Former Italian President thinks 9/11 was insidejob - History Forum ~ All Empires

Originally posted by King John

Originally posted by bgturk

Originally posted by Panther

After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6�10, 13�14, 19�22, and 29�30. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.

I would be interested to see your source for this. Popular mechanics, maybe?The NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 has not yet been published, so there is no authoritative explanation for the collapse of WTC7. However, a few points that your theory of a natural collapse do not explain are:1) the building was asymmetrically damaged and its columns were asymmetrically placed, and yet it collapsed symmetrically on its own footprint2) the building collapsed at the rate of free fall down the path of greatest resistance3) the collapse of the building was anticipated quite accurately (actually a BBC correspondent reported it 20 mins in advance while it was still standing behind her)All these points are consistent with a planned demolition, and contradict the theory of a spontaneous collapse of the building.

Point 3. Anticipation doesn't prove anything. I can anticipate rain but that doesn't mean it was planned. I can also anticipate somebody being late to an appointment that doesn't mean it was planned. The BBC correspondent could have been observant of the bowing/bulging and also could have been told by fire-fighters about the bulging and their expert opinion regarding the potential of the building falling. The source that Panther is pulling his quote from is wikipedia and the source cited by wikipedia is the interim report issued by the NIST which can be found here.

bgturk, first off... my apologies in a late response, i have not been feeling well lately. Perhaps this post may not be as coherent as i like it to be, but i will try?

Now, King John is again correct... about where i got my original source. Due to being sick, i didn't feel like putting a whole of effort into even more research. Also, Popular Mechanics in itself is also a very reputable magazine. Their effort at debunking just a few of the literally thousands of conspiracy theories out there, shouldn't distract a person from any of the few facts as presented by them, primarily because it doesn't play into the "so called" conspiracy theory of a government planned demoloition of WTC7.

The NIST report, i believe, is to be known very shortly. However, i doubt whether it will accomplish any of it's goals of laying to rest all the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse. This did happen after all, under Mr. Bush's watch. So, IMHO, there is way too much political vindictiveness out there, for this too simply go away... No matter how many impartial investigation are conducted about this subject!?

Now i would prefer to focus on just one thing, regarding the initial investigations, as any others that will follow, will also be conducted by those with the same wide spread knowledge of techncal expertise in structural engineering. I prefer not to get distracted, by slamming those who have made it their career in making sure what they put up, won't be automatically coming down anytime soon! IOW... they are not so stupid as to put their credibility at stake, just in order too further any government conspiracy of denying the truth to the public about that very dark day! Thus... the next paragraph focuses on the initial investigators and not just their findings.

Now, the inital investigation conducted under one Shyam Sunder, and with the help from in-house technical expertise, as well as help from outside private sources from the likes of (Also from wikipedia): The American Society of Civil Engineers, The Society of Fire Protection Engineers, The National Fire Protection Association, The American Institute of Steel Construction, The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and finally... The Structural Engineers Association of New York! All these organisations, all that engineering expertise... means even just one of their engineers has a much more better understanding of structural engineering in their little pinky, then all the conspircay theorists do in the entire world, regarding their "so called" technical experience in structural engineering! I find it continuously baffling to my mind, that their or any other further subsequent findings "will be" immediately discarded as if... they were in the pay of some government conspiracy of denying the truth to the public of their findings?

Again, for them to do so, like this thread is automatically assuming of them... discredits all their expertise in the matter! In essence... they have everything to gain by being initially impartial all along. Instead of getting themseleves wrapped up in just another conspiracy! That is certainly not good for their business, of their sound engineering techniques... their bread and butter of the public's trust!

My question is... who would you guy's prefer in investigating the collapse of WTC7? Al Qaeda's engineer's? Mr. Soros's paid for engineer's? How about taking the word of Mr. Chomsky... that there was a government planned implosion? Or what about code pink's engineer's? What happens if these guy's came out tomorrow and said there was no government planned implosion? That it in fact happened as already stated? I think there will be plenty of disappointed people, who would automatically assume and label them as being in pay of the US government or the CIA?

In short... i don't think any answer about the collapse will satisfy anyones curiousity anytime soon? Perhaps in fifty or... a hundred years time, when we all are dead and gone and it is left to those without an axe to grind against any politcal establishment, by taking up the burden of answering the question?

Then again what do i know... there are still some who are questioning the sinking of the "Maine"? **Sigh**