WTC 6 space, the plaza space and WTC5 to get to WTC7. (Space and buildings in the way tend to limit damage.)
Other buildings, including a hotel, were destroyed by falling debris (at least one was hit by stuff from both collapses);
Destroyed? No. Damamged.
WTC7 was destroyed. Hours later, Reduced to a pile of rubble, in the footprint + 70 foot radius of the building.
why should 7 WTC have been any different?
FEMA suggests a fire caused the building to collapse. A fire accelerated by diesel.
Caused the steel framed building to collapse in under 10 seconds after the mechanicals go from the roof line shots. All done in under a minute.
In its own footprint. (plus 70 foot radius)
Actual behavior of steel framed buildings with fires has historically been differently. (they have remained standing)
Because the FEMA report claims the sequence of the WTC 7 collapse is consistent with an initial failure that occurred internally in the lower floors on the east side of the building. Yet the visual of the collapse is typical of a controlled demolition where you collapse the internal structure 'all at once'.
Perhaps the unfinished report due in 2004^H5^H6 will provide a report which matches the visual evidence and make sense from an engineering POV.
The way the "controlled implosion" works is by using the weight of some parts of the building to pull the rest down. Without evidence (which has been destroyed), there's no way to show that this didn't happen exactly as FEMA claimed.
FWIW, there have been close calls with other steel-framed buildings coming near collapse before, and I was reading of the threat of this all the way back in the 1980's. Someone even patented a water-cooled building frame to prevent such events! Needless to say, the WTC buildings did not incorporate any such protective measures and they became the first examples of fires which proceeded all the way to collapse.
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
---Adolf Hitler "Mon Kempf"
Wake up from your slumber my freind...
==AC
To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats- we know it not.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
You better look at some footage of the perfectly symmetrical collapse. Remember most of live in a world where the laws of physics rule.
How did the building fall in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground? What happened to the law of conservation of momentum? Was it suspended on 9/11?
Why were there pools of molten metal in basement of all three buildings? Where did the energy come from to melt steel from a "structural failure"? Do hydrocarbon fires now contain enough energy to melt steel and iron? Only on 9/11?
Since when do collapsing structures take the path of MOST residence? Only on 9/11?
FEMA even admits to a LOW probability [an understatement] of fire causing the collapse:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)" http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Watch the North tower collapse. Notice how the Antenna starts to collapse before the rest of the building. The center columns of the building just give way.
"One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure." (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)" http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The largest crime scene in history and all the ruble is just carted away and sold for scrap before any SERIOUS investigation into the collapse is done. Controlled Demolition was contracted to do the cleanup. What a pity. Good criminals know that you have to ditch the "murder weapon".
It much easier to just deny it all and get back to your peak oil discussions...
Videos of Building 7's Collapse
Building 7 collapse mpeg
This 9.6-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.
Everyone seems so surprised that steel and concrete fall at or near the acceleration of gravity. Other than momentary hesitations as the impact exceeds the resistance of the remaining structure, an unsupported building falls just as fast as anything else. Why should it fall any slower?
Everyone seems surprised that steel and concrete falls down. What other direction would it go?
That is how my ten year old nephew views it. We are not talking about dropping a steel bar and a chunk of concrete off the top of a building here. Not only did concrete just "fall down" but it pulverizes twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses and in the process turns portions of those supports into molten metal. Ditto for 1 & 2.
That is some really magnificent concrete. Three perfectly symmetrical collapses from fire all on the same day. Shit why does Controlled Demolition, Inc waste their time using costly thermite and semtex to PULL buildings? All they need is a few thousand gallons of kerosene and a match, presto.
Just trust your eyes and not what you were told, grow up.
"One might equate growing up with a mistrust of words. A mature person trusts his eyes more than his ears. Irrationality often manifests itself in upholding the word against the evidence of the eyes. Children, savages and true believers remember far less what they have seen than what they have heard."
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
Even though engineers know it is IMPOSSIBLE for steel members to have "evaporated" in tower 7 they choose to take a child's world view and blame something else anything else. Explosives are just too scary to contemplate. Maybe GOD zapped the members with laser beams from his finger tips to punish us for our sins? That is as plausible as diesel fuel...
==AC
ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC
"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"
New York Times, November 29, 2001
THE SITE
By JAMES GLANZ
Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.
Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.
The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.
As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.
One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.
Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.
"Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' "
Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators.
"It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it."
In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade.
Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.
Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.
Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building.
With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.
Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.
"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said.
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."
Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.
"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."
Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.
The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.
The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.
Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system."
The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.
"I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire."
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
This "WTC 7" is complete and utter BS. Wish it was not clogging up TOD, but to put the matter to rest.
99% of Americans only know of the WTC 1 & 2 collapse, which had a seismic impact on US domestic politics, but know NOTHING, ZERO, NADA of the WTC 7 collapse.
No knowledge = No politicsl impact
If there is zero, NADA political impact from the collapse of WTC 7, there is Zero, NADA. zero reason to do anything covert in order to cause the collapse of WTC 7. WHY do something covert that could unravel (with possibly serious impacts, see Watergate burglary) in order to have no impact what-so-ever on US politics ??
STOP WASTING bandwidth here on an irrelevant non-issue !
Mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear
Look at the tenants of WTC 7. The destruction of 7 was not suppose to have an impact on the public it was to destroy evidence of the operation and other sensative information. All they needed was the Hollywood style fireball explosions on 1&2. They never wanted to draw attention to WTC7 because that is the smoking gun of the entire operation and there is no explanation to why it fell except explosives.
"99% of Americans only know of the WTC 1 & 2 collapse"
Why do you think that is you clown?? WTC 7 was the most important collapse that day because it defies logic and deserves intense study but instead nobody knows of it. Our "free press" does an excellent job on twisting reality, your proof of that...
==AC
Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center
The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3
Ownership Change
Author Don Paul investigated this and related issues for his 2002 book, which contains the following passage detailing financial aspects and ownership changes of the complex preceding the attack.
On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.
The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that's the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.
The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin. 4
Even though engineers know it is IMPOSSIBLE for steel members to have "evaporated" in tower 7
Any engineer who's worked in a metal shop knows that steel DOES evaporate under an oxyacetylene flame. Steel BURNS under the correct conditions. Though I would suppose a chimp, living in a jungle, wouldn't know this.
Explosives are just too scary to contemplate.
I dunno, the thought of using them on some noisy conspiracy cranks is getting more attractive all the time.
I've already called for the impeachment of the heads of this administration, for deeds and omissions which prove their unfitness for office. I don't need to invent crimes to bolster my case.
"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
Under the correct conditions anything can happen!!
The fact you continue to post shows that somewhere deep inside you know something isn't right. But you are too afraid to face it.
Wake up!!
==AC
"I've already called for the impeachment of the heads of this administration, for deeds and omissions which prove their unfitness for office. I don't need to invent crimes to bolster my case."
"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
Oh, I know that some people go around fabricating colossal untruths. Sometimes they even do it unwittingly (urban legends).
Of course, accusations of conspiracy are far easier and cheaper to create than actual conspiracies....
NEW YORK - Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...
EP said "In short, the people who propound this nonsense are unwittingly strengthening the hand of the power-grabbers in Washington."
Exactly right. And they aren't helping to make peak oil and more credible either. I do think people look at those who say "peak oil is here, Bush blew up the world trade center" and think "this person is a nut", not "I better listen".
In fact, I have to say some of this plants doubts in my mind. At first TOD helped solidify my acceptance that peak oil is real. But the inability to separate the more severe impact theories from wild conspiracies gives me adequate reason to write them off. I am with PO and TOD as far as Stuart's claims, which seem analysis driven.
But the more radical claims seem to stem primarily from paranoia, ideology and a desire to think the world is coming to an end.
Thank you joule, that sums up my own opinion on the matter, better than I could have said it myself.
I would encourage anyone to look at the videos of WTC-7 with an open mind and form their own opinion.
And IMO, this is tangential to the topic of peak oil. There is a connection from "WTC disaster" to the "Middle East" to "reliable oil supply", but it is sufficiently tenuous to ask that it be discussed elsewhere. Therefore I'll not add to the rising noise level here by joining any more of these subthreads.
My first reaction was to say "not relevant." Wacky conspiracy theories only make us look even nuttier than people already think we are.
Besides, there's really little point arguing it. It's like trying to argue about evolution with creationists. No matter what proof you offer, they discount it.
But on second thought...maybe it is relevant. My feeling is that conspiracy theories result from something that may be relevant to the issue of peak oil.
You might call it "the failure of common sense." "Common sense" is usually great stuff. It often allows us to out-think the fastest computer. But sometimes it leads us astray. If something is outside our every day experience, common sense may mislead us. For example, we don't deal with extraordinarily small objects or with objects traveling near the speed of light in our day-to-day lives, so quantum physics and relativity seem to contravene "common sense."
The same applies to rare occurrences. 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, man walking on the moon, etc. We don't see airplanes crashing into buildings, people in moving vehicles being shot, or astronauts in low gravity and almost zero pressure very often. The "common sense" knowledge we get from every day experiences misleads us.
There's an almost unconscious tendency we all have to believe that what's happened in the past will be what always happens. It's "common sense." We've never run out of oil before, so why should I worry about it happening now?
(BTW, I recommend this link for refuting 9/11 conspiracy theories.)
That has already been discussed, probably far more than most were interested in seeing.
I'll just add this: what would be the point of a conspiracy to collapse a building most people never knew existed? If there was some kind of information in it "they" wanted hidden, why not just let the fire burn?
Heck, maybe the whole point was to cut me off from the Internet for the rest of the week...
That has already been discussed, probably far more than most were interested in seeing.
Your 'source' for debunking offered nothing other than a mention of WTC7. You were saying 'that was the place to go for debunking'. So rather than defend your source, you are willing to just 'hand wave' it away.
That is fine. But if such is the strongest FOR the published Government version - 'let us not talk about it' - the USGS says peak oil won't happen till 2025 or later. So why not just close up theoildrum, as the official story is "all is fine".
I'll just add this: what would be the point of a conspiracy to collapse a building most people never knew existed?
What was the point of the Iraq War II?
The explination given by the government is 'fires brought down the building'. If that version is true, it would be the first building in the history of steel framed building to collapse due to fire in a way that looked just like a controlled demolition. And in less than 10 seconds. Plenty of burned out steel building have come after WTC7 and before WTC7 and they did not collapse. If steel framed buildings are such a fire danger, where are the congressional investigations and the millions spent on analyzing the dangers of fire in steel framed buildings?
If there was some kind of information in it "they" wanted hidden, why not just let the fire burn?
Paper burns. Computer hard drives do not. Hard drives crushed under tons of rubble make for unrecoverable hard drives.
But as you are questioning 'they' - do you even know who or what kinds of data were in that building?
Hopefully you won't let 'invincible ignorance' defeat you. Go and reviewing the observed data of WTC7, other steel-framed buildings subjected to fire, and the official report. Its more than the debunking source you've offered up did.
But some people are just cranky old men and anything said by authorty figures are true.
Your 'source' for debunking offered nothing other than a mention of WTC7. You were saying 'that was the place to go for debunking'. So rather than defend your source, you are willing to just 'hand wave' it away.
I meant we had already discussed this at length in other threads, not this one.
What was the point of the Iraq War II?
That has also been discussed at length. The collapse of WTC-7 was not necessary for the Iraq invasion.
Paper burns. Computer hard drives do not. Hard drives crushed under tons of rubble make for unrecoverable hard drives.
Seems rather risky to me. You'd have no way of knowing which would be crushed and which would not be. Even after severe physical trauma, data can often be read off them.
But as you are questioning 'they' - do you even know who or what kinds of data were in that building?
Actually, I do. One of my friends was personally affected by the loss of records in WTC-7. She worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The Security and Exchange Commission was also in that building.) I believe they did dig up all the records eventually, but it caused months of delay.
The collapse of WTC-7 was not necessary for the Iraq invasion.
That wasn't my point. My point was the explnations given don't jive with observed data. Who says the events at the WTC were about invading Iraq?
The events may be nothing more than attempting to strike at American business, like the Bin Laden docuemts say should happen. OR there may be more there.
Seems rather risky to me. You'd have no way of knowing which would be crushed and which would not be. Even after severe physical trauma, data can often be read off them.
When the material goes to the dump or a metal melting operation, there is no danger of worring about what got recovered.
Invading Iraq and expecting roses at the invaderes feet seem to be a risky gamble. Did the risk stop the gamble?
But why apply a filter of rationality? At TOD, there are DAILY posts which can be summed up 'human behavior in this case is not rational'.
the loss of records in WTC-7.
If the goal was record destruction, then somehow we'd have to know what resords were so important to collape a bulding on top of them. There may be records there which were the only copies. shrug If there was some other goal, we'd have to know how a collapsed building fits into the goals.
Again, I return to the OBSERVED data. The time and way the building collaped VS what has been offered as to the reason why the building collaped.
There is no point to ask 'why take an action to collapse the building' if one can't look at the data and ask 'why doesn't the explnation offered up fit the observed data'? You keep asking 'why take the action to collape the building', so does that mean you are questioning the offical reason given to date?
Having done a bit of fire protection engineering as an elective and working for a ex chairman of the state's PE licencing board....what I learned in school and on the job doesn't jive with the official explnations I've read.
I'm glad to see you are at least willing to discuss the matter, rather than slapping up a shield of invincible ignornace like other cracky old men have done.
But I don't think there is a right or wrong here. As the site grows, it is worth discussing how broad the topic range should be. I certainly don't believe my opinion is worth more than anyone else's and wouldn't want anyone to restrict their range of comments based solely on my feedback.
Indirect connections:
There are probably indirect links between energy and just about everything. However the 911 issue comes up frequently and usually just rambles on without any progress or either side convincing the other. This thread is a pretty good example. Do you think this discussion is closely related to peak oil?
There are many highly regarded, competent, and objective engineers and scientists who are not conspiracy nuts but who seriously question the official government version. I have read many of these arguments, and I must say that there are many technical reasons for being high skeptical of the official version.
It is too long to get into here, and I don't want to clog up thread space with a topic that really has nothing to do with the energy situation. But the official explanation that the towers came down because fire had weakened the floor trusses thereby resulting in a rapid and nearly perfect symmetrical failure of the entire structure has some serious problems with it.
I am an engineer, believe myself to be reasonable objective, am not a conspiracy fan, but I truly believe that something is not right with the offiicial explanation. While most of the focus has been on the failure of the two Twin Towers, the case of the failure of WTC-7 is even more bizzare and lacks reasonable explanation.
Again, this whole subject is best discussed in detail elsewhere, but I just want to go on record, so to speak, that this engineer has his doubts about what really took place on 9-11. I would suggest that you folks out there not automatically dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory, take a good hard and objective look at the various arguments and then arrive at your own conclusion.
I think this is a meta-conspiracy, created by Karl Rove [1]: the untenable demolition conspiracy theory is being used to divert and distract the fringe elements on the left, and make their position obviously crackpot and unpalatable to the middle while simultaneously discrediting anything else they have to say (e.g. that the nation is sliding into dictatorship).
In short, the people who propound this nonsense are unwittingly strengthening the hand of the power-grabbers in Washington. [2]
[1] Not really; I don't think Rove is quite that clever, and there are a lot of stupid people creating urban legends.
[2] I wish that was a joke.
No airplane hit WTC7. A bit of wreckage, but no plane.
Can you explain what happened with WTC7? Beyond 'it fell down'.
As for doing structural building work without notifying anyone, it can be done. Citibank and the midnight welding is an example.
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/ce131/citicorp1.htm
In the cases of WTC 3, WTC4, WTC6 and WTC 5 enough to bring down PART of the building during the collaps of WTC1 and WTC2. Destroyed later as 'unsalvageable'.
For WTC 7 to be hit, mateiral needed to first go through WTC 6 space, the plaza space and WTC5 to get to WTC7. (Space and buildings in the way tend to limit damage.)
Other buildings, including a hotel, were destroyed by falling debris (at least one was hit by stuff from both collapses);
Destroyed? No. Damamged.
WTC7 was destroyed. Hours later, Reduced to a pile of rubble, in the footprint + 70 foot radius of the building.
why should 7 WTC have been any different?
FEMA suggests a fire caused the building to collapse. A fire accelerated by diesel.
Caused the steel framed building to collapse in under 10 seconds after the mechanicals go from the roof line shots. All done in under a minute.
In its own footprint. (plus 70 foot radius)
Actual behavior of steel framed buildings with fires has historically been differently. (they have remained standing)
Because the FEMA report claims the sequence of the WTC 7 collapse is consistent with an initial failure that occurred internally in the lower floors on the east side of the building. Yet the visual of the collapse is typical of a controlled demolition where you collapse the internal structure 'all at once'.
Perhaps the unfinished report due in 2004^H5^H6 will provide a report which matches the visual evidence and make sense from an engineering POV.
FWIW, there have been close calls with other steel-framed buildings coming near collapse before, and I was reading of the threat of this all the way back in the 1980's. Someone even patented a water-cooled building frame to prevent such events! Needless to say, the WTC buildings did not incorporate any such protective measures and they became the first examples of fires which proceeded all the way to collapse.
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
---Adolf Hitler "Mon Kempf"
Wake up from your slumber my freind...
==AC
To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats- we know it not.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
http://tinyurl.com/d6knf
http://tinyurl.com/bf2ye
http://tinyurl.com/c5p5k
http://tinyurl.com/a49gs
You better look at some footage of the perfectly symmetrical collapse. Remember most of live in a world where the laws of physics rule.
How did the building fall in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground? What happened to the law of conservation of momentum? Was it suspended on 9/11?
Why were there pools of molten metal in basement of all three buildings? Where did the energy come from to melt steel from a "structural failure"? Do hydrocarbon fires now contain enough energy to melt steel and iron? Only on 9/11?
Since when do collapsing structures take the path of MOST residence? Only on 9/11?
FEMA even admits to a LOW probability [an understatement] of fire causing the collapse:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)"
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Watch the North tower collapse. Notice how the Antenna starts to collapse before the rest of the building. The center columns of the building just give way.
"One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure." (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)"
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The largest crime scene in history and all the ruble is just carted away and sold for scrap before any SERIOUS investigation into the collapse is done. Controlled Demolition was contracted to do the cleanup. What a pity. Good criminals know that you have to ditch the "murder weapon".
It much easier to just deny it all and get back to your peak oil discussions...
==AC
The site won't let me hotlink video.
This is the one you want from the link above:
Videos of Building 7's Collapse
Building 7 collapse mpeg
This 9.6-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.
Everyone seems surprised that steel and concrete falls down. What other direction would it go?
That is some really magnificent concrete. Three perfectly symmetrical collapses from fire all on the same day. Shit why does Controlled Demolition, Inc waste their time using costly thermite and semtex to PULL buildings? All they need is a few thousand gallons of kerosene and a match, presto.
Just trust your eyes and not what you were told, grow up.
"One might equate growing up with a mistrust of words. A mature person trusts his eyes more than his ears. Irrationality often manifests itself in upholding the word against the evidence of the eyes. Children, savages and true believers remember far less what they have seen than what they have heard."
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
==AC
==AC
ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC
"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html
New York Times, November 29, 2001
THE SITE
By JAMES GLANZ
Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.
Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.
The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.
As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.
One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.
Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.
"Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' "
Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators.
"It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it."
In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade.
Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.
Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.
Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building.
With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.
Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.
"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said.
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."
Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.
"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."
Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.
The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.
The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.
Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system."
The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.
"I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire."
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
END
- 99% of Americans only know of the WTC 1 & 2 collapse, which had a seismic impact on US domestic politics, but know NOTHING, ZERO, NADA of the WTC 7 collapse.
- No knowledge = No politicsl impact
- If there is zero, NADA political impact from the collapse of WTC 7, there is Zero, NADA. zero reason to do anything covert in order to cause the collapse of WTC 7. WHY do something covert that could unravel (with possibly serious impacts, see Watergate burglary) in order to have no impact what-so-ever on US politics ??
STOP WASTING bandwidth here on an irrelevant non-issue !28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear
Look at the tenants of WTC 7. The destruction of 7 was not suppose to have an impact on the public it was to destroy evidence of the operation and other sensative information. All they needed was the Hollywood style fireball explosions on 1&2. They never wanted to draw attention to WTC7 because that is the smoking gun of the entire operation and there is no explanation to why it fell except explosives.
"99% of Americans only know of the WTC 1 & 2 collapse"
Why do you think that is you clown?? WTC 7 was the most important collapse that day because it defies logic and deserves intense study but instead nobody knows of it. Our "free press" does an excellent job on twisting reality, your proof of that...
==AC
==Bill
Controlling Interests
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html
Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center
The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3
Ownership Change
Author Don Paul investigated this and related issues for his 2002 book, which contains the following passage detailing financial aspects and ownership changes of the complex preceding the attack.
On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.
The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that's the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.
The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin. 4
end snip
I dunno, the thought of using them on some noisy conspiracy cranks is getting more attractive all the time.
I've already called for the impeachment of the heads of this administration, for deeds and omissions which prove their unfitness for office. I don't need to invent crimes to bolster my case.
Back to square one.
"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
Under the correct conditions anything can happen!!
The fact you continue to post shows that somewhere deep inside you know something isn't right. But you are too afraid to face it.
Wake up!!
==AC
"I've already called for the impeachment of the heads of this administration, for deeds and omissions which prove their unfitness for office. I don't need to invent crimes to bolster my case."
WOW what a risk taker you are...
Of course, accusations of conspiracy are far easier and cheaper to create than actual conspiracies....
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Pour yourself a beer and put on some popcorn and watch the vid below...
==AC
Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
or
http://tinyurl.com/83bd8
http://tinyurl.com/cuhaz
SARA KUGLER
Associated Press
NEW YORK - Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS
http://tinyurl.com/bxyay
September 12, 2001
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...
End of Newsday excerpt.
Exactly right. And they aren't helping to make peak oil and more credible either. I do think people look at those who say "peak oil is here, Bush blew up the world trade center" and think "this person is a nut", not "I better listen".
In fact, I have to say some of this plants doubts in my mind. At first TOD helped solidify my acceptance that peak oil is real. But the inability to separate the more severe impact theories from wild conspiracies gives me adequate reason to write them off. I am with PO and TOD as far as Stuart's claims, which seem analysis driven.
But the more radical claims seem to stem primarily from paranoia, ideology and a desire to think the world is coming to an end.
I would encourage anyone to look at the videos of WTC-7 with an open mind and form their own opinion.
And IMO, this is tangential to the topic of peak oil. There is a connection from "WTC disaster" to the "Middle East" to "reliable oil supply", but it is sufficiently tenuous to ask that it be discussed elsewhere. Therefore I'll not add to the rising noise level here by joining any more of these subthreads.
-- perhaps we need an update to Godwin's LawBesides, there's really little point arguing it. It's like trying to argue about evolution with creationists. No matter what proof you offer, they discount it.
But on second thought...maybe it is relevant. My feeling is that conspiracy theories result from something that may be relevant to the issue of peak oil.
You might call it "the failure of common sense." "Common sense" is usually great stuff. It often allows us to out-think the fastest computer. But sometimes it leads us astray. If something is outside our every day experience, common sense may mislead us. For example, we don't deal with extraordinarily small objects or with objects traveling near the speed of light in our day-to-day lives, so quantum physics and relativity seem to contravene "common sense."
The same applies to rare occurrences. 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, man walking on the moon, etc. We don't see airplanes crashing into buildings, people in moving vehicles being shot, or astronauts in low gravity and almost zero pressure very often. The "common sense" knowledge we get from every day experiences misleads us.
There's an almost unconscious tendency we all have to believe that what's happened in the past will be what always happens. It's "common sense." We've never run out of oil before, so why should I worry about it happening now?
(BTW, I recommend this link for refuting 9/11 conspiracy theories.)
And yet the reason why WTC7 fell down has been given an explination, just not one that jives with past building fires.
Go ahead. Explain why WTC7 fell down.
I'll just add this: what would be the point of a conspiracy to collapse a building most people never knew existed? If there was some kind of information in it "they" wanted hidden, why not just let the fire burn?
Heck, maybe the whole point was to cut me off from the Internet for the rest of the week...
Your 'source' for debunking offered nothing other than a mention of WTC7. You were saying 'that was the place to go for debunking'. So rather than defend your source, you are willing to just 'hand wave' it away.
That is fine. But if such is the strongest FOR the published Government version - 'let us not talk about it' - the USGS says peak oil won't happen till 2025 or later. So why not just close up theoildrum, as the official story is "all is fine".
For people who haven't seen the site - http://www.wtc7.net/
I'll just add this: what would be the point of a conspiracy to collapse a building most people never knew existed?
What was the point of the Iraq War II?
The explination given by the government is 'fires brought down the building'. If that version is true, it would be the first building in the history of steel framed building to collapse due to fire in a way that looked just like a controlled demolition. And in less than 10 seconds. Plenty of burned out steel building have come after WTC7 and before WTC7 and they did not collapse. If steel framed buildings are such a fire danger, where are the congressional investigations and the millions spent on analyzing the dangers of fire in steel framed buildings?
If there was some kind of information in it "they" wanted hidden, why not just let the fire burn?
Paper burns. Computer hard drives do not. Hard drives crushed under tons of rubble make for unrecoverable hard drives.
But as you are questioning 'they' - do you even know who or what kinds of data were in that building?
Hopefully you won't let 'invincible ignorance' defeat you. Go and reviewing the observed data of WTC7, other steel-framed buildings subjected to fire, and the official report. Its more than the debunking source you've offered up did.
But some people are just cranky old men and anything said by authorty figures are true.
I meant we had already discussed this at length in other threads, not this one.
That has also been discussed at length. The collapse of WTC-7 was not necessary for the Iraq invasion.
Seems rather risky to me. You'd have no way of knowing which would be crushed and which would not be. Even after severe physical trauma, data can often be read off them.
Actually, I do. One of my friends was personally affected by the loss of records in WTC-7. She worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The Security and Exchange Commission was also in that building.) I believe they did dig up all the records eventually, but it caused months of delay.
That wasn't my point. My point was the explnations given don't jive with observed data. Who says the events at the WTC were about invading Iraq?
The events may be nothing more than attempting to strike at American business, like the Bin Laden docuemts say should happen. OR there may be more there.
Seems rather risky to me. You'd have no way of knowing which would be crushed and which would not be. Even after severe physical trauma, data can often be read off them.
When the material goes to the dump or a metal melting operation, there is no danger of worring about what got recovered.
Invading Iraq and expecting roses at the invaderes feet seem to be a risky gamble. Did the risk stop the gamble?
But why apply a filter of rationality? At TOD, there are DAILY posts which can be summed up 'human behavior in this case is not rational'.
the loss of records in WTC-7.
If the goal was record destruction, then somehow we'd have to know what resords were so important to collape a bulding on top of them. There may be records there which were the only copies. shrug If there was some other goal, we'd have to know how a collapsed building fits into the goals.
Again, I return to the OBSERVED data. The time and way the building collaped VS what has been offered as to the reason why the building collaped.
There is no point to ask 'why take an action to collapse the building' if one can't look at the data and ask 'why doesn't the explnation offered up fit the observed data'? You keep asking 'why take the action to collape the building', so does that mean you are questioning the offical reason given to date?
Having done a bit of fire protection engineering as an elective and working for a ex chairman of the state's PE licencing board....what I learned in school and on the job doesn't jive with the official explnations I've read.
I'm glad to see you are at least willing to discuss the matter, rather than slapping up a shield of invincible ignornace like other cracky old men have done.