Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

There video online he says the same thing.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

The claim is fires brought it down not the planes. NIST got around this by claiming that the fireproofing was knocked off at the steel core. One building came down in 45 minutes, impossible with fireproofing that holds for three hours. That theory unprovable because the fireproofing would have just disappeared during the collapse and when in the rubble burning away. So NIST saw fireproofing was missing from steel so they used it to make the claim the plane knocked off the fireproofing allowing to burn hotter.

Can you please post a CREDIBLE source for this claim please?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you please post a CREDIBLE source for this claim please?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners 

So not what you claimed at all? How are people supposed to take your claims seriously when you continue to post lies, half truths and put your own spin on what they actually say?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So not what you claimed at all? How are people supposed to take your claims seriously when you continue to post lies, half truths and put your own spin on what they actually say?

Only one plane crashed at each tower. He claims 707 jet would do nothing and explains why. 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11.

He said he believes multiple plane impacts would also have no effect.

Posted no lies, i just posted what guy claimed would have happened.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Only one plane crashed at each tower. He claims 707 jet would do nothing and explains why. 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11.

He said he believes multiple plane impacts would also have no effect.

Posted no lies, i just posted what guy claimed would have happened.

You posted deliberately misleading information. You presented it as a fact that the towers were designed to withstand 3 simultaneous airliner strikes. The reality is that was merely the belief of one person; the buildings were only designed for a single plane scenario at most.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

. 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11.

Cheerful, why do you constantly lie?
The 707 is not a bigger aircraft. The energy potential of any impact is based on the weight and speed of the aircraft on impact.

The 707 is a 1st generation narrow body airliner, that albeit 4 engined is a narrow body aircraft.
With a significantly lower fuel capacity, Lower empty and take off weights and lower Passenger capacity.

The 767 is a significantly larger aircraft. The whole impact calculation is predicated on weight and speed.

Also as has been explained to you previously in detail, the Towers were never designed to cope with the impact loads or resultant damage of a high speed deliberate impact.

Overheal

If you’re not going to post in good faith I think everyone would rather you do not post at all.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

You posted deliberately misleading information. You presented it as a fact that the towers were designed to withstand 3 simultaneous airliner strikes. The reality is that was merely the belief of one person; the buildings were only designed for a single plane scenario at most.

It's he believe it can withstand multiple plane impacts at the same time.
He would have said only one impact- yet he said multiple means over one.
Yes, but he was on site construction manager. It's his claim not mine. You asking me to ignore his opinion why?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

He wasn't an engineer, and he wasn't involved in the design (or construction) of the buildings. He was an onsite construction manager and was hired after they were built. So that's false.

What's worse is, we've been through all this before.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's he believe it can withstand multiple plane impacts at the same time.
He would have said only one impact- yet he said multiple means over one.
Yes, but he was on site construction manager. It's his claim not mine. You asking me to ignore his opinion why?

I believe I asked you to stop posting in bad faith: please stop posting in bad faith. You, I, every other contributor, and reader, can see how you tried to push off his opinion as a fact - an alternative fact at that.

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

You posted deliberately misleading information. You presented it as a fact that the towers were designed to withstand 3 simultaneous airliner strikes. The reality is that was merely the belief of one person; the buildings were only designed for a single plane scenario at most.

It's also worth remembering the single plane scenario they were designed for was a low speed flaps deployed impact of a "lost" plane on a landing approach.

There a world of difference between a nose high attitude jetliner impacting a Tower than there is with a jetliner of any type, hitting a Tower with the throttles firewalled at 490mph+

The energy involved in the 2nd scenario is exponentially higher.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

Cheerful, why do you constantly lie?
The 707 is not a bigger aircraft. The energy potential of any impact is based on the weight and speed of the aircraft on impact.

The 707 is a 1st generation narrow body airliner, that albeit 4 engined is a narrow body aircraft.
With a significantly lower fuel capacity, Lower empty and take off weights and lower Passenger capacity.

The 767 is a significantly larger aircraft. The whole impact calculation is predicated on weight and speed.

Also as has been explained to you previously in detail, the Towers were never designed to cope with the impact loads or resultant damage of a high speed deliberate impact.

True, I looked it up he was talking about the plane being the largest when the building was constructed. The interview was in early 2001 so i thought he meant then. The guy went missing on 9/11 says on top of the page on the video. Probably died that day.

707 was a faster plane with comparable fuel load 23,000 galloons. They probably assumed it hit at cruise speed would be about 600mph for 707.

Overheal

You’re still doing it

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

It's also worth remembering the single plane scenario they were designed for was a low speed flaps deployed impact of a "lost" plane on a landing approach.

There a world of difference between a nose high attitude jetliner impacting a Tower than there is with a jetliner of any type, hitting a Tower with the throttles firewalled at 490mph+

The energy involved in the 2nd scenario is exponentially higher.

https://www.infoplease.com/passenger-planes-boeing-707 cruise speed is 600mph an hour.

Overheal

The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I believe I asked you to stop posting in bad faith: please stop posting in bad faith. You, I, every other contributor, and reader, can see how you tried to push off his opinion as a fact - an alternative fact at that.

How so he said multiple impacts of jet airliners. Thats what he said. You believe he wrong about that ok we move from it.

I quote him again. “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

True, I looked it up he was talking about the plane being the largest when the building was constructed. The interview was in early 2001 so i thought he meant then. The guy went missing on 9/11 says on top of the page on the video. Probably died that day.

707 was a faster plane with comparable fuel load 23,000 galloons. They probably assumed it hit at cruise speed would be about 600mph for 707.

Just stop, please! Don't try and lay blame on the man you selectively quote for a mistake you perpetuate.

The 707 is a 1950s design 1st flown in 53 or 54 and It entered service in @1958.

When the Towers were building the 747 was already in Service as the largest aircraft in civilian use and the DC10, the Lockheed Tristar were all in service.
Many aircraft far larger than the 707 were in service prior to even the widebody introductions of late 60's and early 70's
That he claimed a 707 as the largest aircraft and you repeated it as a fact is disingenuous in the extreme.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

Just stop, please! Don't try and lay blame on the man you selectively quote for a mistake you perpetuate.

The 707 is a 1950s design. It entered service in @1958.
When the Towers were building the 747 was already in Service as the largest aircraft in civilian use and the DC10, the Lockheed Tristar were all in service.
That he claimed a 707 as the largest aircraft and you repeated it as a fact is disingenuous in the extreme.

It smaller by six feet, has the same fuel load as 767 and 770 travels faster than 767 at cruise speed. They assumed the 770 would hit it at 600mph an hour with 23,000 galloons of fuel.
I already admitted that mistake in a post. I was mistaken it was larger plane than 767 in a post.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

https://www.infoplease.com/passenger-planes-boeing-707 cruise speed is 600mph an hour.

So? The Towers were never designed to withstand an impact of any aircraft at cruise speed!
The were designed to take the impact of a lost plane on a runway approach...
What part of that needs to be explained any further to you?

No high rise building could feasibly expect to withstand an impact from a 110tons at 600mph!

Why does this need to be repeatedly explained to you?

Dohnjoe

For everyone else wondering where these telltale specific (23,000 gallons) figures are coming from, this is the likely source

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It smaller by six feet, has the same fuel load as 767 and 770 travels faster than 767 at cruise speed. They assumed the 770 would hit it at 600mph an hour with 23,000 galloons of fuel.
I already admitted that mistake in a post. I was mistaken it was larger plane than 767 in a post.

What are the weights CS?
What's the MGTOW of a 767 Vs a 707?
The wingspan, and the cruise speed are irrelevant.
The cruise speed of a 707 has no bearing on what happened...
As the towers were never designed to withstand such an impact

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For everyone else wondering where these telltale specific (23,000 gallons) figures are coming from, this is the likely source

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes

Bottom of the page actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

So? The Towers were never designed to withstand an impact of any aircraft at cruise speed!
The were designed to take the impact of a lost plane on a runway approach...
What part of that needs to be explained any further to you?

No high rise building could feasibly expect to withstand an impact from a 110tons at 600mph!

Why does this need to be repeatedly explained to you?

Thanks for the link Dohnjoe helped.

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Since fire caused the collapse, this guy claims the building structure would be still there just like people in truth movement said. The plane impact did not bring down the building- the fire did according to official story.

Dohnjoe

Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial
airliners. While documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)
indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph, possibly crashing into the 80th floor,
was analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964, the effect of the
subsequent fires was not considered. Building codes do not require building designs to
consider aircraft impact.

Buildings are not designed for fire protection and evacuation under the magnitude and scale of
conditions similar to those caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The load conditions induced by aircraft impacts and the extensive fires on September 11, 2001,
which triggered the collapse of the WTC towers, fall outside the norm of design loads
considered in building codes.

Prior evacuation and emergency response experience in major events did not include the total
collapse of tall buildings such as the WTC Towers and WTC 7 that were occupied and i
n
everyday use; instead, that experience suggests that major tall building fires result in burnout
conditions, not overall building collapse.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/WTC_Part-I_Introduction.pdf

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/WTC_Part-I_Introduction.pdf

I reading the document and they did consider a collision at 600mph an hour. So you guys were wrong. Flight 11 hit the tower at 423mph an hour.
So those posts before now are waste of time.

Fuel not mentioned, but we got this.
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

John_Skilling
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers.
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Cheerful Spring2

NIST caught again lying. NIST claiming they did not consider the jet fuel, bull****. When is it time to ignore NIST?

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

1993 article. This is a good find.
Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Statement likely after the attack in 1993.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I reading the document and they did consider a collision at 600mph an hour. So you guys were wrong. Flight 11 hit the tower at 423mph an hour.
So those posts before now are waste of time.

Fuel not mentioned, but we got this.
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

John_Skilling
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers.
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

There was no consideration paid to fully fueled aircraft impacting the towers.
There was a pen and paper study in 1964 that claimed it would survive an impact.
However given that the study a 3 page thought experiment with no impact modelling, or load data available it is only of interest to those claiming conspiracy.

Modelling the impact resistance of such an impact, is hugely dependent upon theory and assumes that each and every building element is operating at optimum efficiency and that loads follow the predicted path.
In the days before dynamic load analysis software, any such paper analysis is little more than a best guess.

The actuality of such an impact is far removed from the theory.

A worthwhile study now that the blueprints are available would to be create a dynamic analysis of how the impact would play out.

Overheal

It’s a bit like arguing the Hyatt Regency Walkway was designed to not collapse on itself.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

There was no consideration paid to fully fueled aircraft impacting the towers.
There was a pen and paper study in 1964 that claimed it would survive an impact.
However given that the study a 3 page thought experiment with no impact modelling, or load data available it is only of interest to those claiming conspiracy.

Modelling the impact resistance of such an impact, is hugely dependent upon theory and assumes that each and every building element is operating at optimum efficiency and that loads follow the predicted path.
In the days before dynamic load analysis software, any such paper analysis is little more than a best guess.

The actuality of such an impact is far removed from the theory.

A worthwhile study now that the blueprints are available would to be create a dynamic analysis of how the impact would play out.

It was 1200 page report by Worthington Shilling and Helle and Jackson firms.
100 detailed drawings.
John skilling told the paper the did consider fires and jet fuel.
NIST just lying again, because it make the case stronger by doing so.
They did calculations based on 707 hitting the tower at 600mph mile an hour. Its in the document.

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

It’s a bit like arguing the Hyatt Regency Walkway was designed to not collapse on itself.

But...
But....
They did!



Oh wait!

Overheal

banie01 wrote: »

But...
But....
They did!



Oh wait!

Sure did. And despite the best laid plans and intentions.

Also had a massively smaller scope than the WTC.

banie01

I'd much rather consider Leslie E Robertson's opinion of what the Towers were designed to resist.

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

But I mean, what would he know about it?

Paper available here
https://www.nae.edu/7480/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

I'd much rather consider Leslie E Robertson's opinion of what the Towers were designed to resist.

Observe - this man will be attacked in order to discredit him

Dohnjoe

Fantastic insight here, this is just one month after the towers fell, a preliminary panel of civil and structural engineers at MIT

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came nexta key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office buildingpaper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.

Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.

Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older modelabout 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel. "Most certainly," he continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire." The sprinkler system, which was probably compromised, would have been are useless against this kind of fire, he said, adding, "The World Trade Center towers performed admirably; they stood long enough for the majority of the people to be successfully evacuated."

"There will never be a building that won't fall," Kausel noted. "The best we can do is to ensure that it will stand long enough for all the people to escape." Back when the WTC was built, no one seems to have anticipated the need to evacuate an entire large building at once. To do so successfully means boosting a building's structural redundancythe provision of additional means to assist system function. Panel members discussed providing improved fire protection for the structural elements, alternative load paths to stand in for damaged structures and fixing diaphragm floor beams more strongly to vertical members. Also mentioned was the idea of installing blast-resistant, energy-absorbing materials such as concrete-encased steel exterior columns and/or cavities (reinforced concrete cores) in future large structures that could help them survive or at least promote failure in certain slower, less deleterious sequences.

One month after the attacks they had it almost spot on. 18 years after the attacks conspiracy theorists still struggle to invent the most basic counter-explanation

The Nal

So reading back, "they" took all the steel from WT7, without anyone noticing, and moved it to a different country?

Am I reading this correctly?

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

So reading back, "they" took all the steel from WT7, without anyone noticing, and moved it to a different country?

Am I reading this correctly?

Which they didn't need to do because the evidence for demolitions wouldn't show up on it anyway and also because they worked to prevent that evidence from arising in the first place.

But then also, they left a huge amount of unburned nanothermite than anyone could easily find.

Dohnjoe

Requests for the steel must also be approved by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court, who is overseeing wrongful death lawsuits stemming from the attacks. While the steel is considered potential evidence in those cases, tests on the steel were completed in 2005. The judge has since granted all requests and has given no indication he will do otherwise for the pending ones.

https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/firefighter-memorials/articles/world-trade-center-steel-leaves-storage-hangar-for-far-flung-memorials-XIt6zjFu63VzRAgg/

To facilitate the search and clean-up of the World Trade Center collapse, the 1.45 million tons of debris were sent to Fresh Kills, an old landfill on Staten Island. Using rakes, sifting tables, and heavy equipment, workers spread out the debris and meticulously examined it for even the smallest pieces of evidence. The site was staffed by members of the FBI, FDNY, NYPD, and other government agencies. In all, 54,000 personal objects were recovered and 1,200 victims identified.

https://amhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=86

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

So reading back, "they" took all the steel from WT7, without anyone noticing, and moved it to a different country?

Am I reading this correctly?

I post the video. I know you guys will not watch it, but it was hearing about destruction of evidence at WTC sites.. It upset senators this happened and considered this a crime. They were trying to get to bottom of what happened and questioned people about it.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Observe - this man will be attacked in order to discredit him

Leslie flip-flopping for years. He told a group in 2002 he saw a river of Molten steel at WTC site ( there a video of it) then in 2006 claimed it never happened on radio interview and said nobody saw it. He was obviously spoken to shut up about his experience.

Overheal

Called it DJ

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Called it DJ

Credibility matters. He told a story in 2002 he was in a destroyed basement wing after destruction of the towers and firefighters called him over and he said on video there was a river of molten steel underneath where the columns and beams stood. He later in 2006 retracted the story and claimed it never happened and nobody he knew saw it. He sounded off just like NIST. How can you flip-flop like this and be taken seriously?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Leslie flip-flopping for years. He told a group in 2002 he saw a river of Molten steel at WTC site ( there a video of it) then in 2006 claimed it never happened on radio interview and said nobody saw it. He was obviously spoken to shut up about his experience.

Bingo.

And no. He said he saw a river of steel flowing. I saw footage of molten steel coming out of one of the buildings on the day of the attacks. It turns out it wasn't molten steel. Therefore I stand corrected. And so does he.

Simple.

Lots of people see and hear things that later turn out to be wrong. I heard what I thought was a large explosion the other day, it wasn't.

But a truther would claim that I did hear an explosion, and that I later changed my story under pressure. I can't be trusted. I am flipflopping. I am not credible.

How else do you think they get people to believe 911 was a conspiracy, without actually saying what the conspiracy is

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Bingo.

And no. He said he saw a river of steel flowing. I saw footage of molten steel coming out of one of the buildings on the day of the attacks. It turns out it wasn't molten steel. Therefore I stand corrected. And so does he.

Simple.

Lots of people see and hear things that later turn out to be wrong. I heard what I thought was a large explosion the other day, it wasn't.

But a truther would claim that I did hear an explosion, and that I later changed my story under pressure. I can't be trusted. I am flipflopping. I am not credible.

How else do you think they get people to believe 911 was a conspiracy, without actually saying what the conspiracy is

You have forgotten we have a picture of a yellow/red liquid river.
Least you agree he said it was a river of steel- so that's molten steel.
He then changed his mind and said nobody saw it?
How you go from claiming it was river of steel to claiming nobody saw anything
His bascially ignored a story he told a group of people at Stanford university.

Cheerful Spring2

Fact
In sworn testimony to the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, CIA Director George Tenet repeatedly claims that a March 2000 cable sent to CIA headquarters reporting that hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi had entered the US was not read by anybody. He says, “I know that nobody read that cable,” “Nobody read that cable in the March timeframe.

CIA denied that they had knowledge of hijackers entering the country in 2000. Tenet even claims if they had the information they would have given to the FBI.

They're all liars and nobody should believe the US government's view about this attack. Tenet should be in jail for lying to the American public and wider world. He committed perjury under oath.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have forgotten we have a picture of a yellow/red liquid river.
Least you agree he said it was a river of steel- so that's molten steel.
He then changed his mind and said nobody saw it?
How you go from claiming it was river of steel to claiming nobody saw anything
His bascially ignored a story he told a group of people at Stanford university.

Lots of people saw all sorts of molten and flowing materials that day, so did I, on TV. Was it steel? liquid aluminium with impurities? glowing hot metal?

Dunno, it was also reported there were 8 planes in the air.

Truthers use all this confusion to sow doubt about the event, you do it all the time in this thread

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They're all liars and nobody should believe the US government's view about this attack

You're doing it again

banie01

So the Engineer who had responsibility for the structural design, who laid out quite clearly what type of impact the Towers were designed to cope with!
Doesn't know what he's talking about and has no credibility?

The 600mph impact survivability claims are patently false.
The Engineer who led the design effort is on record confirming that a lost 707 in landing configuration is what they considered.
He also confirms that no fire suppression effort was capable of dealing with the fuel loads in such a situation.

Cheerful, you have spent years being wrong, being proven wrong then repeating and starting again.
You have zero credibility, you present rports and info from the '93 carbombing that is portrayed as being somehow related or represantitive of the 2001 impacts.
Its not, you have a prediliction for waffle that is unfortunately compounded by your access to the internet!

You lie, misrepresent, deflect and ignore actual evidence and testementary fact because it doesn't fit your theory.
Then your theory expands into nonsense but Hulsey fits in there somewhere and even though he hasn't been peer reviewed...
It must be right!
Based upon your sum total of zero scientific or critical expertise!

You are a timesink and a liar.

Spencerfreeman

I read most of the eyewitness accounts. This one has bits for both sides of the argument.

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
Interview Date: December 6, 2001

In relation to the first tower to collapse;

"We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up
these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we
ran into the parking garage because that's basically
where we were. Running forward would be running
towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming
down."

The first report of any collapse was from a fireman on the 67th floor, some minutes before the whole building went down.

In relation to building 7;

"They told us to get out of there because they
were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right
behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors
of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just
see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone.
We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers
were because we were that high up. Looking over the
smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous,
tremendous fires going on.
Finally they pulled us out. They said all
right, get out of that building because that 7, they
were really worried about. They pulled us out of there
and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street,
between the water and West Street. They put everybody
back in there.
Finally it did come down. From there -- this
is much later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come
down. That's when they let the guys go on."

Having also watched the videos from the street I'm sure Building 7 came down because of major damage and the raging fire. They were expecting it to fall from around lunch time, so that would explain the BBC report.