Building 7

Structural Experts think Building 7 was a "Controlled Demolition"

In case you missed it, Gangster blogged this story a few days ago and I'm blogging about it again today, because I don't think it's garnered the attention it deserves. We now have structural experts on public record saying that "WTC-7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."

Here's the link to Gangster's original blog for more information about this story:

http://911blogger.com/node/2925

(Attention 911blogger staff:

Originally when I created this blog, I requested that the story be posted on the front page. And a short time later I saw that it had been. SO I then removed my request (since it had been added to the front page), but for some reason after editing my blog, it caused the story to disappear from the front page. SO I'm guessing that if someone edits their blog after it's been posted on the front page, it will automatically return back to "Blog" status and not news?

Anyway, thanks for trying. If y'all try again, please remove my comments about this, because they don't relate to the story)

Let's Kick Off the 9/11 Science Campaign...

Launching a 9/11 Science Campaign

The events of the 5th anniversary 9/11 weekend made it known to the Establishment that 9/11 truth is here to stay, and they are fighting back in full force. James Meigs and his Popular Mechanics propaganda engine have gone on a media tour, often appearing unopposed to scoff at "conspiracy theories".

In addition to our current level of activism, in addition to our street actions, we need to accelerate what we are doing in such a way as to completely neutralize media hit pieces. As the 9/11 media hit pieces increase and government/Establishment hired scientists and engineers are trotted out to explain the impossible, we need to bring a stronger degree of scientific credibility behind the controlled demolition thesis.

A recent Scripps Howard poll stated that 36% believed that it was at least somewhat likely that elements of the government were complicit in 9/11. We need the same to happen in the scientific community with regard to the suspicious collapses of the towers.

Let's initiate a 9/11 Science Campaign aimed specifically at scientists and engineers. Let's reach out to the scientists and engineers, the vast majority of whom probably have little or no memory of what the WTC collapses looked like, the vast majority of whom have probably never heard of WTC 7. Send them copies of "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" and "Waking Up From Our Nightmare".

Why We Need a 9/11 Science Campaign:

1. To not do so would be to ignore the obvious - that fire does not cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse symmetrically, shred itself into fine dust, create rivers of molten steel, and generate such intense fires and heat that persisted into the winter. It should not take a PhD to point this out, but in the infowar, it raises our stature in the eyes of the general public to hear an army of engineers coming forward.

2. It gives us an accelerated credibility that truly lets us leverage our efforts, especially compared to reaching out to the layperson.

3. To protect and validate the brave scientists and engineers who have already gone public. Engineers and college professors who speak out are being ridiculed and sometimes punished for their 9/11 beliefs. Clearly, the Establishment is trying to make an example of people who dare to challenge the official 9/11 fable. But they cannot do this to the 9/11 truth movement if professors speak out in much greater numbers. Cries of "conspiracy theory" by writers such as Alexander Cockburn will ring hollow against an army of serious scientists (not that he'll stop trying).

I graduated from an engineering school sometime ago (Cooper Union, B.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1999). I've started with my Alma Mater, in sending out a copy of Jones' paper to some of my professors, and encouraging them to take a closer look at 9/11, in the hopes that more will speak out. I implore everyone to do the same with universities and companies in the U.S. and abroad.

Why Did Iron Boil in the Rubble of the World Trade Center?

Why Did Iron Boil in the Rubble of the World Trade Center? *PIC*

Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Saturday, 6 May 2006, 1:36 a.m.

THE EVIDENCE OF BOILING METAL AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

The plumes of bluish smoke that rose for weeks from the rubble of the destroyed World Trade Center contained unprecedented amounts of toxic ultra-fine particles which are created only when metal boils.

DAVIS, California – In the days after 9-11, when he saw the light bluish smoke rising from the rubble of the World Trade Center, Thomas A. Cahill, an expert on airborne aerosols and director of the DELTA Group at the University of California at Davis, knew the plumes contained large amounts of the very smallest particles, the extremely toxic ultra-fine particles less than 1 one-millionth of a meter in size, and smaller.

Unlike the much larger dust particles from the destruction of the twin towers, these ultra-fine and nano-particles are particularly hazardous because of their extremely small size, which allows them to pass throughout the body and penetrate into the nucleus of the human cell.

Demo Expert Confirms WTC-7 Was "Controlled Demolition"

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

For video, click below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

The vido clip above is an excerpt from a Dutch television program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories. It can be watched in its entirety at this link:
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf

Here's some background information about Danny Jowenko's statments in Zembla investigates 9/11 theories:

Posted by dz on 911Blogger.com (9/12/06) under "Grab Bag of News Submissions":
One of the more interesting moments in this documentary (about 46:25 minutes into it) is when they ask demolition expert Danny Jowenko (who has his own demolition firm and reportedly has been active in this business for 27 years) to comment on videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.His response to the WTC 7 video: "This is controlled demolition".

Focusing on a one line proof

The crux of the conspiracy argument is that demolition is the only
possible explanation for the destruction of WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7. One
need only raise the single question: How could a collapse, caused only
by the damage of the plane collisions and subsequent fires cause the
remaining still intact structures to fall to the ground at the speed
of a free fall in a vacuum? No explanation can be produced for this,
because it would require breaking the laws of physics. It cannot be
done.

This scientific fact is the corner stone. It should be stressed and
focused on because it is undeniable. It is the truth that will
convince the skeptics. It certainly convinced me.

I, like many others, was very skeptical about the demolition theory,
mainly because the only evidence I was shown were the squibs.
Furthermore, I (also like many others) was completely ignorant of the
WTC7 collapse. It actually took over a year for me to see the light,
when I finally saw the on line videos of WTC7's collapse.

It does not take a physics degree to understand that the collapse of a
steel girder concrete reinforced building cannot occur in less time
than it takes for a bowling ball to fall from the top of the building

Matthew Woodson and WTC7

Matthew Woodson interviewed on Fox News, check it out on Google video here:

http://sendmeabuck.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-04-06-fox-25-interview-with-oklahoma.html

This is the 1st time that thousands of Oklahoman residents have had the opportunity to watch the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on broadcast television since 9/11/01.

 


Also, compliments of the Loose Change forums, check out the flashes and explosions occuring at WTC7 hours before the collapse.  (hi-res 77 MB file, I will post a smaller version shortly):

 

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12277

Direct link here:
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/wtc7flashes.mov

 

New WTC 7 Photos?

Perhaps this was posted before, but here are some previously unseen photos of WTC 7 and surrounding area during the fires.
They don't show anything new about WTC 7 itself, but it does reveal more about how extensive the fires and damage were to some surrounding buildings, which did NOT collpase. There are also a couple of "no-planer" debunking photos:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm
There is a link on the bottom of the page from which
you can download additional photos.

Modify claims about WTC7 fires: Some were "raging"

In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin says, regarding WTC7, "there is no evidence of any raging fire" (p.21). This claim, often repeated, must be modified. Debunking sites use images from Steve Spak's film Day of Disaster to counter the argument for controlled demolition. This evidence cannot be ignored. Here I would like to suggest a refined argument for WTC7, and I recommend downgrading its importance in the 911 Truth movement.

Hopefully, the screen captures I uploaded appear below. These images are from Spak's film and show the west side and the south side. Typically, Truthers show video of the north side collapsing. The west face shows at least one floor where the windows are broken and a "raging" fire is belching from the building. The south side shows a wall of smoke and some structural damage (we know the SW corner had a gash about 15-20 floors high).

Two points should be made about these pictures:

1. There is definitely an intense fire in WTC7, but we do not know how widespread it is.

2. The wall of smoke suggests but does not confirm a widespread fire. There is definitely structural damage to the south side of WTC7, and all of the smoke is being vented out that side. The north side, for example, shows little evidence of smoke or fire.

Pull "pull it" from our talking points

The purpose of this blog is to suggest rhetorical strategies for refining the 9/11 Truth talking points. As more so-called debunking sites appear, we cannot ignore them and proceed in an echo chamber of self-congratulation. We must adjust our message to reflect a wider selection of evidence.

In this first entry, I would like to suggest dropping references to Larry Silverstein's famous "pull it" comment in the 2002 PBS documentary. Most Truthers believe Silverstein means "demolish building 7". Critics charge he really means "pull the personnel from building 7".

I recommend avoiding Silverstein's remark not because I think WTC7 fell via a gravitational collapse, but for the following reasons:

  • both interpretations are plausible, so an audience is forced to accept one on the basis of predisposition alone
  • it does not change the physical evidence one way or another
  • for some, this charge reinforces the unfair accusation that 9/11 Truth is about "blaming the Jews"; notice, for example, how this reasonable argument devolves quickly into a discussion of "Zionist circles"; later, Killtown makes excellent points about Silverstein coincidentally having a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, but this information will be overshadowed in a debate by ad hominem attacks