WTC Structural Failure Hearings

[gr8fuldaniel]

FEMA was BLOCKED from investigating the explosion in WTC 6 (Standing between WTC7 And the North Tower) So try to refrain from using the lap dog FEMA as a source.

American Free Press The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City’s Department. of Design and Construction .

From the same page:

American Free Press Unexplained 9-11 Explosion at WTC Complex Despite the fact that the horrible events of Sept. 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout. Exclusive to American Free Press By Christopher Bollyn A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated World Trade Center 6, the eight-story U.S. Customs building, although no national newspaper, other than American Free Press, has written a word about it. Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6. The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m. The explosion at WTC 6 was shown afterward on CNN. But because it was not broadcast as it happened there has been some confusion about when it actually occurred. The large amount of smoke seen cascading around the South Tower in the video led some observers to mistake the blast for a dust cloud from the subsequent collapse of the tower. TIMING CONFIRMED American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed. CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.” When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: “We can’t figure it out.” More......Must see

I abbreviated this last clipping to abide by Volconvo riules. I strongly reccommend this entire article.
**********************************

serendipity Here's a close-up of WTC 6. According to the official story this building was destroyed because it was hit by rubble from the collapse of the North Tower. But if so then one would expect to see the remains of the building covered by rubble. Instead we see a huge crater. What could have caused this? It looks like what would result from a huge explosion in the basement of the building.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Your quote:

Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

There is a difference between an "Attack" and an "Intercept". The new FAA director did not know if he had authority to order intercept. HE DID.
The mainstream media is AWOL on this issue:

Truth Now It is a FACT that Air National Guard and Air Force air defense units of the United States WERE PROHIBITED from carrying out their STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES as detailed above on the morning of 9.11; AFTER they had received the alerts from ATC and FAA. Absolutely NO executive-level input of ANY KIND is required for standard intercepts to be scrambled. There was NO indication in any alerts received by air defense units that "SHOOT-DOWNS" may be required as opposed to intercepts -- i.e.; that the planes were definitely under control of "hostile" forces -- because ATC/FAA could NOT have KNOWN that. When the first alerts were received from Air Traffic Control, ALL that air defense units were required to do was scramble STANDARD interceptors to make contact with the incommunicado and off-course jets. F-16s and other fighter planes WOULD HAVE overtaken EVERY SINGLE HIJACKED PLANE on September 11, BEFORE they had reached their targets! (See below for locations of air bases.) IF, at the time of interception, it was determined the aircraft were under hostile control and likely to impact targets, high-level air defense commanders at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) are FULLY AUTHORIZED under existing and established regulations and procedures to authorize a shoot-down,. in order to PROTECT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ATTACK. Yet air defense units that were READY AND WAITING on 9.11 at DOZENS of nearby installations were ordered NOT to scramble interceptors: they were ordered to stand down from carrying out even the FIRST STAGE of STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. These orders came from the executive office of the president as well as from complicit individuals in the aforementioned NMCC. There is NO QUESTION that if these interceptors had been scrambled AT THE TIME alerts were received, they would have intercepted the hijacked planes before targets were approached IN EVERY INSTANCE. And there is NO WAY that the office of the President or the NMCC could have KNOWN through any standard means that these incommunicado flights required anything OTHER than standard interceptions, because ATC and FAA alerts DID NOT relay any such information. The alerts simply requested that STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES be implemented and that interceptors be scrambled forthwith.

Speaking of FAA malfeasance:

LESLIE MILLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS - Air traffic controllers who handled two of the hijacked flights on Sept. 11, 2001, recorded their experiences shortly after the planes crashed into the World Trade Center but a supervisor destroyed the tape, government investigators said Thursday. A report by Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead said the manager for the New York-area air traffic control center asked the controllers to make the recordings a few hours after the crashes in belief they would be important for law enforcement. Investigators never heard it. Sometime between December 2001 and February 2002, an unidentified Federal Aviation Administration quality assurance manager crushed the cassette case in his hand, cut the tape into small pieces and threw them away in multiple trash cans, the report said. "We were told that nobody ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated the tape," Mead said in the report sent to Sen. John McCain. The Arizona Republican asked the inspector general to look into how well the agency was cooperating with the independent panel investigating the attacks. Neither manager told anyone outside the center - including their superiors and law enforcement officials - about the tape's existence, the report said. The Sept. 11 commission learned of the tape during interviews with New York air traffic control center personnel between September and October.

See anything just a smidgen odd about this?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Dayton: FAA, NORAD hid 9/11 failures By Greg Gordon Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent July31/04 LINK WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged on July 31 that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have covered up "catastrophic failures" that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept. 11 hijackings. "For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history," Dayton declared during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. During the hearing, Dayton told leaders of the Sept. 11 commission, that, based on the commission's report, a NORAD chronology made public a week after the attacks was grossly misleading. The chronology said the FAA notified the military's emergency air command of three of the hijackings while those jetliners were still airborne. Dayton cited commission findings that the FAA failed to inform NORAD about three of the planes until after they had crashed. And, he said, a squadron of NORAD fighter planes that was scrambled was sent east over the Atlantic Ocean and was 150 miles from Washington, D.C., when the third plane struck the Pentagon - "farther than they were before they took off." Dayton said NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people." He told Kean and Hamilton that if the commission's report is correct, President Bush "should fire whoever at FAA, at NORAD ... betrayed their public trust by not telling us the truth." more.......

Check out this footnote on the same page:

NOTE by William Thomas: Reporter Greg Gordon’s use of the word “squadron” is unintentionally misleading. “Squadrons” of eight or more planes were not scrambled on Sept. 11. Instead, two separate two-plane “sections” were launched from Cape Cod and Langley Virginia. Each pair of F-15 and F-16 interceptors was ordered to fly at 500 mph while chasing airliners flying faster than 540 mph. The “squadron” ordered to fly out over the Atlantic instead of easily intercepting Fl77 before it reached the Pentagon was actually a two plane section of ready alert F-16s, launched late from Langley Virginia and vectored out over the Atlantic – away from the Pentagon. As documented in my audio book, Stand Down: Why America’s Air Defenses Failed on Sept. 11, the pair of F-15s launched late out of Cape Cod could have intercepted the second airliners before it struck the Tower Two at the World Trade Center. But instead of flying at 1875 miles per hour or two-and-a-half times the speed of sound, both fighters flew at a leisurely 500 mph – slower than the airliners they were supposedly “pursuing”. Arriving too late over the burning WTC, pilots “Nasty” and “Duff” could have easily intercepted Flight 77, still some 40 minutes away from the Pentagon. But instead of being vectored over Washington DC, the Cape Cod F-15s were ordered to fly circles over the Atlantic. Neither the 911 Commission nor Senator Dayton has asked who ordered both pairs of interceptors to fly so slowly. Or why. Nor have 911 coverup commissioners asked why these ready alert fighters were vectored away from targets under threat from incoming hijacked airliners as deadly as cruise missiles. Nor has anyone questioned why the two “ready alert” jets sitting armed and fueled at Andrews Air Force Base were never launched to protect the Pentagon, just 12 miles away. The acknowledged fact that air force jets already in the air that morning flying routine exercises were not diverted to intercept America’s attackers was simply shrugged off. When will someone ask why America’s air defenses were stood down on Sept. 11?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Its High Treason to withhold this information until after the election.

February 15, 2005 L.A. Times Robert Scheer: What We Don't Know About 9/11 Hurts Us Would George W. Bush have been reelected president if the public understood how much responsibility his administration bears for allowing the 9/11 attacks to succeed? The answer is unknowable and, at this date, moot. Yet it was appalling to learn last week that the White House suppressed until after the election a damning report that exposes the administration as woefully incompetent if not criminally negligent. <snip> - - - - - - - - - - - - For the last three years, administration apologists have tried to make the FAA the scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks. But it is the president who ultimately is responsible for national security, not a defanged agency that is beholden to the industry it allegedly monitors. must read

I say ship em all to Iraq and have a parade through the streets of Bagdad and Fallujah. Let the Iraqis throw flowers and candy at GWB.

[dotcoma]

Holy crap, you make like four topics in a row before anyone can respond. How am I supposed to even participate in this garbage? Does this site have rules about this flooding of stuff before anyone can talk?

I'll have to get back to this when I have more time.

[bishop]

incredible...

but what's even sadder is that his supporters will continue to support him. and others would likely either view it as inconsequential, or deny its validity. in this new age of propagandized lies, you either gotta get with their orweillian b.s. or move to france.

[Nono]

They'd love to see people like bishop and gr8 move to France.
Hang in there guys.

[Pooeypants]

Guys, I don't mind articles of relevance being posted to support your claims but the banter between should be cut out. Thank you.

[dotcoma]

This is absolute bullshit. Am I the only sane person in this topic? gr8 is saying absolute statements like: YEP LOOKS LIKE AN EXPLOSION CAUSED FROM THE BASEMENT. Then he ignores my articles, and posts things from site's that have links to books and publications with an obvious agenda and bias. The only legitimate source was the LA times, and you took the man out of context, and took it from the opinion section. That author does not agree with your conspiracies about 9/11-he just thinks more blame as far as prevention needs to be placed on our administration. I am going to talk to the administrator and see if he agrees with me about this source issue. This type of flooding with quotes from sources that cannot be trusted makes debate just dwindle.

I am not even mad really, just aggravated that you people cling to such scary-looking sites. How is anyone supposed to debate with you if you are not even on the same planet?

What makes it even more aggravating is people who rely on such questionable sites consider everyone else to be ignorant and blind..lol

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: dotcoma This is absolute bullshit. Am I the only sane person in this topic? gr8 is saying absolute statements like: YEP LOOKS LIKE AN EXPLOSION CAUSED FROM THE BASEMENT.

None of your articles covered the crater that used to be WTC 6, because of a Media Black out. I added that article because it partially explains what happened to WTC 7.

Then he ignores my articles,

I commented on your articles. Thats a lie.

and posts things from site's that have links to books and publications with an obvious agenda and bias.

All Newspapers have ads, thats how they pay bills.

The only legitimate source was the LA times,

Another lie. On this page alone I quoted
1) Star Tribune, a Universal Press Syndicated paper from Minnesota sitemap
2) An article by LESLIE MILLER,of ASSOCIATED PRESS
as well as the LA Times. Stop WHINING about the sources and address the facts.
Maybe you havent heard: Only embedded publications are authorized by Bush admin. (Oh Yeah and Gay porn journalists like Gannon at the phoney newspaper, Talon). They get a hard pass to the White House.
Wanna know a secret? It isnt in their best interest to report the truth.
No more cushy seat at the press briefings. So sometimes we just have to get the truth where we find it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

dotcoma, I dont know if you read this whole thread or not, but it started with this letter from a UL executive, whose company certified the steel in the WTC towers. He IS an engineer and should know about steel grading and the kind of heat they can be expected to endure.

Friday, November 12, 2004 (911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14) An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel." Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

From the letter:

I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

[dotcoma]

Daniel,

I added the article to show you a more logical and rational perspective regarding tower 7, and you simply dismissed the source, even though it has more credibility than any you have provided, and moved on to tell me not to dismiss yours lol.

I think the big problem with this whole issue is that you are just so far into left field that even a liberal like me finds you absolutely brainwashed. You are hoping for anything to make the administration look like it spawned from the remains of Satan or something. I do not like the administration either, but your obsession with calling the WTC an inside job (even though it makes no logical sense) is hurting your position. Why sir would the government want 3,000 people to die, and HUNDREDS of billions of private and public dollars to go down the tubes? You give these self-interested professional politicians way too much credit.

I think the only way I am going to be able to discuss this issue without going crazy is if we avoid throwing sources at each other and try to talk just in terms of logic. I will honestly never buy into the bullshit provided by some of these sites you have provided. I really mean no offense when I say this, I am just being blunt.

And yes, I heard all about Gannon and I find it both hilarious and concerning. It is fairly obvious that this man was allowed to stay because of his softball questions. I would like to know how he got past all the checks. Hopefully we will find out. I will not rely on prisonplanet or some other Reynolds-rap-sponsored source to give me my news though.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: dotcoma Why sir would the government want 3,000 people to die, and HUNDREDS of billions of private and public dollars to go down the tubes?

Why did Roosevelt manipulate the Japanese attack on Pearl?
Why did Nero burn Rome?
Why did Hitler burn the Reichstag?
Why did the Joint Chiefs propose a fake terror attack by "Cuba" in 1962? http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Who has benefited from the events post 9-11? Who has taken it in the shorts?
:eek:

[Nono]

I'll start by boring everyone by pointing out for the 273rd time that I'm a conspiro-skeptic.

That said, Pat's rhetorical questions are perfectly valid; ignoring them amounts to denial.
Nine-one-one saved Bush's political bacon, and he and his political and business cronies have been dining out on it ever since.

If he and the PNACistas weren't complicit, then 911 is one mighty startling stroke of good fortune, now ain't it? If I keep "finding" old ladies' purses and enrich myself thereby, that's gounds for suspicion, and it's only fair if the matter is investigated. If I then pull all sorts of strings to hinder a full investigation, that's doubly suspicious. Anyone who can't smell a rat must be uhh olfactorily challenged.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Quote by: dotcoma Why sir would the government want 3,000 people to die, and HUNDREDS of billions of private and public dollars to go down the tubes? Why did Roosevelt manipulate the Japanese attack on Pearl? Why did Nero burn Rome? Why did Hitler burn the Reichstag? Why did the Joint Chiefs propose a fake terror attack by "Cuba" in 1962? http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ Who has benefited from the events post 9-11? Who has taken it in the shorts? :eek:

I am well aware of these events and the possibility for inside jobs, but 9/11 consisted of 3,000 civilians dying, and billions lost-even for bushies corporate friends. I think if he wanted to have something happen to unify the country it could have been on a much smaller scale.

Also, there is too much evidence now concerning Al Qaeda participating in flight schools, documents showing their desire to hijack planes, etc. I suppose you guys would just dismiss these as made up.

I honestly think some of you are letting your hate for Bush get in the way of reason. I am not fond of him either, but the allegations you make here with the weak explanation (charges set off in the buildings lol) is just a little too conspiro for me.

[Nono]

Quote by: dotcoma There is too much evidence now concerning Al Qaeda participating in flight schools, documents showing their desire to hijack planes, etc. I suppose you guys would just dismiss these as made up.

Given that (owing to the failure to conduct a complete investigation) we're obliged to speculate about what actually happened, I would speculate that al-Qaeda did indeed hijack a bunch of planes, flew three of them into their targets and deliberately crashed the fourth when faced with an advancing passenger revolt.

However, this is speculation. And it in no way rules out the possibility that things were actively facilitated for them, or passively, through negligence.

Who the hell knows? (Did Roosevelt actively bait the Japanese? Or just stand back and knowingly allow them to do what came naturally? I'd lean toward the second possibility, but that's another area of history flagged with taboo-warnings and even today it's hard to say.) What we do know is that 911 has been used to enable the neocons to implement their agenda. That's worthy of suspicion and scrutiny. Too bad it ain't getting it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This picture speaks VOLUMES. This is WTC 7, the 3rd (Hat Trick) miraculous symetrically collapsing steel skyscraper to happen without(?) the benefit of explosives historically, in the same day. :rolleyes: AMAZING!

The most obvious feature that indicates a controlled demolition, is the almost even collapse of the building. This shows that all the supports for the structure failed at the same time. Some coincidence eh? This video evidence is so compelling that no other evidence is really necessary

Naw, nothing to see here folks, move along. And never mind that man behind the heat proof curtain.

I found that little picture HERE The header on the web page reads:

This copy of Chapter 5 of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study is marked up with comments in red, and an animation and illustration, by an anonymous author. It has been posted on the Internet under the title THE FEMA REPORT ON WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 COLLAPSE IS A TOTAL JOKE

Here is the Layout for the WTC:

Notice the position of WTC 6 (the one that left a crater in its wake) between WTC 7 and the North Tower 2 blocks away. Now you see why WTC 6 HAD to go. It would be hard to explain the destruction (symetrically or not) of a high rise tower (7), if WTC 6 were still standing.


*********************************************


This explosion at WTC 6 (the white plume at left) is confirmed by CNN: (this is a repeat link, I used in post#161, but I didnt have the pic to go with it)

TIMING CONFIRMED American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed. CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.”

The FEMA Report, that dotcoma cited in post #160 as I already pointed out (post#161), is inconclusive since the inspectors were denied access to the building. That report is easily picked apart in the above link. Chapter 5 of their report is dedicated to WTC 7.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Get the larger gif Here
Its worth waiting a couple of minutes on dial-up modem.

Its just boggling. Hardly any evidence of fire, yet tons of steel softened SIMULTANEOUSLY, across the entire length of building. Windows not broken, but steel melted. Satan must have done it! Thats it, why didnt anybody see that sooner. I should get a prize or something. One month free Volconvo!!! YEAH !!!!!

(Thanx Sean!)

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is in support of my "windows observation" in last post

The crucible type heat necessary to soften or melt steel would break all windows. Not just on one side of the building:


Notice WTC7 windows on entire west face have no smoke emission.

Note also, no planes compromised this tower. No jet fuel, no structural damage.
Im telling you "The Devil is in the Details"

edit to add: At time of collapse, the entire north face had no smoke billowing from it, as seen in small .gif of the demolition