Matt,

As an engineer I know this.

When the twin towers collapsed they created unusual seismic loads on the surrounding buildings that they were not designed to resist. That may have caused the fire protection foam covering on the steel skeleton of #7 to crack and come off of some of the supporting structure so the fire could weaken them further. It only takes the loss of a few critical columns to bring down a building.

I do not know if that happened or not but I can see where it very well could have.

I agree Major. In the documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," structural engineers discussed the failure of fire-resistant insulation on the columns.

Wayne

I do know from over 34 years in engineering and a few more in construction that it is almost always the simplest of reasons that cause things to fail. Because of that I have a real hard time falling for any of the many conspiracy theories out there. They are all just way to complicated to be believable.

Not all civil engineers are in agreement with you or the documentary you refer to.

As for the collapsing towers creating seismic loads which caused fire protection foam covering the steel skeleton of Bldg. 7 to crack and come off of the precise critical support columns so the fire could weaken them ALL AT ONCE in order to cause the building to collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed... since there is absolutely NO credible evidence to prove THAT happening, can we also add it to the pile of CRACKPOT 9-11 theories floating around on the internet?

I don't know if you could call it crackpot but it is certainly more plausible than a secret right wing conspiracy to demolish a building that just happened to coincide with 2 jets crashing into adjoining buildings. As I said you can't set up a controlled demolition in 2 or 3 hours even if you had the materials on site and the opportunity to do it unobserved. As far as other engineers opinion, the code of ethics prevents me from criticizing their work(if they actually examined the building)without a carefull review of their raw calculations.That is not to imply agreement with them.

Wayne, I do not subscribe to Tarpley's particular 9/11 theory. As I previously stated, I don't particularly like the guy either. However, that being said, his background information on international terrorists events and the very curious connections with banking and corporate interests from around the world are very well documented and do help set the stage for what was going on internationally that led up to the 9/11 attack. Don't fault me for reading a book please, nor should you assume that just because I read a book, I happen to agree with everything the author says. I'm not that stupid. Besides, I didn't think Tarpley's book would interest you, which is why I suggested that you read Michael Rupperts' book which ties in peak oil interests to the 9/11 events. It's a very interesting take on things.

And with all due respect to the engineers on this forum, may I at least state what some of the problems are with the pancake down theory? It is not, of course, that it couldn't happen from an engineering point of view; it is that the theory does not seem to fit the real world events.

• The fires were contained in the upper stories near where the planes hit and directly before the explosions began, the fire marshals within the building thought the fire was controllable.
• The first explosion did not happen where the fires were; several firefighters and security personnel heard and felt the first explosions coming from the basement and they were in the basement when they heard and felt these things. The floor of the basement was moving, and that was where the first explosion was reported. It literally "rocked" the floor of the basement, and there was no fire in the basement. The pancake down theory does not fit the events as they occurred.
• There was no way the fire could have traveled down the elevator shaft to the basement level because the building was designed so that the elevator shafts would seal in the event of a fire. All reports indicate the elevator shafts sealed just as they were designed to do.
• The stairwell beneath the major impact area was not on fire because the firefighters were using it to evacuate people from the building. The fire did not go down the lower floor stairwells either. The fire was contained to the floors nearest where the planes impacted.
• The series of explosions and bright flashes witnessed by hundreds of firefighters were not the result fire in the area where they occurred. The steel beams, according to the witnesses, were not collapsing nor even buckling at the time that the explosions occurred and were witnessed by firefighters within the building. The explosions occurred first, then and only then did the building begin to pancake down.
• In the course of modern history, many high-rise towers have burned to the ground, and several others have been bombed by terrorists. In no other known event in history, regardless of natural gas or explosives, has steel been known to glow red and smolder for weeks on end as it did in the 9/11 related events at the World Trade Center.
• In the weeks preceding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided the perfect cover for persons planting explosives.


I do not subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory about the 9/11 attacks, nor have I ever claimed to have all the answers. What I and millions of other people world-wide have is some very reasonable questions, and so far, the government has patently refused to answer those questions to the satisfaction of all concerned. The official 9/11 Commission Report is so flawed by both error and omission, that few intelligent people can accept it as the truth.

I repeat, I do not subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory. What I do subscribe to is the 9/11 Truth Movement that asks for a release of all government held documentation of the events and an impartial review by qualified non-government experts in their field.

I don't think that is too much to ask for.

My apologies Major; I said I wouldn't talk about 9/11 on this particular thread again. But since you went ahead and talked about it again, I figured you wouldn't mind.

Well said Katie! Just because one does not accept the official explanation of events does not mean that person is a proponent of all other alternate theories. As author and self-proclaimed 9/11 conspiracy skeptic Ernest Partridge writes:

quote:

Third: there is no shame in suspending belief -- i.e., in being skeptical. Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence. Acceptance of the official version, or conversely of the conspiracy theory, are not our only alternatives. Both views are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions unanswered. Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world that we simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a conspicuously American trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of honest scholars and scientists. And it is spur to further investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this case.

Well I imagine the impact of a multiengine jet traveling of speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour just might rupture the seals on elevator shafts as well as knocking several columns out of alignment opening channels for jet fuel to pour down . Building are full of natural channels like electrical conduits, ventilation shafts, pipes, gaslines ect. It could also cause high voltage electrical shorts, maybe transformers blowing. Face it though a lot of questions will never be answered nor can they be answered. For every question there are multiple potential answers that at least partial fit the circumstances.

One last thing to remember Osama was a trained engineer who ran a major construction company. He is quite capable of coming up with such a plan and financing it out of pocket change.

quote:

Face it though a lot of questions will never be answered nor can they be answered.

Quite true, and I think on that point we can all agree. Deliberate obfuscation by "official" sources, however, begs a whole 'nother set of questions.

Gulfcoast, I cannot answer all of your objections except to say that while of course, all these things were indeed possible, they were not witnessed nor reported by the trained firefighters and the fire engineers in the building, many of whom were obviously trained to look for those things. That's one of the reasons firefighters and security people were in the basement. They were looking for evidence that the fire had spread through the various ducts etc. to the floors below and didn't find any. In my view, the engineers really need to talk to the firefighters and personel that were in the building. Everybody is aware of the engineers' pancake theory. All firefighters know fires can spread through shafts. But that is not what happened, and that's what makes the eye-witness accounts of the trained firefighters so terribly important.

And no, I hate to tell you this but Osama bin Laden was not a trained engineer who ran a major construction company. That was his brother, Salem bin Laden, who was killed in a plane crash on May 29th, 1988. Osama was the dude the CIA trained as a terrorist starting about 1979 to fight the Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan. Honest. That's a fact.

quote:

"All I can say is every conspiracy theory I have ever heard is just too complex to be believed let alone actually be carried out. Complex plans just don’t happen in real life. There are just too many things that will mess up a complex plan. And if something can go wrong it will."

Wow Major, I really have to disagree with this statement. All conspiracy theories aside, those planes had to go through the most protected airspace over America. The FAA, the National Military Command Center (NMCC), not to mention NORAD all had systems in place designed to prevent such an attack, and ALL systems simultaneously failed on 9/11. Personally, I don't think that qualifies as "simple." The interceptor jets always immediately rush to escort any plane, even small civilian aircraft that get lost and fly into the no fly zones around Washington DC. A full thirty minutes after it had become obvious to the FAA that four jets were flying off course and were presumably hijacked, there were still no interceptor aircraft deployed. In the case of Flight 77 which reportedly slammed into the Pentagon, a full hour and forty-five minutes elapsed with no interception. Missile batteries designed to protect Washington DC failed to stop the strike on the Pentagon, one of the most protected structures in the world!

Are you telling me this was "simple" to do? I don't think so. I think in order for that to happen one of the most sophisticated and complex plans in known history had to be pulled off. There is absolutely nothing about what happened on that day that could possibly qualify as "simple." And in my opinion, military and intelligence insiders absolutely had to be in on the deal, because if they weren't, then America qualifies as one of the least protected nations in the world, and from the looks of our military budget, I just can't buy that.

I don't necessarily believe that the official government powers that be sanctioned the operation, but I do absolutely believe that in order for these events to have happened, the intelligence community had to have been highly compromised.

After all Major, you know as well as I do that nobody, but nobody has even attempted to "clean house" in the CIA since the Church Committee hearings way back in the mid seventies. You can ask any woman alive (including your wife) and we'll all tell you the same thing. "You have to clean house now and then, or the dirt piles up." And I'm afraid nobody has cleaned house in the intelligence community for a very, very long time…

I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I sure have a hell of a lot of questions.

Major, have you actually looked at any of the recent documentation of events that happened on that day? Or are you just assuming that it is all "crackpot theory" without even looking at what the best information is to date?

For starters, the known facts are…

• Sometime between 7:45 and 8:10 am American Airlines flight 11, and United Airlines flight 175 were hijacked.
• By 8:15 am, air traffic controllers knew they were obviously off course
• During the same time frame American Flight 77, a Boeing 757,took off from Dulles International airport, and United Flight 93, another 757, from Newark airport at 8:42 am after a long delay.
• At about 8:40 am, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NADS) of NORAD was alerted to the hijacking of flight 11 and 175 by FAA
• According to a NORAD statement, two F-15 jet fighters were scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base
• By 8:45 am, it was known to FAA that four airliners had been hijacked
• At 8: 46 am flight 11 struck the north face of the north tower.
• By 8:47 am air traffic controllers could see that flight 77 had reversed course somewhere over West Virginia and was headed back to the East
Coast
• At 9:03 am United Flight 175 careened into the South Tower, the F16s were still seventy one miles away
• 9:10 am the scrambled jets arrive over NYC, seven minutes too late
• At 9:32 am Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
• At 10:06 am Flight 93 hit the ground in Pennsylvania

According to a Washington Post Article dated 6-21-04 "The Andrews alert jets were routinely launched to escort out-of-communications aircraft straying toward DC NO FLY ZONES. On Sept. 11, existing doctrine says they should have been launched immediately and a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) placed over the capitol at least an hour earlier. Except Rumsfeld had changed the rules for notifying and scrambling fighters two months before."
http://www.rense.com/general54/ccover.htm

Hmmmm. The Washington Post "crackpots and detractors" also seem to think that no fly zones have been in place over Washington DC and the Pentagon long before the 9/11 attacks.

Major, may I suggest you read the above article to start with, and then begin to do some real research? If you blindly wish to accept only the official version or the media spin while ignoring all the other facts that have been brought to light by people working around the clock on it since 9-11, that is your prerogative. However, a great deal of testimony from officials, from firefighters and from eyewitness accounts has come forward since the official report, and it's all important information to know before you make up your mind. These people are not "detractors;" they are people intent upon getting at the truth. You seem to be making no distinction what-so-ever between valid official and eyewitness reports and real and plausible research from the lunatic fringe, and frankly, that really bothers me. Searching for truth isn't something you need to be afraid of.

You're a smart guy; and you can discern the crackpot theories from the real thing. My rule of thumb is simple. If a group is telling you absolutely that such and such a thing happened when there is no reliable documentation for it, stay away. But when a group is presenting documented evidence and then ASKING QUESTIONS rather than presenting ludicrous theories as "fact;" that group is probably worth taking a look at.

You might even think about keeping a 9-11 file on your hard drive, (that's what I do anyway) and when you run across material that you think looks reliable, copy it to the file, and always try to include their sources. You can look up those sources fairly easily. Furthermore, when you start keeping a file that way, you will often find that similar information or eyewitness accounts are being given by totally different people about the same particular detail or event, and that leads credence to their account. After a while you'll find out that your view of what really happened on that day begins to change. As you gather information and review, delete anything from the file that simply doesn't mesh with the known accumulation of the facts.

quote:

"Missile batteries designed to protect Washington DC were not deployed to stop the strike on the Pentagon until after 9/11. In fact our Constitution prohibits a strong military deploying on our own lands except in times of war and only with a declaration of war from Congress."

Andrews Air Force base is just 12 miles away from the Pentagon and the capital. They could have had anti-aircraft missiles in the air immediately had the rules not "coincidentally" been changed. No one even bothered to alert them. By the way, the constitution has not stopped either the military or the CIA from doing what it wants to do for years and years. Regardless of what our Constitution says, any nation has a right to defend itself from attack. The FAA knew the planes had been hijacked for a full 30 minutes before the first tower was hit. And our helpless little military couldn't stop them?

Are you even aware that the military was engaged in five to six separate "war game" exercises on that day, (it's documented) and that those exercises are thought to have contributed greatly to the confusion of that morning? Little or no mention of these exercises by either the major media or the 9/11 Commission has been made. You need to read about it. Wiki is always a good place to start…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001 A good many of us do not think it mere coincidence that these war games "just happened" to be taking place on the day of the attack.

Do you know any of the technical reasons why so many people are suspecting that explosives had been set? Have you read any of the research done by research physicist Jim Hoffman? http://911research.wtc7.net/ http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html

Or how about the research of Professor Steven E. Jones, Dept. of Physics at Brigham Young University? http://scholarsfor911truth.org/ Anybody subscribing to the "pancake down" theory for the building collapses should look at both Hoffmans' and Jones' research. You just might change your mind.

These are not "detractors" or "crackpots", but extremely well-qualified and intelligent people who have looked at the "official" story and determined that it simply doesn't answer the questions nor fit the known facts.

Please, don't "Katie, Katie, Katie" me until you've really done the research.

Not much time tonight, (worked late, shoveled deep snow from driveway, walk and roof.)

I think Michael Ruppert is the type that has a suspect in mind first and develops his "case" around him. You may find his "research" complete and convincing, but is it really any more than a rehashing of his website stuff?

From a speech he made in 2004, talking about his upcoming book: (I apologize for the all-caps text. I cut it from the transcript and that's how it was formatted.)

IN MY BOOK I WILL MAKE SEVERAL KEY POINTS:

1. I WILL NAME RICHARD CHENEY AS THE PRIME SUSPECT IN THE MASS MURDERS OF 9/11 AND WILL ESTABLISH THAT, NOT ONLY WAS HE A
PLANNER IN THE ATTACKS, BUT ALSO THAT ON THE DAY OF THE ATTACKS HE WAS RUNNING A COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WHICH WAS SUPERCEDING ANY ORDERS BEING ISSUED BY THE NMCC, OR THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM. TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END HE RELIED ON A REDUNDANT AND SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM MAINTAINED BY THE US SECRET SERVICE IN OR NEAR THE PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER – THE BUNKER TO WHICH HE AND 33 NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE WERE REPORTEDLY “RUSHED” AFTER FLIGHT 175 STRUCK THE WTC’S SOUTH TOWER. I WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE POSSESSED RADAR SCREENS WHICH GAVE THEM, AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHOSE SIDE THE NEVER LEFT, WITH REAL-TIME INFORMATION AS GOOD AS OR BETTER THAN THAT AVAILABLE TO THE PENTAGON;

You can get the complete text online at his own website in PDF format. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

As much as I may not care for the Vice-President, do I believe he is responsible for thousands of American deaths on 9/11. I do not. First, I believe that in the short time the current administration was in office at the time of the attacks, they probably did not have the time for the planning and execution of such an attack, even in the unlikely event they were so inclined.

Secondly, given that nearly every person that leaves the administration writes a book or hits the Sunday news programs to discuss the failures or imcompetance they witnessed, I don't believe that the Vice-President could develop the fanatical loyalty of the massive number of people required to carry out an operation like that (if they were so inclined) and keep quiet about it.

Thirdly, I just don't think they are that clever, even if they were so inclined. They couldn't even leak Valerie Plame Wilson's name without all fingers pointing back at them.

And it goes without saying that even though there is much a lot of us find to dislike about the man, building such a case requires evidence, not just an intense hatred of the man, or the administration or perhaps our government in general.

So again, no, I didn't read his book. I heard his speech and wasn't impressed.

Wayne

And without going back to look for names in previous posts, I believe there is the occasional engineer who poses his theory of controlled demolition (as in some unnamed person or persons with unexplained motives had the time and opportunity to rig explosives in those buildings.)

So just because a person who presents himself as an engineer and presents his "case" employing convincing technical jargon, does that make his analysis valid? I studied engineerig principles in pursuit of an architectural degree and his hypothesis doesnt convince me one way or the other. Perhaps others here have had the opportunity to analyze the data that I assume he used in forming his hypothesis and reached the same conclusion but I don't have the time and probably not the skills required.

So just because an engineer posts an opinion contrary to the popularly held one, does that make it valid or relegate the popular one to the crack-pot consiracy bin also? No. I see the odd hold-out scientist that still posts articles full of convincing technical jargon attempting to debunk global warming. I no more understand his jargon than I do that of the overwhelming number of scientists that recognize global waming as the threat it is.

I look at the standing a theory has in the court of peer reviews. Like global warming, the idea that Dick Cheney or anyone else rigged the Trade Center with explosives in a controlled demolition has scant support in engineering circles.

I doubt the vast majority of engineers that I've read about or talked to personally are in denial, wrong, brainwashed or, as Conspiracy Guru Tarpley would say, are all in the pay of the Ford Foundation.

Look for more than the "what" of an event. Look for the "who, the "how, and the "why" also. The few engineers that propose the controlled demolition conspiracy offer pretty meager suggestions concerning motives, perpetrators, etc. I suppose they leave it to the likes of Ruppert to name the villians.

So no, I don't think every consiracy theory gets equal footing with the prevailing ideas. I'm not Fox News where even made up facts demand to be afforded a "fair and balanced" treatment. We as well take a critical look at the space alien invasion theory or that idiot preacher that declared 911 was the hand of God striking at America for treating homosexuals as people.

Wayne