The Popular Mechanics article which is mentioned in a comment posted to a duplicate of this article, does mention WTC 7, but it doesn't not provide an adequate explanation for WTC 7 failing.

It mentions the official NIST report, which is only a draft and they must realise that saying that the failure of 3 out of 24 columns leading to a free fall collapse in the style of a pack of cards is not credible so they have gone out to tender to private contractors to see if anyone else can come up with a good reason for the building coming down. Of course the conclusion, "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition." cannot be questioned...

Lizard obsessive David Ike.

Former MI5 scumbag David Shayler.

and now hopeless drug addict Charlie Sheen.

Who will be boasting the credibility of you conspriracys next I wonder?? Ian Huntley? Larry O'Hara? The Monster raving loony party?

Endless pots of money to give away free books and DVDs. A useful diversion from the horrors of the war on terror and the undisputed lies told about WMD. Whose purpose is really being served by the conspiracys?? Now theres a theory.....

"Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures..."

Credible? Is he a structural engineer then? Or an architect? What makes him 'credible' in this context?

Also, a previous commenter wrote "Small fires do not cause steel frame buildings of this nature fail in this manner."

No, you're right. Bloody huge planes hitting them at high speed might though. The planes were also loaded with highly combustible fuel that would have burned at high temperatures, enough for the steel to lose structural integrity. So I'm told by an architect anyway. That's a more credible source than Charlie Sheen in my book.

sceptical - but nobody saw a plane hit WTC 7 and nobody is claiming that a plane hit WTC 7 so your response makes no sense. Oh and I'm an architect also... Why don't you ask your architect friend to read this document and see what they think after they have...

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

.....was hit by a plane, burned for over ten hours, 14 floors destroyed, and yet it stands there still today.

Only three skyscrapers in history have collapsed because of fire, WTC1, WTC2, WTC7.

Jet fuel and office furnishings don't burn at high temperatures (yes they get hot but not hot enough to melt steel), but molten steel was found in the basements of all 3 buildings weeks later -- something happened that was hot enough to melt and vaporise steel...

Did anyone ever see a steel or iron stove melt or bend a bit when in use...? Or perhaps a car melt when the engine is turned on...?

Hi, I work as a structural engineer in the UK and before you ask, yes of course, I am a member of MI6, the CIA and the FBI / Mossad / Illuminati. Now we've got that clear, perhaps I can express an opinion?

Which is that I've watched the films and studied the various articles on the internet and in books and magazines carefully. First of all, I am not at all convinced by the demolition theory. The problem with that is that an equally good theory of cascading floor collapse fits the evidence well. Secondly the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. But steel bends and decomposes to the point of criticality at much lower temperatures, and at those temps the concrete surrounding 70's and 80's style composite structures easily collapses. Thirdly the seismic evidence is generally faked by the conspiracy sites. To prove this to myself objectively, I asked for original data to be sent to me from the Hawaii University academics who run the seismic institute there. BTW they are a hotbed of leftwing politics in case you think the CIA run them. The data are totally compatible with a sequence of events in which the planes hit and then gradually the buildings collapes. Finally the GT7 building was immersed in fire and falling debris for some considerable time and it's hard for any building to stand up to that.

Now it may well be the case that there were badly built sections in those buildings, in fact the insurance payouts which were reduced on account of poor construction tend to suggest that this was the case. Also those buildings were built in New York with it's bent mafiosi-run construction unions where any large structure is as suspect as those in Sicily are.

And then the Pentagon. They always show that dinky little hole in the conspiracy pages. But when you see the real thing, it's a massive gap in the structure surrounded by a debris field about the size of several football pitches.

I have come to the conclusion that people can't bear to look at the real conspiracy, which seems to involve Arab fundamentalists and Saudi / US fueding over oil and money, and so look instead to some sort of bizarre Bush-run thing. All this from a man who appears to hardly know which day of the week it is.

So do read on, but if you accept this from an actor, I would at least suggest reading a little wider and questioning a little more.

"and now hopeless drug addict Charlie Sheen"

Too right, as someone who can't afford cocaine I think the political opinions of coke fueled idiots like Sheen should be ignored. It's best to cut him down to size before he runs for political office and really lands us in trouble with his paranoid fantasies.

 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,490,000 for bush cocaine. (0.19 seconds)

Let me get this right.

Osama Bin Laden, in his cave, and Khalid Mohammed (wherever he was) are expertise in aeroplane technology, jet fuel and tall buildings. They also have the necessary plans of the twin towers. They use their expertise to work out that if they smash the buildings with planes, they all fall down. (I guess they didn't work out that it would look like a controlled demolition.) Thus, thousands of people would die, perhaps even 20,000.

On the other hand, local officials, building control workers, firemen, police and the building owner were all clueless about the fact that flying planes in the towers would bring them down. Therefore, when the first plane smashed into the tower, there was not a general evacuation of the area because local officials were clueless. And they sent hundreds of firemen to the towers and got them killed because local officials were clueless. Hardly surprising, perhaps, because the architect who designed the building had told everyone that the towers had been designed to withstand a plane hit. He was obviously clueless as well.

So, Bin Laden and Mohammed are pretty clever. In fact, they are geniuses. Because they worked out in their cave that those local officials were stupid and that thousands would die.

Of course, it could be that they didn't intend for the buildings to collapse. They never really planned to kill thousands. They carried out all of their planning and practising, convinced 19 people to kill themselves and others, and whatever else have you, only to kill a couple hundred. Yes, they are responsible for thousands dead, but they didn't mean it. They are not that bad. They don't want to dirty nuke America. They don't want to kill thousands. There doesn't need to be a war on terror. There doesn't need to be a Homeland Security or exercises about nuclear terrorism and endless catastrophe warnings.

Now, of course, I'll be honest, I don't believe any of it. The idea that Bin Laden knew more about the buildings than the people who made it is RIDICULOUS. The idea that WTC 7 fell down of its own accord (or whatever the back of an envelope idea is) is RIDICULOUS. Is anyone honestly saying that Bin Laden worked out that the burning jet fuel wouldn't melt the steel just bend it a lot and bring down the towers? Because if there are people who do, they must be having us on.

insidejob

The "Paul Mitchell" post is a classic piece of OLD SCHOOL Black Propaganda, so ancient in technique that properly speaking, should really be in a museum. It's amusing quaint structure is worth some comment though.

Firstly, notice the New Reich piece is actually signed with a FULL name. This is a very important detail, for we are in the 'common man' territory here. The target for this psy-ops is strictly those with either LITTLE detail of the analysis post 911 that clearly shows that everything his New Reich said about the event was a lie, or those humans who DO read more widely, but basically are ONLY influenced by the last voice/words they have experienced (a short term memory phenomenon common with non-academic types).

the BLACK PROPAGANDA flags

-the claim to be a person with relevant academic skills, linked with an immediate "I am not an agent of the state" claim.
-the claim to have watched (on YOUR behalf) all the analysis post 911 that proves the official story a lie.
-the claim that the one detail that NEEDS to be correct, pancaking collapse due to aircraft collision at free fall speed, has a scientific basis behind it (it does not, and NO-ONE has offered ANY real evidence to show how such a theory could work).
-the claim by the author (and this is where the propaganda is laughable, but effective to the right target group) the HE PERSONALLY researched relevant facts.
-the claim that build WTC7 could have collapsed in a normal controlled explosive demolition way, through the consequence of its know circumstances (no US government agency offers evidence for this moronic claim- choosing instead to allow this event to remain a mystery)
-the LIE that insurance pay-outs were reduced for faulty building work (the only significant insurance reduction was because the owner of the WTC site claimed for 2 terrorists attacks, in an attempt to double his money).
-the suggestion that the state within the country with the MOST rigourous building codes in the world, actually has POOR building codes that would lead to the expectation of common skyscraper collapse.
-a lack of focus on ALL the extraordinary events that involved the events at the pentagon, including the extraordinary and ludicrously impossible flightpath claimed for a completely inexperienced pilot, in his attempt to hit the ONLY safe disposable part of the structure.
-a careful avoidance of Blair's common language when instead saying "Arab fundamentalists and Saudi / US fueding" to give the impression of non-alignment
-the signing of the piece with a full name (a method to give authority to the comment, when read by the right kind of sheep- and completely wrong in technique for the audience found here).

FEEL PROUD indymedia, someone thought the 911 post worthy of a full-blown OFFICIAL STATE PRODUCED psy-ops. Why is it that I get the impression that in one of those buildings of New Reich enterprise, some sad loser thought it time to give the office juniors a lesson in just how a black propaganda piece should be written.

(To the author) Take my advice, Grandad, those cocky whippersnappers with their new fangled psy-ops methods run circles around your prehistoric old-school "Paul Mitchell" posting. Your methods may have been great, back in the day when they were used to grow public support for the National Front (at the time of Thatcher's rise to power), but we are long past that time. Worse, is the idea that THIS location was a good place for this particular psy-op. First rule of propaganda, select the right method for the right audience.

Paul with regard to WTC 7 you all you have said is "Finally the GT7 building was immersed in fire and falling debris for some considerable time and it's hard for any building to stand up to that"...

Some considerable time -- around an hour...

Did any of the 9 story buildings adjacient to WTC 1 and 2 fall down because of things that landed on them?

Which other steel framed sky scrapers have dropped at near free fall speed after being "immersed in fire"? (though of course there were only small fires in WTC 7)....

Oh dear, I'd rather hoped that we'd seen the last of this for a while. The same mix of half truths and straightforward suspension of critical faculties which so belies the 911 denial movement. All we need is Gerald Holmgren and the Webfairy to hove into view with a series of poorly argued personal attacks and we've got the full set.

See, by way of example, the bundle of joy at:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332076.html?c=on#c140689

I especially like the bit where Gerry claims that the head man at Arup knows nothing about tall buildings.

And lets look at some of the little gems we find in the latest posts:

* Osama Bin Laden, in his cave * That's right. Lets forget about the fact he's a multimillionaire, university educated, and so on. He's just an Arab! What does he know?!

Did it occur to you that maybe he didn't reckon on it collpasing, that it was more of an added bonus?

* yes they get hot but not hot enough to melt steel * Well that's true, but they don't have to melt it do they? At the temperatures in normal fires steel softens sufficiently to cause structural deformation and, in extreme cases, failure. Thats why EVERY building code in the western world requires fire protection of steel.

And before you get your knickers in a twist, that fire protection wouldn't be designed to be aircraft impact proof. GO and look at Canary Wharf if you don't believe me.

*Only three skyscrapers in history have collapsed because of fire* Aha. A classic straw man argument. Only WTC were ever hit by modern, wide-bodied jets carrying thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. Want to expand upon what hit the Empire State Building (a bomber, you'll find) and the actual extent of damage caused?

*molten steel was found in the basements of all 3 buildings weeks later* What a great idea. Now give us some credible proof.

*the claim to be a person with relevant academic skills* as opposed to, say, our friends of SPINE - note the lack of relevant qualifications - or Old Gerry himself? And what of Twilight, a man most noted for spouting anti-semitic rubbish on this site?

I love the way that the conspiracists can never come up with any credible construction professions raising concerns about the main thrust of the official theory. Oh no, we must ALL be in on the plot! Akk! Akk!

*extraordinary and ludicrously impossible flightpath* ooohhh, the airline pilots are all in on it too! Wow!

*the country with the MOST rigourous building codes in the world* Factually incorrect, Twilight. Get your facts right. Try looking at Japan, for example. Incidentally, no building regs allow for fully laden airliners hitting buildings.

I mean guys, get a grip for God's sake. If there's a conspiracy it's not about how the towers came down, but rather how it was used as an excuse to go to war!

Take a look at:

 http://www.911myths.com

One of the main UK structural enginering magazines, the New Civil Engineer has said these things about WTC 7:

"the cause of the WTC7 failure is still far from clear."

 http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6

"BAFFLED INVESTIGATORS still have no convincing explanation for the spectacular failure of WTC 7, the first major modern steel framed building to collapse catastrophically solely as a result of fire."

 http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=12990

"It is still unclear exactly what triggered the collapse of the 47 storey WTC7 after it had burned unchecked for seven hours"

 http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=12990

Of course Paul Mitchell will know this already since he is a structural engineer based in the UK...

If Paul wants to do some background reading he could start here:

 http://wtc7.net/collapsecause.html
 http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

then get into some detailed research here:

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

and of course the Wikipedia has a lot of info also:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center_Seven

How well you always fail to answer...

You said:

"* yes they get hot but not hot enough to melt steel * Well that's true, but they don't have to melt it do they? At the temperatures in normal fires steel softens sufficiently to cause structural deformation and, in extreme cases, failure. Thats why EVERY building code in the western world requires fire protection of steel."

Of course, the WTC 7, completed in '87 would have had a different standard of fire protection from WTC 1 and 2, it will have been higher won't it?

Lets assume that the fires in WTC 7 were big enough to cause deformation of the structural steel work (they were not) -- how would this have played out? Perhaps some deflection, some slowish movement, some things bending and bit of sagging here and there...?

But what did actually happen? Total failure of the whole building at the same time and a close to free fall speed collapse -- you call that "structural deformation"?

You said:

"And before you get your knickers in a twist, that fire protection wouldn't be designed to be aircraft impact proof."

Erm, a plane hit WTC7 and knocked the fire protection off 24 internal steel columns and 57 perimeter columns did it?

You said:

"*Only three skyscrapers in history have collapsed because of fire* Aha. A classic straw man argument. Only WTC were ever hit by modern, wide-bodied jets carrying thousands of gallons of aviation fuel."

LOL, so a jet did hit WTC 7 it must be true Architect said so!

You said:

"*molten steel was found in the basements of all 3 buildings weeks later* What a great idea. Now give us some credible proof."

No, you refute section "Molten Metal, Flowing and in Pools" of this report if you want to be taken seriously:

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 http://www.911myths.com/

Good grief, I've finally found out where the conspiraloons hang out.

Every meticulous bit of 911 detailed with some whacky nonsense to explain it away

Wonder why Mohammed Atta, and other hijackers are said to have drank alcohol, gambled, visited strip joints? - apparently its because "The group's warriors should blend in with Western society and are allowed to disobey all rules of the Islam for the goal of destroying Western civilisation from within."

Wonder why Larry Silverstein said that WTC7 was pulled? - apparently he meant "pull the firefighters away"

Oh dear, if this is the best they can do then Bush's sorry ass is about to get whupped when people cotton on.

911myths.com does have some pages on WTC 7. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that all the links to stories from firefighters that it features indicate that they all knew in advance that it was going to come down:

FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire—the other two had collapsed earlier that day — WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER: INITIAL RESPONSE

And:

According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC. Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management tells him that WTC 7 is in serious danger of collapse. Currid says, “The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it.” Along with some others, he goes inside WTC 7 and yells up the stairwells to the fire fighters, “Drop everything and get out!” — After 10:28 a.m.: Fire Fighters Trying to Extinguish Fires in WTC 7

And:

they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I don’t know what time that was. It was all just a blur. — WTC: This Is Their Story

 http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

The collapse starts on the floor that was struck by the aircraft. Now, no one is going to be able to predict in advance exactly which floor is going to be struck. For the conspiracy theory to be true, the planes have got to be flying by remote control. So - how did they know which floor to pick? Or did THEY somehow stuff every floor with explsove and hope no one would notice?

Corb:

Bit of selective quoting from NCE there mate. Do you want to give a fuller, more balanced overview of what the engineers ACTUALLY say or do you need me to do it for you? I mean if you can't report things without twisting them to suit your opinion, why should we believe what you say?

If you think the NCE comments on WTC 7 are needed in full here they are:

"Work continues on WTC7 collapse probe

Analysis of the baffling collapse of the 47 storey WTC7 tower was not included in the “final” report into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers published last week.

The original brief given to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by the National Construction Safety Team Act in October 2002 included determining why and how all three towers came down. But while all investigations to date have agreed on the prime causes of the Twin Towers collapse, the cause of the WTC7 failure is still far from clear.

Blazing debris from the collapsing twin towers ignited fires throughout WTC7. It burned for seven hours before collapsing catastrophically.

NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder said last week that it was hoped the first draft report on WTC7 would be out “before the end of the year”. He admitted that NIST still had a lot of work to do to clarify the exact mechanism of the collapse, but said the team was still convinced that a leaking standby generator fuel pipe was the major factor in the disaster (NCE 9 May 2002)"

 http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6

And the second one:

"Investigators call for further study into WTC7 failure

New Civil Engineer 09 May 2002


BAFFLED INVESTIGATORS still have no convincing explanation for the spectacular failure of WTC 7, the first major modern steel framed building to collapse catastrophically solely as a result of fire.

In their report, the investigators admit that their best hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurrence", and that much more "research, investigation and analyses are needed".

Unlike the failure of the twin towers, which showered debris in all directions as their external structure peeled away, WTC7 appeared to implode, with the façade coming straight down and only a small debris field created.

Videotape evidence has convinced investigators that the most likely location for the initial failure was on the fifth floor, near the eastern end of the building.

This was in an area of massive transfer trusses and columns extending over seven storeys and transmitting loads from the conventional upper stories into foundations located irregularly in and around a pre-existing major electricity substation below.

Most of these floors were given over to switchgear and transformers, with the only major fire load coming from the fuel storage for the emergency generators located at various levels within the building.

The problem for the investigators was constructing a scenario in which enough of this fuel could get into the area of the fifth floor where the failure probably occurred. Even then, it had to burn long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to yield.

Fires originally broke out on WTC7 on at least six floors from floor six upwards immediately after the collapse of the second twin tower.

The building's sprinkler system appears to have failed to cope and, with the building successfully evacuated, the emergency services made no attempt to fight the fires.

As the fire spread, observers noted that the smoke plume from the upper floors was dark, while that from the lower floors was distinctively white.

The ASCE/FEMA report makes no attempt to clarify this particular mystery, focusing instead on a two story mechanical equipment room on the fifth and sixth floors.

Two major trusses ran through this space. Outside the double doors was a generator set and fuel supply lines connected to diesel tanks at ground level. Suppose, says the report, that these fuel lines were partially ruptured during the initial impact, which also cut the mains power?

The diesel generators would automatically have cut in, supplied by a fuel pump with a capacity of 280litres/minute, powered by an electric supply that continued until collapse. Even if the generators eventually choked on the fumes, the pressure differential caused by the partial rupture would have kept the pump running.

Investigators found a maximum of 45,000 litres of fuel was missing from basement tanks. At 280litres/minute, this would have lasted less than three hours - but if only 1,100litres/minute was actually escaping - this could have continued for seven hours.

Such a flow would certainly have contained enough energy to cause the trusses to fail. But between the fuel line and the trusses stood a double door in a masonry wall, so the investigators have to assume that either the door was left open or that it was never intended as a fire door.

As well as calling for more analyses of the WTC7 collapse itself, the report recommends more study into the "adequacy of current code design provisions for members whose failure could result in large scale collapse". This includes levels of fire resistance.

DP"

 http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=12990

Architect, what is you professional opinion of the NIST report on WTC 7:

 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Do you consider that the explaination contained within it, that the failure of 3 out of the 81 structural columns leading to a catastrophic failure of the whole building and it dropping at close to free fall speed onto it's own footprint to be convincing and correct?

If it is not convincing do you think this might be is why NIST has contracted out the job of explaining the failure of this building?

Can you explain why NIST spent $24 million and spent 3 years investigating what happened to all the WTC buildings on 9/11 but they haven't been able to come up with a final answer about the collapse of WTC 7?

Do you think that WTC 7 was perhaps was designed without enough structural redundancy - 3 out of 81 columns failing is not that many? Would you expect steel framed skyscrapers built in the 1980s to have so little structural redundancy in their designs?

Do the architects, Emery Roth, who have "constructed the most buildings of all architects in Manhattan" [  http://www.emporis.com/en/cd/cm/?id=100906 ] have any liabilty for the structural failure of WTC 7?

Do the structrual engineers, Cantor Seinuk, "one of New York City's top-tier structural engineering firms. The firm has worked on more than 60% of major NYC buildings in the last decade" [  http://www.emporis.com/en/cd/cm/?id=103567 ] have any liabilty for the structural failure of WTC 7?

The construction company Tishman, are clearly not inexperienced [  http://www.emporis.com/en/cd/cm/?id=102265 ], do you think that they have any liabilty for the structural failure of WTC 7?

Why do you think that WTC 7 failed in the manner it did?

Some photos of World Trade Center Building 7 before September 11th 2001 followed by the photos from the FEMA report illustrating the extent of the damage to the building and finally a couple of photos showing it falling (the videos above are better though).

The controlled demolitions were computer controlled - as most have been for decades. The demolitions could start at any floor they instructed the computer to do so. Remote controlled planes? That's old hat, old boy. Try missiles.

Two additonal views of WTC7 dropping, and a repeated, higher resoultion of one of the above ones.

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder is Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

 http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=sunder

The March 27, 2006 issue of New York Magazine contains this:

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

 http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

The full article starts here:

 http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/

Thanks USAma! Great article by Morgan Reynolds Ph D you gave us there. Quote:

"Why would scientists at FEMA, NIST, Purdue University and MIT lie? The answers are simple:

• They are government employees, consultants or federally-funded scientists paid to arrive at a predetermined conclusion for their client, the government.

• Unlike impartial scientists that weigh one theory versus another for logic and evidence, theories supported by evidence that point to explosives, demolition and non-Big-Boeing causation are neither discussed nor discredited. They are simply ignored. While every theory does not require careful analysis, ignoring promising alternative theories is scientifically dishonest."

'AVE IT !

 http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chertoff: #1 Homeland Security secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate confirmed federal judge Michael Chertoff as the nation's second Homeland Security secretary on Tuesday, placing the tough-on-terrorism former prosecutor in charge of a bureaucracy prone to infighting and turf wars.

Chertoff, 51, has promised to balance protecting the country with preserving civil liberties as head of the sprawling agency that was created as a result of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The 98-0 vote came nearly two weeks after Chertoff faced pointed questioning from Democrats about his role in developing the U.S. investigation immediately after the attacks.

Chertoff headed the Justice Department's criminal division when hundreds of foreigners were swept up on relatively minor charges and held for an average of 80 days.

Some detainees were denied their right to see an attorney, were not told of the charges against them, or were physically abused

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chertoff #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the [debunking 9-11] article?

he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Chertoff is the "senior researcher" of the piece.

is he was related to Michael Chertoff?,


when asked if thay are related Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

look for the links

go hounding

try and prove something to yourself

its all smoke & mirrors

odd thing then that you would use missiles cleverly disguised as aircraft in the middle of one of the biggest cities on the world. odd no one noticed. odd none of them were captured on film. odd that all the pictures show aircraft. odd, isn't it?

ah well.

and the point about the explosive was missed. you'd have to stuff every floor with explosive, because you wouldn't know in advance which would be hit. that would mean a heck of a lot of explosive. and no one noticed? no one at all? odd thing, that.

the other odd thing is that by taking a few poor resolution pictures from the internet that people can 'prove' what happened. don't bother with things like stress analysis or building regulations or architect's drawings. no, sir, I have no expertise, but I can still work things out when the experts have failed. or do you really think that every expert consulted has been nobbled?

and great play is made of the fact that experts apparently don't have a handle on WTC7. so? I'm sure you would find it equally suspicious if the experts did have all the answers. this would have then been paraded as the successful cover story.

Sceptic, you said:

"great play is made of the fact that experts apparently don't have a handle on WTC7. so? I'm sure you would find it equally suspicious if the experts did have all the answers. this would have then been paraded as the successful cover story."

Does it not concern you that experts, people who design skyscrapers, haven't an answer for why there was a "spectacular failure" of the structure of this building?

Did you watch the vidoes of this building dropping? And did you time how long it took to fall? The maths to work out how long it would take for a ball to fall from the top of this building to the ground are GCSE standard - did you work it out, do you think it is odd that it fell so fast?

Did you see massive fires on any of the videos of the collapse?

For the bulding to drop in the manner it did don't you think that all the structural columns would have to have failed at the same time? Isn't this rather odd...?

You think that the fact that the "experts" don't have an answer for these questions proves that it is not suspicious -- for if they did then that would be the cover story... so you are happy having no answers for the failure of this building?

You don't think that the failure of this building has implications for the design and construction of other high rise steel framed buildings?

Why are you happy not knowing what happened to this building -- don't you ever enter high rise structures? Don't you have any friends or family who visit high rise buildings? Don't you have concerns for the safety of people in high rise buildings?

What do you think happened to this building?

I've no idea what happened. If I had to make a guess, and it's only that, I would say that one of the load bearing structures went; the load was passed on to the others, it was too much for them, and down it all went. Once it started, it would be a catastrophic failure.

But it's an enormous jump from saying you don't know to saying: because I don't know, it was therefore blown up.

Need I say more?

Oh Cesar, my little salad chum:

 http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Found this attached at an article from 2002 on IMC Hawaii:

 http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3378.php

There are quite a few above... care to address them or are you going to stick to spreading FUD?

"The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fires played a significant role."

Testimony of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. Director National Institute of Standards and Technology

 http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/abwtc2.html

odd that none of the firemen who will have read the report thought it unusual. after all, they didn't rely on copy and pasting from pdf files. they were there. heard any complaints from them?

NO AIRLINERS INVOLVED IN 9/11 HITS

MAINSTREAM MEDIA HOAX

THE FAKED VIDEOS

Play any DVD or video of the South Tower impact and when the alleged Boeing 767 comes into view hit the pause on your remote and then single step until the "plane" is completely absorbed - enfolded - into the tower. You will - or certainly should - be absolutely positive that the video is a fake. See the animated, cartoon 767 MELT - there is no other word for it - into the building like a hot wire through butter. You will see no shuddering, vibration or crunching of the lightweight aluminium airframe as it slams into the exterior aluminium cladding, the many windows, the many high-grade-steel perimeter columns (one meter apart on center) and the many cross-trussed-steel-and-concrete floors; no crater-like indentation formed into the side of the tower; no breaking off or shearing of the wings or tail-fin - even the thin wing-tips slice through floors; and hear very little sound on impact, etc...etc. And you will certainly NOT see any "confetti" cascading down. (This confetti and vaporize nonsense comes from a fighter jet being slammed head-on into a rigid three-meter-thick block of solid concrete - not a 65 ton airliner slamming into a building with many windows and designed to "give" slightly in high winds). As for the "official" version - puhleeze, don´t make me laugh.

Or go visit  http://www.911hoax.com

Then, to see how the floors and exterior of the tower were constructed, go here:  http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm .

Then read:  http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

If anyone still isn't convinced of its fakery, then they are truly brain-dead.

THE "LIVE" SOUTH TOWER HIT

Consider the LIVE footage where we see the SAME CNN (or CBS) feed - on ALL channels (don't forget these Zionist Bozos have already got together on "how to cover the next terrorist attack", and no doubt did so before 9/11). All we see for about TWO seconds is a silhouette - with no depth perception and reflected light, whatsoever - resembling an aircraft, travelling from west to east into the blazing sun, before it conveniently disappears behind the North Tower. The entire South Tower IS NOT SEEN. This live feed could easily have been delayed for x seconds before transmission - enough time for the techno-spooks to insert the artifact/animation, when they knew the rough location of the fireball. The artifact can, of course, be inserted in real time, anyway. This is BY FAR the VERY BEST angle - side on to the artifact at optimum distance (no detail) and a totally hidden South Tower - to deceive us. (And all set up in a choatic New York in less than 17 minutes! Miracles will never cease). But it comes at a price: the artifact in later doctored VIDEO transmissions has to execute a near-impossible (some pilots say impossible) banking maneuver for such a giant airliner, so that the angles, the artifact's "flight path", the explosion and the damage to the building, correlate.

After this "live" footage, OBVIOUSLY, ALL SUBSEQUENT TRANSMISSIONS ARE FROM VIDEO, some from different angles, which were, and are, continually being refined with each transmission (eg. the widening of the artifact's arc of approach and angle of attack from 2-3 o'clock to 1-2 o'clock as viewed from the north). All this can easily be done. When was a different "angle of attack" televised after that brief "live" hit? Not for many hours later. MINUTES are enough to accomplish the doctoring of all videos, from all angles.

All the "amateur" (my ass) videos have been thoroughly - and brilliantly - debunked by many specialists.

(As for the "WTC impact footage from WNYW" proclaimed by some, boy-o-boy, that sure is a Boeing 767 now ain't it? Well, robertsyourmothersbrother! Nosireebob.That could quite easily be a cruise missile or a flying turd just about to hit the device that consists of a series of vanes radiating from a hub rotated on its axle by a motor. Scores of technicians needed to pull off the caper? Bullshit. Just one outside broadcast van and crew will do.)


EYEWITNESSES/PHOTOGRAPHERS/TOURISTS/INDEPENDENT TV STATIONS, etc:

Assuming they didn't know from what direction the hit was coming, they had only SEVENTEEN MINUTES MAXIMUM to set up their gear in a chaotic NYC; and why would they be focusing on the SOUTH side of the SOUTH Tower? All the action was on the NORTH side of the NORTH Tower. 450mph = 220 meters per second, so they would have had very little time - SECONDS - to see, never mind locate and focus on, the missile from ANY southerly vantage point. What a miraculous CNN video that was! And good 'eavens Evan's! Et les "Naudet Freres"! C'est Impossible! You won the lottery thrice-over there, boyos. QUICK, TAKE A CAMERA SHOT OF THAT MISSILE, Y'ALL ! TOO LATE. YOU MISSED IT, BOYS.

As any psychologist will tell you, eyewitness testimony must always be taken with a dollop of salt, especially when - in shock and well after the event they are recalling - the meme of planes-planes-planes has been thoroughly implanted. And where were the 100+ Israeli spooks and FEMA that morning? I would bet my bottom dollar they were playing their roles as false-eyewitnesses (and fake-evidence planters) at the WTC - just like the ubiquitous, impossibly-located "Naudet brothers" - and at the Pentagon. Assume the missile (or no missile at all, just explosives in the building itself) comes in from the south. Most people are looking, if they are looking at all, directly at the gaping hole and smoke on the north side of the North Tower. So, like us watching the live transmission, they cannot possibly see it. Witnesses at ground level have hardly any chance of seeing it, even from the south, east, or west, what with all the obscured views and so little time; and they have no sound - certainly not the deafening roar a giant airliner, 250 meters away, flying at 450+ mph, would make in the thick air of Manhattan - to aid their senses. This is a near-silent, very fast moving air-to-surface (White jet, anyone?) or surface-to-surface missile (Woolworth Building anyone?) we're talking about.

See also:  http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84 and  http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71


ISRAELIS/ZIONISTS WERE UP TO THEIR NECKS IN 9/11

Let us count the ways:

1. PNAC; Major Neo-cons; Spy rings, Organizations etc:  http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html

2. - The Mossad (ie. al-Qaeda) "hijackers" - art students - and their inappropriate (for devout Muslims) exploits and easily traced meanderings; Attaboy and his gang aboard super-Zionist Abramoff's casino ship; and the Zionist controlled FBI ensuring the "hijackers" safe-passage..

3. Israeli security company in charge at Boston, Newark and Dulles airports. (Same company in charge at London Underground on 7/7).

4. Cheney and his Zionist-team war-games; back-door hacking of the FAA's Air Traffic Control (ATC) Israeli-written computer software; Israeli owned and controlled electronic communication networks; ATC frequencies for voice; fake cell-phone calls.

5. Zionist owned and controlled MSM for the WTC-hit hoax; TV and video deception - airliner animations overlaying missiles; Or no missiles - just explosions in the buildings; Zionist owned and controlled press for fake passenger lists; etc....

6. Three Zionist/Israeli owned/leased WTC buildings brought down by controlled demolitions; Zionist Ghouliani's WTC7 bunker - operations and control center; stupendous insurance payouts; nothing politically big happens in NYC without Zionist approval

7. Israeli companies warned of WTC attacks hours beforehand; Zim-Israeli Shipping moved out of Twin Towers weeks before 9/11; ZERO Israelis killed in the WTC hits and demolitions; Urban Moving Systems; the dancing Israelis.

8. Many put options traced to Israeli banks

9. Israel - prime benificiary of 9/11.

10. The Pentagon hit with Rumsfeld and Israeli-Zionists Wolfowitz, Zakheim et al.


Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli Spy Ring :  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html


CONCLUSION

No airliner hit the North Tower; no airliner hit the South Tower, no airliner hit the Pentagon. There were no airliners involved in the 9/11 hits. Try missiles. Or just explosions in the buildings themselves. And a media (mostly TV and video) deception.

The three WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions: The Twin Towers EXPLODED; WTC7 IMPLODED. The Twin Towers were immensely strong and needed a very energetic agent - high explosives from near-top to bottom and in the basements near the bedrock - to bring them down. This has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt: see "Waking up from our Nightmare" by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, as one proof among many.

Whatever happened to the passengers (did all of them actually exist?) and crews of the pseudo-hijacked flights AA11 & 77 and UA93 & 175 - how, where, when (and IF) they were killed - is anybody´s guess. The FAA uses Israeli-written software for its ATC and it is my guess that the only flight-paths those four "hijacked" airliners took on 9/11 were in computer memory. Why use real planes when simulated ones can fool ATC far more easily and efficiently? No wonder NORAD couldn't find the runaway airliners on its radar; and any fighter jets scrambled, based on ATC data, would have been chasing their own tails trying to intercept thin air.

This is indeed Occam's Razor at its sharpest. No longer do we need the infamous stand-down, FAA incompetence, NORAD complicity (except in the high-level coverup) and incomprehensible flight-paths - although we still need the war-games for maximum confusion and for the pseudo-hijackings. Thus is a massive amount of deadwood and personnel eliminated from the caper. In fact, the no-planes explanation is the ONLY rational, completely logical explanation there is; all the other theories have far too many potential pitfalls (eg. remote control; real planes flying hundreds of miles can miss their targets or be shot down) and far too many people to have successfully kept a lid on it.


9/11 was a near-as-dammit Israeli false-flag atrocity with (real but traitorous) Americans frantically engaged in a headless-chickenesque coverup. It was ordered by the International Zionist Bankers, headquartered in the square-mile City of London and their satraps in Wall Street, Basle and Tel Aviv, and via their Royal Institute of International Affairs (Round Table), Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderbergers. Their main terrorist-attack-dog is Israel; their brawn, America; their whore, Britain. Their fraudulent global fiat money - created out of thin air, usury-bearing, debt-based - system is bankrupt and their only way to perpetuate the scam (and their obscene wealth) is Imperialism leading to Totalitarian One World Government.

You are forgetting that the NYC Fire Dept. are all "sheeple" who don't go to Rense (with its UFO stories) and Prison Planet (dillitante disinfo bullshit).

The fact that these conspiraloons can spend so much time cutting and pasting conspiracy crap and fail to realise that there is no way on God's Earth they (Doctor Evil and his MOSSAD mates) could logistically pull of faking 9/11, says so much more about these people than anything else.

Thousands of professionals have sifted through reams of data and no professional outcry. No whistleblowers. No-one breaking rank.

The first rule of conspiracy= keep it as small as possible.If it was an inside job, they'd still fly bloody planes into the buildings and keep it above suspicion. If it were an inside job, they'd hire professionals and not some cowboys who'd make more conspicuous mess than a toddler with a tin of paint.

According to the conspiraloons, no planes hit the buildings at all, no planes even took off, planes took off and hit the building but had missiles strapped to the EXTERIOR (christ almighty HOW stupid would that be!) The buildings were hit by missiles and the video footage was faked. According to conspiraloons, all the people in Manhattan and Brooklyn that witnessed planes hitting buildings are plants. That all NYPD and FD are, FBI, CIA are ALL in on this charade act of mass murder of their fellow citizens (they cite crusty old unauthenticated documents that don't even indicate if they were ever officially sanctioned to claim plausibility!) and none have broken rank. The entire global professional community is in on the conspiracy too- or too stupid to spot it/too scared to speak out.

WHAT PLANET DO YOU PEOPLE LIVE ON!??? Oh, yeah, I forgot: Prison Planet. A Planet much like the Daily Mail without the *cough* fact checking= you pay to have your paranoid fears reinforced.

Please go away from IMC with this claptrap. Not even Tom Clancy's editor would wipe his backside with this drivel.

I actually had a long and pleasant conversation with a schizophrenic today that had more basis in reality.

3 Days of the Condor is on terrestrial this week. That'll get our conspiraloons going again....

Oh, I see. it was the ZIONISTS! The ISRAELIS! The NEOCONS [all code words for ....]

Missiles! I mean, the biggest city in America, and all those people were hoodwinked. All the 'amateur' videos debunked. those poor deluded people ... well, it's nice that there's someone out there to tell the truth. hope the straitjacket's comfortable.

...how do we know that "America" even exists? Is that part of the conspiracy too? BLIAR and his NEOCON cohorts dreamt it up in order to create a big bogeyman they could blame their FASCIST state on!