Asked FEMA Architect Friend to Look Over 9/11 Truth Information and this is what he says...

Thanks for the info Griff!
This is exactly what I was looking for! Will send that information to him.
Also sent that MIT engineer Jeff King conference video too. I think after this I'll hold off for a while and see if he finds any of it interesting.

reply to post by Palasheea



You're welcome. Take care and please let us know anymore he has to say. Thanks for the thread. Star from me.

Your friend says the WTC7's bottom floors gave out first.From all video I've seen, there is a buckle or crimp in the penthouse first, then the building implodes.
I'm not a demolition expert or engineer so I don't know how the building would react if the bottom floors gave way first.It would seems reasonable to assume the center was taken out first so the building would fall in on itself, then bottom floors.
I like this thread and was in no way bashing it, just for clarification.
All of the pictures I've seen of WTC1 and 2 do show a steel core.The inner core and perimeter were tied together by trusses which had cement slabs.All of those trusses were bolted AND welded to the core and perimeter.I have no idea if the steel core was cement covered/encased.
It would stand to reason that the bulk of integrity would be on the steel, not the cement since those cores went directly into the bedrock.

CT, click on this link www.ae911truth.org...
and look on the right side column and scroll down past the stuff on the towers to that black video box and under that you will see information about WTC 7. See where it says "Sounds of Explosions' and click on that. A very short video will come up telling what witnesses said just before Bldg. 7 went down. I had my friend look over this page and he saw that information about those explosions.. So that why he's saying that the explosions that occurred on the first floor or basement contributed towards the demise of that building collapse. But he's saying that even just looking at that building coming down, it looks like a CD.

As far as the core of the towers, I think he was going by information that was given about the core at the time shortly after 9/11 or maybe a little later -- Read Griff's comments about how the information they first gave about the core of those buildings changed at some point to how they are described now. As we know, 6 years have gone by and more information has been released to the public as years went by. And even though I'm sure most architects took at least a passing interest in how those buildings fell at the time when they did, like everyone else, they went on with their lives did not keep up with 9/11 updates. So I'm just saying that my friend's no different... he's basically still stuck in 2002 or 03 information-wise on all of this. And because of his involvement, at the ground level, in helping to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina, he has not looked at this 9/11 stuff in years.

I'm just researching on all of this myself.. I'm new to all of this Truth information and am hoping that my friend will help to clarify a few things for me because he's an architect. But before he can do that, I'm hoping he will read over some of that information on what Gage at AE 9/11 Truth is saying about DC. So far he's just skimmed it over... but nevertheless is intrigued by the information on that page about WTC7 which is what I wanted him to look over -- at least for now.

Will just have to cross by fingers and hope that he will take the time to read over everything when he's got the time to do so.



[edit on 13-9-2007 by Palasheea]

reply to post by Palasheea


I was in no way arguing with you or belittling your input on 9/11, I was merely offering up information and observations I've made regarding 9/11.I've only been into it a year now.
I always feel the need to add things in case someone hasn't seen particular footage or read certain articles, or is new to questioning the official story.
I most certainly believe that WTC 1,2 and 7 were brought down in an unnatural fashion (CD).
WTC7 is the most striking collapse in my opinion because it wasn't hit by a plane.it did sustain damage and did have fires but other structures have endured worse without total collapse.
I applaud you and your friend for digging into this subject.

Hi CT ... never got the impression that you were belittling me or anything close to it! And thanks for your feedback on all of this! I really appreciate it!
I agree that #7 is the most striking collapse out of the three because it was not hit by a plane... and I personally think it's the smoking gun on what happened that day. In my view, criminal charges should be brought up against Silverman for 'pullng' that building down... It's clear that's it's a CD... no question about it. Once he's charged with this, then questions will come up about the towers and if they came down the same way.
I'm so surprised this hasn't been done yet!! I find this just so mind boggling but scary too because it's obvious that there have been so many protective measures to prevent anything like that from happening, well.... we've got trouble... BIG TROUBLE.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Palasheea

 

You're welcome. Take care and please let us know anymore he has to say. Thanks for the thread. Star from me.

A star... wow! Lol, thanks!

reply to post by Palasheea


Thanks, just wanted to be clear.
I really am surprised that the insurance companies didn't put up more of a fuss.
Larry sure put himself out there with the "pull it" comment.I've read the stories about him meaning the old term used by firefighters, as in tugging or pulling the hose to notify firefighters to evacuate and I don't buy it.
If he meant pull the firefighters out of the building, wouldn't he say pull THEM?
His back pedaling stinks and appears to be a cover for "whoops, did I say that out loud?"
Bush is a liar and so is Rumsfeld and Cheney.All of them have been caught over and over yet NOBODY is doing anything to bring these people to justice.
By nobody, I mean those in power.
I'm wondering what it will take to remove these deciders of destruction before another "terrist" attack happens.
Peace

Originally posted by citizen truth
I really am surprised that the insurance companies didn't put up more of a fuss.
Larry sure put himself out there with the "pull it" comment.I've read the stories about him meaning the old term used by firefighters, as in tugging or pulling the hose to notify firefighters to evacuate and I don't buy it.
If he meant pull the firefighters out of the building, wouldn't he say pull THEM?
His back pedaling stinks and appears to be a cover for "whoops, did I say that out loud?"

First of all, the insurance companies DID raise a stink about WTC 1&2 and Silverstein won the suit that two planes were two different acts of terrorism. Seeing the the insurance company DIDN'T raise a stink about WTC7 sould tell you that there was nothing suspicious about it. And yeah...a billionaire is going to admit to having the fire department blow up his building on a documentary... makes sence to me.

I would like to comment about the 9/11 Coincidences (Part Seven) video that the OP Sent to her friend. That film is filled with lies and or 1/2 truths. It starts off by saying on the screen that Larry Silverstein made the decision to pull it. That is a lie. Then they claim that the term pull it is a demo term...yet they fail to show you WHAT it means...it means by cables...funny how this film uses the audio from the PBS film about the "pull building 6" yet does not show the VIDEO!! The video CLEARLY shows CABLES attached to the building. The creator of this trash edits that part out. Then toward the end of the video they have the narrartor stating that the building collapsed in 6 1/2 seconds! This is another lie.

Videos like these are used as propaganda tools to try to sway people into their twisted fantasies.

CO, you've brought up some valid points about that Coincidences Part 7 video that I sent to my friend to look at because, at least for now, I'm only focusing on WTC7 .. so that's why I sent it to him.

There are some things they bring up in that video that sort of obfuscate what should be focused on in this case and I will show you what I'm talking about in my next posts. Have since received a couple of other very short comments from my friend and will be posting them a bit later including my replies to them.

As far as the 'pull it' thing that Silverman said in that interview, well, I would think, at least in your case, you would search for other interpretations of that term than than a term used in the demo industry .... but if you could send me some links to pages that explain that Silverman meant only to pull the cables I would like to see that.

At any rate, Silverman's a very, very old man -- and 'pull it' could have been a slip of the tongue sort of thing so I'm not ruling that out that he actually DID mean to inform the fire chief to bring down that building. By the way, have you ever lived in NYC OC? I have. I went to Parsons New School of Design in Manhattan and I've seen a lot of guys like Silverman and let me tell you... these guys are tough and EXTREMELY BRASH. Think Trump and what he's like when the camera's are off. They don't mince words and they say it as they mean it. Silverman's of this breed. So for this reason, I think his 'pull it' meant blow up the building and he said it on tv because he's an old man who's never been one for measured cadence because that's just not his style.
He's the kinda guy who's used to saying what he damn well pleases and because he's so rich and surrounded by sycophants.. he's always gotten away with that. But I'm sure it's his age more than anything else that allowed that 'pull it' snafus to occur. Obviously a man like Silverman has seen better days where such mispokes would never ever happen or else he never would have gotten where he is now ... that's for sure.

And why didn't the insurance company raise a stink about WTC 7?
And why didn't NIST do an analysis on how that building came down?
And why did the 9/11 Commission Report totally omit any information about it too? It's like it never even existed!
So what the heck is going on here??
This is what I want to know and the fact that they are not releasing any information on their investigations on what happened to that building, to me speaks volumes that they are covering up something... Jeesh, it's been six years now and still no information??

[edit on 14-9-2007 by Palasheea]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CT, I sent my friend the information that you had in the above post and this was his reply:

I think you're right. I was wrong.

I do remember hearing that the core stairwells were only protected with drywall (2-hour rating). I was thinking it was 4" concrete block. And the sprayed-on fireproofing on the steel structure was only rated for three hours.

Yep, these buildings were not very fireproof.

So thanks CT for posting that information! It turned out to be very helpful.

I just sent him a reply to that message and here it is:

So the steel in those buildings (the towers) were melted on all of those hundreds of floors where they came down because of that... each less than an hour after they were slammed by those planes? Yet, you say the fireproofing is good for 3 hrs...? but these buildings came down in less than an hour!!
The second building that was slammed by a plane came down first... then the other one came down shortly after that.
But doesn't diesel fuel burn up fast in open air environments? After the one plane hit the first building, there are even video's of people standing and waving in the hole that the airplane left... it could not have been that hot for them to be able to do that. The fire at that time had gone down. Strange isn't it?
(correction: Just re-checked this... actually the North Tower came down 1 hr and 42 minutes after it was slammed by the plane. The South Tower came down 56 minutes after it was slammed by a plane but it came down 29 minutes earlier than the N.Tower that was struck first)

PS... ok, just got his reply on my message above:

The impact of the planes hitting knocked the fireproofing off of the steel. It's not strong stuff at all, easily damaged.

Lol, I feel like I'm playing a game of chess. He's got good point there so I guess what he's saying is that the impact of those planes knocked off entire chunks throughout those buildings but were the towers on fire on every floor to bend the steel to cause the buildings to come down in a vertical drop like they did? And if buildings like this can do that, then why do people even bother with something like Controlled Demolition when all they have to do is set the building on fire to come down in a vertical drop into it's own footprint?



[edit on 14-9-2007 by Palasheea]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Thanks for the input.Can you show me where the cables are in this video? I don't see any machinery around.

WTC6

Are you referring to WTC7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds?

WTC7

WTC7

If it's not 6.5 seconds, how many seconds do you count?

CO, instead of saying people have twisted fantasies why don't you post some links supporting your claims and opinions?