This issue isn't going away...

[Moon The Loon]

This from Wiki re the construction of WTC7 (bold, underlines made by me):

The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[5] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[6]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[4] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Two things come to mind:

One - the two principle towers that collapsed WERE NOT STEEL STRUCTURES. THEY HAD A SUBSTANTIAL CONCRETE CORE THAT WENT TO THE TOP OF THE STRUCTURE. THE STEEL FRAMEWORK HUNG ON THE CONCRETE. IT WAS THE CONCRETE CORE THAT WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN BOTH IMPACTS. IT WAS THE CONCRETE CORE THAT COLLAPSED, DRAGGING THE STEEL DOWN WITH IT. THE SECOND BUILDING HIT COLLAPSED FIRST BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT OF THE CONCRETE CORE ABOVE THE IMPACTED AREA.

Two - based upon the Wiki description of WTC7, it's concrete base was designed to support a building of 25 floors, not one nearly twice as high. Secondly, its concrete core went up only to the seventh floor. It was all steel tubing/trusses above the seventh floor.

I don't know why the third building came down. But because I don't know why, I won't jump to the conclusion some of these theorists have. In both videos, they plainly state THE BUILDINGS WERE ALL MADE OF STEEL.

That's plainly and simply misleading. At least to me!

[Mitch Cronin]

Moon, no, I don't think that question comes up in that last video (not sure), but it does come up in most of the others.

For my part, no, it's not "I don't know what this is, so therefore it must be [fill in the blank]?".... It's a case of: "I know this was cut, so when, how, why, and by whom?"

[Moon The Loon]

Moon, no, I don't think that question comes up in that last video (not sure), but it does come up in most of the others.

For my part, no, it's not "I don't know what this is, so therefore it must be [fill in the blank]?".... It's a case of: "I know this was cut, so when, how, why, and by whom?"

Mitch - when was the picture taken? During the cleanup? Or during the recovery of bodies? The time the pic was taken would have an impact on what you're looking at. And who says it was cut? Perhaps a structural engineer who specializes in this type of building construction might have an explanation not readily recognized by theorists.

Just a few more questions. Notwithstanding what I wrote above

As a PS to what I wrote above - the idea of doubling the size of the building may have been an engineering leap of faith given the new design standards. Was it a proven design standard? You know how aircraft parts are designed to break after a great exceedance of their design limits, sometimes a 200% exceedance, giving them LOTS of tolerance up to their design limits i.e. a nearly 100% guarantee the part won't break up to and including its limit.

If WTC7 was built using the new premise that took it way past traditional design limits, maybe something as simple as a fire damaging the structural steel from the seventh floor up was all it took to collapse the way it did.

As I said, just more questions.

[DEFCON]

Moon

Issues related to the collapse of the ‘concrete cores’ have been debated since the beginning. In one of many such video documentary shows, the architect of the building didn’t buy into the collapse of the core theory? Nonetheless, weren’t the buildings designed to handle impacts such as these?

Regardless, there’s remains evidence of a ‘cut’ structural beam in the remains of one of the two towers?

[Moon The Loon]

Regardless, there’s remains evidence of a ‘cut’ structural beam in the remains of one of the two towers?

That's my question: Who says it's evidence? Who says what we saw in the picture was a cut? Perhaps there are answers offered in the video however I have credibility issues with many of the statements in the video. That's why I couldn't watch them all the way through.

[Mitch Cronin]

Everything I've come across says that's incorrect Moon. The two towers were ALL "tube" construction, with an inner core of massive steel pillars, and it's exoskelleton of steel all welded and bolted to the steel floor joists that held their concrete floors.

From Wiki:

The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 59 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. In all, the perimeter walls of the towers were 210 feet (64 m) on each side, and the corners were beveled. The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns.[46]

The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.[48] The columns tapered after the 66th floor, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors. The structural core in 1 WTC was oriented with the long axis east to west, while that of 2 WTC was oriented north to south. All elevators were located in the core. Each building had three stairwells, also in the core, except on the mechanical floors where they were located outside the core.[54]

The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight, as well as live loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior walls, and distributed wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4-inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck with shear connections for composite action.[48] A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short span area.[48] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were on 6-foot-8-inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side.

[DEFCON]

Moon

I think your comment; “as I said, just more questions”, provides the real point?

Wouldn’t a proper investigation & consequent report have provided credible findings that weren’t full of gapping holes?

[Moon The Loon]

All of the above noted.

I don't know that a full and proper investigation was not done. Maybe time will tell. But probably not

[Mitch Cronin]

That's my question: Who says it's evidence? Who says what we saw in the picture was a cut? Perhaps there are answers offered in the video however I have credibility issues with many of the statements in the video. That's why I couldn't watch them all the way through.

Which video? There are oodles of 'em! You can easily discard several of the points raised in that last one I posted and still be left with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that clearly shows what a whitewash the completed "investigations" were, and what obvious questions need answers.

"Who says it's cut?"

We'll, for one, I do. You see the slag on that piece? of course it was cut. But I don't know who cut it, or why... one thought I tried to reckon with was, could it have been cut for debris removal after the collapse? But my experience with cutting steel says no way someone would cut it on an angle like that, making for a much longer cut than a straight cross-cut. And then, even if some reason to cut it at an angle existed that I can't imagine, why would someone cut it so high - it's clearly at least as tall as that fireman from the nearest thing that might be available to stand on (and that's if you can even envision standing in that mess).... so, I think you have to eliminate the cut afterwards notion....

That leaves either:

1- Cut before construction, and assembled with the cut in place.

or

2- Cut during collapse

My thoughts for 1- are: When steel is cut for construction uses, no one leaves the slag behind. Slag promotes corrosion. There is clearly slag (residue from melted steel) all over that cut.

[UpperDeck]

Do you?

I don't know the point of your post, Chock, but my intent was to attempt to contribute to the discussion that preceded and then followed Hadji's characterization of Chomsky as an anti-semite.

I didn't follow up because the subject was a diversion from the main thrust of the thread.

Perhaps another day and another thread.

[chockalicious]

I don't know the point of your post, Chock, but my intent was to attempt to contribute to the discussion that preceded and then followed Hadji's characterization of Chomsky as an anti-semite.

I didn't follow up because the subject was a diversion from the main thrust of the thread.

Perhaps another day and another thread.

You asked the question so I thought it was fair to ask what your thoughts were on it.

[UpperDeck]

But if I ask the question, why not answer or decline to respond rather than throw the question back?

If I asked; "What do you think of the flight characteristics of a 330 compared to a 321" would you answer; "What do you think?"

Anyway---back to conspiracy theories. By the way....you weren't conspiring against me, were you?

[chockalicious]

But if I ask the question, why not answer or decline to respond rather than throw the question back?

If I asked; "What do you think of the flight characteristics of a 330 compared to a 321" would you answer; "What do you think?"

Anyway---back to conspiracy theories. By the way....you weren't conspiring against me, were you?

It was a prevocative question, not a simple yes or no

If you do not have the courage of your convictions to state what you think instead of throwing it out there "as an intellectual exercise" then maybe you should re-evaluate why you are asking.

[UpperDeck]

Did someone mess with your cereal this morning or are you always this "aggressive"?

I don't procrastinate nor prevaricate and I try to avoid "prevocation" too!!

[UpperDeck]

........ Would Haiti be in such a mess if the US had not propped up the Duvalier regime? Would Iran be different if the US had not overthrown the government and installed and supported the Shah?

.........

Can't help myself sometimes, Chock.

Did you think these questions were provocative or were they rhetorical?

pro⋅voc⋅a⋅tive

  /prəˈvɒkətɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-vok-uh-tiv] Show IPA

–adjective

1. tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating, irritating, or vexing.

I'm guessing that you were just trying to stimulate conversation but then I tend to think the best of others.

[Moon The Loon]

Thanks Malcolm. I'll spend some time looking at this whole thing all over again.

In deferrence to Mitch, of course

[chockalicious]

Can't help myself sometimes, Chock.

Did you think these questions were provocative or were they rhetorical?

pro⋅voc⋅a⋅tive

  /prəˈvɒkətɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-vok-uh-tiv] Show IPA

–adjective

1. tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating, irritating, or vexing.

I'm guessing that you were just trying to stimulate conversation but then I tend to think the best of others.

These questions are rhetorical, sorry yours were not. I also framed my questions in the context of other opinion.

I simply asked your thoughts on it. You seem to be the one who has a problem answering when responded to and seem to want to start a bun fight. There was nothing aggressive about asking your thoughts when you posed a question. No worries if you are afraid or unable to answer.

[UpperDeck]

Chock, old boy. Give it a rest!

This is a thread about the 9/11 destruction of the towers. It was presumably not started to enable you to start tugging on someone's pant leg.

Picture at this point a man shaking his right leg (think of Peter Sellers) trying to dislodge some small dog of questionable parentage who has taken hold of his trouser.

Chock--if you really and truthfully want to discuss how the epithet "anti-semite" is often used as a means to suppress comment, feel free to start a new thread or, if you'd prefer to keep such a discussion private, send me a PM.

Otherwise---give it a rest!

[chockalicious]

I never thought a 2 word question could send someone into such a tizzy.

[Canus Chinookus]

This thread gives me the urge to start a Creationism vs Evolution thread. Any takers?

[Don Hudson]

Mitch;

Let me preface this by stating that I understand that you are "asking the question" and not positing or claiming the theory. It is always in this spirit that I offer any thoughts.

I've posted the statement many times, that "One will see what one believes." For this reason alone, eye or ear witnesses are notoriously unreliable. The drive to maintain cognitive consistency in our world view makes conspiracy theories possible. Most are harmless and reside at the margins of society but some provide for other psychological needs.

Asking questions does not validate or invalidate the notions queried as we know. It merely states that someone is asking questions. I know you know this as do most here.

I think the place to examine any such idea that the United States government intentionally or through ommision of action brought down the WTC's and either arranged or made the way clear, (sufficiently for such a complex plan to come together), for the concurrent hi-jacking of four US airliners, is not at "Ground Zero" but in Washington.

Cut steel is no reason to suspect a thing. First of all, we don't know what part of the structure this was, from primary support to left-over manufacturing jig. We don't know if there were other, similar structures, either nearby in a cluster or in "strategic" locations throughout the foundational structure. Are there any photos of similar remains elsewhere in the building?

To me the largest question to ask regarding this cited "evidence for questioning" is, this "structure", whatever it is, is at ground level. Both buildings failed at, and began to fall vertically from the point of entry of the aircraft. There is no evidence that the structure failed lower down. There are no civilian or firefighter/police reports of sounds of explosions similar to the kind one sees in typical demolitions. Surely you're not suggesting that "the foundations were sawn through to weaken the structure which the airplanes finished off", are you? The way the buildings failed indicates otherwise.

WTC 1 (North Tower) was bombed in 1993, causing severe damage yet did not fall. Any work which would weaken the structure would take time and would not go unnoticed.

Also, no one has mentioned the conspiracy theories that cropped up around the 1993 bombing. While absence of evidence is not in itself "evidence", the theories never amounted to anything.

I think any suggestion of conspiracy within the United States would require serious research into many questions which haven't even been asked on this thread yet including the one asked at the top of this post about arranging the hijacking of the airplanes. Some claime the aircraft that hit the Pentagon wasn't an AA B757, but they havent posited any theories about where that airplane went or what happened to it. At the very least, every controller within the designated airspace would have either have seen something amiss (raw airplane target headed out to sea, transponder tag turned off at some point) or would have to have been in on the conspiracy.

No matter how one tries, one cannot jam two facts together to establish an unblemished theory of US conspiracy to bring down the WTC's -that the buildings were first "mined and weakened over time, in preparation", and two airplanes were arranged to hit them to finish the work by operatives facilitated by at least some sections of the US government. That, and secrecy so tight that no one yet has been able to point to a shred of direct evidence of what would have to be a massive, time-intensive effort, is what conspiracy theorists are attempting to have us believe. We know that it is trivial to state that just because it is possible does not to prove it but even more damning is the complete absence of solid evidence, not from the wreckage of the WTCs but from what would be signficant anecdotal or even documentary evidence (email, etc) of such "an arrangement".

I think conspiracy theory to bring down the WTCs belongs in the Roswell box along with the second shooter theory and the notion that Hollywood did the moon landing. It's all exciting stuff for millions to chew on who live in an otherwise very tough and sometimes dreary world.

Let us suppose for a moment that it did happen as the conspiracy people believe. I think the most important question to ask about this is, "So what?"

What if Timothy McVeigh was a "CIA Operative"? The US population hate government so perhaps to sow discontent and suspicion, the CIA, for reasons of its own, (power, ambition, political advantage) trained McVeigh. Montana is ripe with such theories I'm sure - I've spent time there and in some valleys south of Helena, there are some "interesting" places and people, (with the sounds of AK-47's echoing through the pine and cottonwood - I've heard them).

Let us say they are guilty as charged by the conspiracy theorists. So what? What then? Is the world going to act? Is the world court or any US court going to act? Will the American people? Or are they "comfortably numb" when it comes time to address the real, serious conspiracy of which they are always accusing their government?

What would it mean if the innermost administration were actually capable of such atrocities that they would enact plans to make an invasion of Iraq far more plausible to the American people? We already know that successive administrations have done this for decades around the world to aligned and non-aligned nations alike. If it weren't for the fact that the US refused to acknowledge the World Court, Henry Kissinger would be a war criminal, according to some and perhaps according to the record in Cambodia.

The US is either directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions around the world in countless invasions and proxy wars with US-trained troops. US interests around the world are prosecuted and defended with vigour, the goal being political "influence" with the intent to create and sustain a "stable", profitable investment environment for US business interests no matter who it hurts.

I think it is worth asking in the face of this, do we really think that anyone is going to be able to prove to the point of serious charge let alone final indictment, that Washington "conspired" to crash airplanes into the WTCs and the Pentagon and who knows what other target before the aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania? As Madeline Albright said publicly on television of the millions of deaths in Iraq, (mainly children) caused by US sanctions, "we think that the price was worth it". She of course "regrets" saying it, but she didn't apologize, deny or retract the statement because the US' actions haven't gone down the memory hole, yet. Such obvious cases of interference in other nations' affairs to the point of murder are not even be discussed let alone prosecuted.

If one spends enough time reading in the thoughtful and well-researched literature including Chomsky's one gains a tiny sliver of a sense of how things are done, and little is done behind closed doors or out of the reach of the media. In fact, it is the tragic arrogance of public announcements making such policy actions clear that heightens the real tragedy of US foreign policy decisions and which, even if the conspiracy theory were true, would dwarf any such direct decision and action to bring down the WTCs.

These are examinable charges of course, but they remain largely unexamined, likely out of patriotism and nationalism, the same forces which suppress the publication of books which disagree with the state, (Washington) and put protesters in jail, (today they just water-cannon them). It is Ed Bernay's version of "1984". The historical record is not hidden but is available to anyone with a library card and a willingness to spend a bit of time.

[DEFCON]

Don

I enjoy the debate, but don’t have time to respond to your points fully at the moment.

There is however one paragraph I would like to comment on.

“There are no civilian or firefighter/police reports of sounds of explosions similar to the kind one sees in typical demolitions.”

I believe firemen located in the lobby of one of the towers just prior to collapse reported explosions?

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON;

I believe firemen located in the lobby of one of the towers just prior to collapse reported explosions?

Okay, I'll take a look at what I have. I'll try to find time to re-view the film, "9/11" as well - there's film taken in the lobby as the firefighters were working.

The debate is both enjoyable and tough. It is so easy to be seen as slipping into "anti-Americanism" (as defined by others), but there is such an abiding unwillingness to examine the world through other than American eyes that any such criticism is almost taken personally or offensive to patriots, rather than as a criticism of an extremely polyvalent nation with a rich history of contribution to the welfare of humanty.

Criticism of US foreign policy and actions is always confused with the vague notion that it signals a "dislike" of the United States for even vaguer reasons. This is the primary thesis of the Policy Review article which I referenced in another post. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the US although those who resist such statements will say so at every opportunity. It has everything to do with examining the standards (in areas of human rights, acts of aggression, the notion of "terrorism", etc), that the US sets for others but are violated by themselves but never acknlowledged because it is accepted as legitimate "statesmanship" in world politics.

Some may perceive the need for "balance" against such comments but that is partly what drives such commentary in the first place - the unwillingness to examine what Washington does in the name of "democracy" - there is certainly a need for balance but not in the way normally envisioned.

[DEFCON]

Don

I don't blame the 'US Government' proper. If anything, I think individuals and 'groups' are capable of some very nasty things when left to their own corruptions.

As you've said, what would we do with the truth anyway? This is the disheartening reality of the present time!

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Don,

I hate to say this but I just got in and found your post now, and I have a slew of things I need to get done, so I don't have the time to reply in kind either....

However, Defcon is right. There were many witnesses, policemen and firefighters, as well as others (at least one who got physically thrown by the blast) who say there were definitely explosions in the basement....

There is seismic data that recorded the collapses as well as pre-collapse ?something?

I think those who continue to just phoo-phoo it all haven't bothered seeing what people have been asking, and why.... (And I'm pretty sure Chomsky is in that group. )

What would we do with the answers? Well, obviously here in Canada we can't do much at all.... But those in the US should prosecute those responsible, whoever they are! Even if that will never happen, at least they'll know the truth. I think truth is worth finding.