Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

If you are interested in getting a better idea of what happened to the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 check out Dr. Judy Wood's book, Where Did the Towers Go (drjudywood.com...). Dr. Wood has a B.S in structural engineering, M.S. in applied physics and a Ph.D. in materials engineering science. She was one of the early members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, but they kicked her out because her theories did not involve thermite/explosives.

There is something fishy about Richard Gage. When someone brings up Dr. Wood he gets weird.

a reply to: UB2120

Dr. Wood has a B.S in structural engineering

BS is what comes out of her mouth.

Do you really think a space beam took out the towers?
If so:
Why didn't the towers melt from the top down?
Why didn't melt the tops of other near by buildings?
Why didn't it melt every vehicle in the area ?

a reply to: samkent

I never said it was a "space beam", but it certainly wasn't an airplane or explosives. She only mentions that some kind of "directed energy" weapon seems to be what was used based on the evidence. A lot of what was seen on and after 9/11 is similar to the directed energy experiments of John Hutchison.

Those who criticize Dr. Wood have never looked into her evidence. The book she put out is very detailed and goes over all the known evidence. She isn't concerned with the Who's, Why's and How's, she just looks at the evidence and tried to determine the most logical explanation.

originally posted by: daftpink
Grenfell Tower burned for a whole night with little water to put it out and it didn't collapse.

Grenfell Tower was a brutalist structure, built of solid concrete. It had no internal steel skeleton holding it up, therefore there was no steel to soften and bend and eventually cause it to break down, as happened with the WTC. Not much short of a nuclear bomb could destroy Grenfell in one go.

Not all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

In Grenfell's case, the specifications for British flatblocks had been toughened up after the Ronan Point near-disaster of the 1960s, when a gas explosion destroyed a corner flat in a shoddily-constructed high-rise tower and the entire corner collapsed. (Fatalities were mainly averted due to the time of day at which the explosion occurred). But even at Ronan Point, the sudden removal of load-bearing joints didn't make the whole building come down.

a reply to: audubon

Ok, I'm no expert on engineering I'm still unsure on that one but what about the other points I made? I've still had no naysayer come up with logical explanations.

a reply to: UB2120

Directed energy as in potential energy being converted into kinetic energy. Or gravity? A release of energy equal to about 280 tons of high energy explosives setting off?

a reply to: daftpink

I'll give it a go, although I'm not optimistic about changing anyone's mind here.

WTC7 was in fact very damaged, it's just that everyone was paying more attention to 1&2. Here is an NYPD photo in which you can see that a large amount of the lower floors had been knocked out. Nothing suspicious there, it was right in the 'firing line' of the collapse debris from three nearby buildings (one of which was WTC6, which no-one ever mentions, and which disappeared completely).

As for the BBC report in which it was stated that WTC7 had collapsed when it hadn't, if you can remember that day's blizzard of news, there were hijacked planes being reported everywhere (one I especially remember is four planes heading up the Potomac - never heard another word about them), casualty estimates running into tens of thousands, claims of car-bombs elsewhere in NYC, etc, etc, etc. No-one, but no-one, had a f*cking clue what was happening. In all that chaos, someone hits the "7" instead of the "6" on their keyboard, and a report that "WTC6 has collapsed" (which it had) turns into a report that WTC7 had collapsed instead.

TL;DR - WTC7 is a complete dead end, it's utter nonsense.

a reply to: UB2120

Excerpts From The Mad Scientist’s Handbook: So You’re Ready to Vaporize a Human

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

As it would take more than 70 of the world's most powerful lasers combined to vaporize the water of just one person, death ray energy conservation is paramount. Remember: A successful mad scientist is as efficient as she is devious.

Lets be ridiculous, and use the 120 pounds of water in a person to 70 lasers. We will go with 70 lasers to 120 pounds of WTC material to get done what Wood fantasizes about?

One tower weights 500,000 tons. So to vaporize one tower would take over 500,000,000 lasers?

a reply to: daftpink

Out of interest how do you think the WTC7 tower collapsed? It didn't sustain much damage. Grenfell Tower burned for a whole night with little water to put it out and it didn't collapse. It was reported live that building 7 had collapsed before it had. I saw this live report myself. I then saw how NOTHING was reported on it for days, weeks even after this. Wild theories aside I'm just curious as to how naysayers can explain these strange facts.

Apples and oranges

Different building, different construction, different fire

Concrete vs steel supported structure

Fire in Grenfell was in outer flammable claddings which then extended into interior of building

WTC 7 had its south side slashed open, burning debris from WTC 1 was able to enter building and start fires on over
a dozen fires. The fires heated up the poorly fire proofed steel, one of the beams expanded from heat and dislodged
a support column , Which in turn started a chain reaction as load shifted and other columns failed until entire
building fell

Watch the video carefully (the full video not the edited version which omits beginning ) can see the penthouses on roof
fall into the center of the building as the collapse starts

originally posted by: audubonNot all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

and not all steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed from fire. only three, in fact. ever.
and all on the same day. in the same place.
and none since then.

maybe the answer lies with the research done by Tesla on harmonic resonance

a reply to: audubon

BBC rarely get facts wrong and if they do they acknowledge this straight away. Did building 6 not collapse some time after 7? Why would they mistake it for that? Why the media silence afterwards? When you are a regular watcher of BBC you find this strange. They always follow up on reports. I remember actually thinking that I had misheard the report as nothing was mentioned again. This was before any doubt of the attack being anything other than terrorism. I kept asking my friends and family and no one else had heard of other buildings collapse. I genuinely thought I had misheard. I was so glad when the footage of the news report surfaced on YouTube I felt I wasn't going insane. Then the questions began. I still don't know the answers but I will keep asking as I know the full truth is definitely not known to us.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: daftpink


WTC 7 had its south side slashed open

Yet 7 did not fall towards the south.

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: audubonNot all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

and not all steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed from fire. only three, in fact. ever.
and all on the same day. in the same place.
and none since then.

False narrative....

Tehran high-rise collapses after catching fire, killing 30 firefighters
www.thenational.ae...

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: audubon

BBC rarely get facts wrong and if they do they acknowledge this straight away.

(Hollow laugh)

Did building 6 not collapse some time after 7? Why would they mistake it for that?

No offence, but this remark serves as ample illustration of why the WTC7 myth never dies.

Above, I provided you with a link to a picture showing that WTC7 was still standing after WTC6 had collapsed. I even told you what the picture would show. And you didn't even bother to click the link.

And I bet you won't scroll back to click it now, because it's easier not to. And in a day, you won't remember this conversation, but the 'mystery' of WTC7 will still be at the back of your mind.

Why the media silence afterwards?

Because it was just a stupid mistake which lasted a second or two during a live broadcast about the biggest terrorist attack in history, and the media were actually following the story, not compiling a "Bloopers" reel for the newsdesk's Christmas party.

It was the sort of thing that happens hundreds of times a year on every channel without anyone ever thinking it odd (except perhaps those odd people who think newsreaders send messages in Morse code by blinking) and no-one remembered this particular blooper until some conspiracy theorists dug it out and started claiming it was significant, over and over again and again and again.

It's worthless rubbish.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: audubonNot all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

and not all steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed from fire. only three, in fact. ever.
and all on the same day. in the same place.
and none since then.

Never equates impossible? Remember that for the end of this post....

The North tower fell in relative silence? No audible sound of detonations before and during collapse. Yet the screams of the crowds are heard?

9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds before collapse
m.youtube.com...


Videos recorded no audible detonations for the WTC 7 collapse initiation. Also shows it was known WTC 7's integrity was in trouble, and the area was cleared out of fear that WTC 7 would collapse.
WTC Building 7 Collapse - 23 angles
m.youtube.com...


So, the truth movement was forced to create the false thermite theory.

The truth move likes to say never before makes it impossible?

Since the collapse of the towers were initiated by drooping floor trusses contacting to bow in the vertical columns relative to the jet impacts. www.metabunk.org...

And you have both sides, base on research, of the Aegis insurance VS WTC 7 owners lawsuit claim fire leading to collapse.

One, the tallest demolition CD ever carried out for a high rise building was 47 stories.

Two, never a top down demolitions CD of high rise buildings.

Three, there never has been a controlled demolition of a high rise building using thermite.

For the false truth movement thermite narrative to be true....

The record for tallest demolition CD was tied, and exceeded twice on the same day by never before used thermite.

For the towers, the tallest demolitions CD record exceeded twice using never before high rise top down CD, with never used before thermite.

And that is not even getting into how a complex CD systems survived jet impacts, building damage, and building wide fires.

Still going with never equates impossible?

The truth movement, a bunch hypocritical sheep.

a reply to: neutronflux

Also shows it was known WTC 7's integrity was in trouble, and the area was cleared out of fear that WTC 7 would collapse

To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing. But to be certain that it will collapse is another.
Like many hours before.

a reply to: daftpink

Just pretending for a minute that this isn't easily explained away by the chaos of the day, what exactly are you implying this proves? Was the media in on it and knew 7 was gonna be demo'd and accidentally reported it too soon? What incentive would whoever was in charge have to let the media in on it? It makes no sense, means nothing.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Do some research......

You haven't learned the truth movement uses misquotes, quotes out of context, hides facts, used half truths, and right out fantasy.

Dr Wood? Dustification? Hitting the pentagon destroyed financial records......

www.historycommons.org.../11=complete_911_timeline_world_trade_center

(12:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Engineer at WTC Site Predicts the Collapse of Building 7Edit event
An engineer at the World Trade Center site correctly predicts that WTC Building 7 is going to collapse. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. Hayden will recall, “He said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours, which was pretty much right on the money because the building collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon.” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008; AEGIS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. V. 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPANY, LP, 12/4/2013 pdf file] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. [CNN, 9/12/2001]
Entity Tags: Peter Hayden
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, World Trade Center

www.historycommons.org.../11=complete_911_timeline_world_trade_center

4:15 p.m.-4:33 p.m. September 11, 2001: Con Edison Shuts off Power to WTC 7 after Being Told It Could CollapseEdit event
Fred Simms.
Fred Simms. [Source: Con Edison]
After the fire department informs it that Building 7 of the World Trade Center could collapse, New York power company Con Edison shuts off power to this building. [9/11 COMMISSION, 2/26/2004 pdf file] Con Edison has a major electrical substation on the first and second floors of WTC 7. [NEW YORK TIMES, 9/11/2002; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 11/2008, PP. 5] Its representatives who had been in WTC 7 did not think that the building would come down. But, at 4:15 p.m., Con Edison emergency field manager Fred Simms speaks to the New York Fire Department and then tells his company’s headquarters that the fire department thinks WTC 7 will collapse. The fire department then asks Con Edison to shut down the power to WTC 7, which it does. [CITY OF NEW YORK, 6/13/2002; 9/11 COMMISSION, 2/26/2004 pdf file] Electric power to Con Edison’s lower Manhattan substation at WTC 7 is shut off at 4:33 p.m. [NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 11/2008, PP. 303 pdf file] Also around this time, people are evacuated from the area around WTC 7, due to concerns that the building could collapse (see (4:30 p.m.) September 11, 2001). [KANSAS CITY STAR, 3/28/2004] WTC 7, a 47-story tower located just to the north of the main WTC complex, will come down at 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001). [NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 11/2008, PP. XXXV] The Con Edison electrical substation below it will be destroyed in this collapse. [NEW YORK TIMES, 9/11/2002]
Entity Tags: Con Edison, New York City Fire Department, Fred Simms, World Trade Center
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, World Trade Center

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: daftpink

Just pretending for a minute that this isn't easily explained away by the chaos of the day, what exactly are you implying this proves? Was the media in on it and knew 7 was gonna be demo'd and accidentally reported it too soon? What incentive would whoever was in charge have to let the media in on it? It makes no sense, means nothing.

If the US government was the mastermind behind a CD of WTC 1 and WTC 2, why let the owners of WTC 7 in on the action?

And, how were cops and firefighters lead like sheep to a slaughter in the towers, but were part of the conspiracy for WTC 7?