Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, that would be the proper procedure to use a different location for the back up material when it comes to financial data about investors. But where was that central location ?

I wasn't speaking about the Financial folks in WTC7. But, I'd expect that there are many offsite backup facilities they, the financial folks, might use. The locale of Government back up or storage facilities is probably classified and not a public facility...
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
The temp of the fires can vary, I suppose, but 1900c is quite hot... and I can't imagine anything organic or of office stuff burning at that temp in there given I don't see the 'draft' affecting the emitted smoke.
In any event, the steel would conduct that heat away rather quickly and after the fuel was spent the office junk would burn ok.. but meander about looking for new fuel... the hotter the fire the faster the burn and the less time to heat up the steel to weaken point given the conduction factor. In my thinking.

Well, i think that combining the wireframe properties of the building, The redistribution of the forces because of the impact and the fires, the visco elastic dampeners loosing their strength during the fires, the ongoing fires at the columns which already have to endure more because of the crash and the nonstop pushing of the wind which creates sway to the building explain the collapse.


I mean, i was trying to explain the molten metal / glass pouring from the building. Now if this was caused by fires where the heat was increased by repetitive backdraft like effects, then this mystery would also have a possible and more plausible explanation.
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
I wasn't speaking about the Financial folks in WTC7. But, I'd expect that there are many offsite backup facilities they, the financial folks, might use. The locale of Government back up or storage facilities is probably classified and not a public facility...

Well, i do hope there was prior before the accident not some overly active manager promoting cutbacks and moving everything to the same location because of convenience. While forgetting why regulations and rules are designed in the first place. To handle the worst case scenario's and not the every day mishaps.

But anyway i got the list here according to CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, i think that combining the wireframe properties of the building, The redistribution of the forces because of the impact and the fires, the visco elastic dampeners loosing their strength during the fires, the ongoing fires at the columns which already have to endure more because of the crash and the nonstop pushing of the wind which creates sway to the building explain the collapse.


I mean, i was trying to explain the molten metal / glass pouring from the building. Now if this was caused by fires where the heat was increased by repetitive backdraft like effects, then this mystery would also have a possible and more plausible explanation.

Well... I've latched onto the "... ongoing fires at the columns ..." part. The core columns didn't have much if any fuel nearby to provide a fire for any length of time after the fuel that did burn inside was consumed... minutes at longest.
A couple of folks walked down the stairs from above the impact zone to below it and out... they mentioned some fire but not anything material. They said fire was near the wall of the stairway they were on as the passed the impact zone... No big deal according to them.. also fire fighters assessing the fire radioed that they could put them out with minimum effort... 3 lines as I recall. I'd think that fire of 1900c would render anyone nearby fried.
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
Well... I've latched onto the "... ongoing fires at the columns ..." part. The core columns didn't have much if any fuel nearby to provide a fire for any length of time after the fuel that did burn inside was consumed... minutes at longest.
A couple of folks walked down the stairs from above the impact zone to below it and out... they mentioned some fire but not anything material. They said fire was near the wall of the stairway they were on as the passed the impact zone... No big deal according to them.. also fire fighters assessing the fire radioed that they could put them out with minimum effort... 3 lines as I recall. I'd think that fire of 1900c would render anyone nearby fried.

Well, the 1900c fires would be not in the stairways but on floors up :

614_molten_metal.jpg


Cogman combined the possibilites in one post :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2089947&page=11#256

And you have to accept the possibility that those columns where designed to be only strong in one direction. Any offset of the direction of the force would reduce the strength. One of the posters above mentioned the straw example. Everything combined as i have mentioned above is what makes the collapse possible. Each individual situation would not make the building collapse, though.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, i do hope there was prior before the accident not some overly active manager promoting cutbacks and moving everything to the same location because of convenience. While forgetting why regulations and rules are designed in the first place. To handle the worst case scenario's and not the every day mishaps.

But anyway i got the list here according to CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html

That list as it applies to WTC7 is short one tennant (at least). CIA had its field office in that building too...
I don't know about how relevant tennants are to it all from the POV of which ever Conspiracy was involved. I think we are so far from proving anything other than there are some issues that don't make sense ... don't make sense not only to me but to folks who are expert in some aspect of this event...

I am acutely aware that there exist folks who 'hate' government because it is government and will do what ever it takes to diminish the power it has garnered over the years...

I'd not be surprised by anything now a days...
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
If the temp was actually near that 1100c you mentioned...
Nobody said 1100 °C, I said around 1600 °C.

...could be some magnesium, if any, in the wheel struts or elsewhere, if any.
A little bit of magnesium is used in planes, but not nearly enough to produce that much molten material, even if you stacked it all together in one spot.

The temp of the fires can vary, I suppose, but 1900c is quite hot... and I can't imagine anything organic or of office stuff burning at that temp in there given I don't see the 'draft' affecting the emitted smoke.
Actually, you can see from the black smoke that the fire was oxygen starved, but even with a backdraft the claim of 1900 °C is absurd. Besides, gas temps aren't material temps, the latter lags behind the former.

As for lost documents, the SEC claims they don't even have any record of what they lost.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, the 1900c fires would be not in the stairways but on floors up :

614_molten_metal.jpg


Cogman combined the possibilites in one post :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2089947&page=11#256

And you have to accept the possibility that those columns where designed to be only strong in one direction. Any offset of the direction of the force would reduce the strength. One of the posters above mentioned the straw example. Everything combined as i have mentioned above is what makes the collapse possible. Each individual situation would not make the building collapse, though.

hehehe, I took a straw and chopped off about 1/10th of it and went up on the roof and dropped that 1/10th of the straw on the 9/10th bit way down stuck in the lawn and ya know what... it bounced off... heheheheh :awe: I took a steel rod and did the same... bounced off... I then tried to squeeze the steel rod like the straw test and nothing... (I jest, of course) my point is that examples that are not structurally the same as the Towers is not informative of the Tower's action under stress.

I keep hearing Officer Opey with his 12 8x10 glossy photographs with circles and arrows depicting the events of that day... and looking at the seeing eye dog that lead the judge into the court and exclaiming that this is a case of blind justice....:eek:

I don't know independently much at all as you obviously can tell.. the bits I do know about are simple. But I think some stuff seems odd and others feel that way too... Is their motive the same as mine or do they have an agenda? I don't know... What I do know is that if I see an elephant and some say yup it is grey... and some say that it is a watermelon.. something is wrong.. Dr. Henry Lee comes to mind...
 

al981

Golden Member
May 28, 2009
1,036
0
0
I'm an engineer. I love math and physics. And technical reports don't scare me.

....

But here. Lets just let that sink in for a minute. You are calling an engineer and idiot while you yourself have no background in math or physics.


yeah, he's calling you an idiot. you supposedly understand physics and math, yet you make retarded statements such as this:

quote from Cogman:
"Neither tissue nor blood would have stuck on the bullet as it would have been spinning and moving too fast for such materials too stick or be stained"

lmfao, blood doesn't stick to bullets? ... sig worthy material. yeah, you just lost all credibility, and goes to show how bullshit the official jfk story is.
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
The backdraft temperature is based on the principle that there is enough material to burn, but not enough oxygen. When the oxygen is added in enough quantities, a flash burn effect takes place created from the same amount of energy in joules (the material) but released in a shorter time frame. Hence the higher temperature. And i have to note, this is local flame temperature, not the overall temperature in the room where the temperature is indeed much lower.
Because of the backdraft, the air can mix with the material (fuel) properly before it ignites.

I do not mean the kerosine alone with material . I mean everything combined.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
A little bit of magnesium is used in planes, but not nearly enough to produce that much molten material, even if you stacked it all together in one spot.


Actually, you can see from the black smoke that the fire was oxygen starved, but even with a backdraft the claim of 1900 °C is absurd. Besides, gas temps aren't material temps, the latter lags behind the former.

As for lost documents, the SEC claims they don't even have any record of what they lost.

Last bit first. What I read from that document and infer is that a FOIA was generated asking for responsive records or information related to documents destroyed in WTC7 and that no records responsive to that request exist... iow, that they didn't generate a list of what was lost (inferred). That could mean that it was not an issue cuz the records exist or who cares... not us... ! either way I am not sure about SEC.

Probably true about the plane bits cuz the heavy stuff would have transited out of the building and the less heavy stuff was pulverized. I didn't see a seat or bit of plane anywhere except I think an engine and wheel strut far away from the buildings. ( I should say photos of that)
I often wondered why the plane contents other than one terrorist passport was not found out side the building in some recognizable configuration. That must have been one hell of an impact.

The smoke could be black from plastics burning but I can't fathom a 1900c fire from plane, plane contents like fuel, the building or its contents and no one else who lived and was up there at the fire floors said it was all that hot... least ways not that I've heard.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
kylebisme:
When i started this thread, some hours ago, I was convinced that wtc 7 came down because of planted explosives...

But now I can't imagine any logic behind that because every and any 'conspiracy' to blame anything on terrorists could have blamed every bit of what happened on terrorists!

if it was people doing massive elevator work, it could have been terrorists infiltrating the elevator work. If it was a conspiracy at the NSA it could be low-level people infiltrating that.

The point is, if there was a conspiracy smart enough to point the finger at middle-eastern terrorists, then why wasn't the conspiracy smart enough to know that they could blame ANYTHING used to bring down the buildings on said terrorists? Leaving any part of the plan out of 'terrorists' did it would point a finger at them;

so you see, no matter what proof you find, the idea that anyone but middle-eastern terrorists were responsible is entirely illogical. If you can't address this directly, and you can't, then you fail and /thread.

I'm sorry, I used to agree with you, now I simply can not.

I don't believe anyone who believes in Islam would ever be a terrorist, but then how many Muslims truly belie in Islam and how many are simply practicing a rote-religion?
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
hehehe, I took a straw and chopped off about 1/10th of it and went up on the roof and dropped that 1/10th of the straw on the 9/10th bit way down stuck in the lawn and ya know what... it bounced off... heheheheh :awe: I took a steel rod and did the same... bounced off... I then tried to squeeze the steel rod like the straw test and nothing... (I jest, of course) my point is that examples that are not structurally the same as the Towers is not informative of the Tower's action under stress.

I keep hearing Officer Opey with his 12 8x10 glossy photographs with circles and arrows depicting the events of that day... and looking at the seeing eye dog that lead the judge into the court and exclaiming that this is a case of blind justice....:eek:

I don't know independently much at all as you obviously can tell.. the bits I do know about are simple. But I think some stuff seems odd and others feel that way too... Is their motive the same as mine or do they have an agenda? I don't know... What I do know is that if I see an elephant and some say yup it is grey... and some say that it is a watermelon.. something is wrong.. Dr. Henry Lee comes to mind...

I agree that when looking at everything from an individual point of view.
it stinks. But when you look at everything in detail and then combine the found results, there is nothing magical going on.

The only strange thing is that minutes after you posted your post, i looked up "officer opey" only to find this post at the top :
This post is posted at 11:37, but i had to make a printscreen, edit the picture and then transfer it to
my photo website and do some reading in between. This would me finding officer opey in less then 15 minutes as first result after you posted.


opey.jpg


Rather quick do you not think ?
Why is a google search bot giving priority to this post when there is so much information in the world ?
I already noticed that there is a certain bias in presenting search results.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Rather quick do you not think ?
Why is a google search bot giving priority to this post when there is so much information in the world ?
I already noticed that there is a certain bias in presenting search results.

Cuz I'm special hehehehe
It is from Alice's Resturant... the song.. Arlo Guthrie. It is about 18 minutes long and reflects upon a visit to the military induction center on Whitehall Street in NYC where I went all those years ago... It was a period song... and preceeded by a time spent at Alice's Resturant and trash being dumped and him being arrested for dumping it.. and it is quite a good song...
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
Cuz I'm special hehehehe
It is from Alice's Resturant... the song.. Arlo Guthrie. It is about 18 minutes long and reflects upon a visit to the military induction center on Whitehall Street in NYC where I went all those years ago... It was a period song... and preceeded by a time spent at Alice's Resturant and trash being dumped and him being arrested for dumping it.. and it is quite a good song...

Well, unfortunately it is not that scary as it seems. Millions of people all over the world have searched for wtc. As such the google program that runs on the google servers has a few tricks up it's sleeve.

When a certain primary keyword is looked for a lot (wtc), the search program starts to extends it search to related secondary keywords and stores the relationship between these keywords in a database. The program creates on it's own this database while roaming the internet with it's searchbots for that particular primary keyword. As such the program can create fully autonomously a database with actual search items within minutes. It works all in parallel and is where the speed is coming from. ^_^
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, unfortunately it is not that scary as it seems. Millions of people all over the world have searched for wtc. As such the google program that runs on the google servers has a few tricks up it's sleeve.

When a certain primary keyword is looked for a lot (wtc), the search program starts to extends it search to related secondary keywords and stores the relationship between these keywords in a database. The program creates on it's own this database while roaming the internet with it's searchbots for that particular primary keyword. As such the program can create fully autonomously a database with actual search items within minutes. It works all in parallel and is where the speed is coming from. ^_^

Well... I prefer to think that I'm special and Google no doubt agrees. You can't prove they don't and even if you can it ain't true... :eek:
 
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
Well... I prefer to think that I'm special and Google no doubt agrees. You can't prove they don't and even if you can it ain't true... :eek:

Perhaps then i am an "observing visitor" guarding "our" interests as "history" unfolds over centuries.

Did i mention not somewhere the yellow sun with it's solar system is the bringer of life ?


Forgot to mention we are sphere shaped because it is a natural form of perfection.

:D
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
Last bit first. What I read from that document and infer is that a FOIA was generated asking for responsive records or information related to documents destroyed in WTC7 and that no records responsive to that request exist... iow, that they didn't generate a list of what was lost (inferred). That could mean that it was not an issue cuz the records exist or who cares... not us... ! either way I am not sure about SEC.

Probably true about the plane bits cuz the heavy stuff would have transited out of the building and the less heavy stuff was pulverized. I didn't see a seat or bit of plane anywhere except I think an engine and wheel strut far away from the buildings. ( I should say photos of that)
I often wondered why the plane contents other than one terrorist passport was not found out side the building in some recognizable configuration. That must have been one hell of an impact.

The smoke could be black from plastics burning but I can't fathom a 1900c fire from plane, plane contents like fuel, the building or its contents and no one else who lived and was up there at the fire floors said it was all that hot... least ways not that I've heard.

Heavy smoke while a building is on fire is also typical of backdraft. As such we have multiple causes of heavy smoke.

But to come back to the weakened columns. An average temperature of 600 to 700 degrees celcius during a fire is common with hot spots where the temperature is higher and spots where it is lower.

Now to come back to the maintenance of the elevator shafts. How big is the chance that during maintenance the fire insulation material was removed or damaged ? Also , you must keep in mind that heating the columns does not provide an instant average temperature. Where the column is heated, there the temperature will be the highest. And you are right that the heat is transferred on to be leveled out, but this does not occur instantly. This takes time. As such there are parts of the column that will be hot enough to loose about 50 percent of it's strength and where the temperature decreases, the strength increases. But what i find interesting is how are these columns made ? Are they rapidly cooled off ( quenching) after production off or gradually cooled off ? Because this also determines the structural strength.
Now if this happens at parts where the connection of the load bearing structure is located...


wtc_damper_nn_fig1.jpg


wtc_damper_nn_fig2.jpg


My favourite subject, the dampers are made of metal parts isolated from each other with synthetic rubber. Not much heat transfer is going on here. The rubber will probably ignite though...


EDIT: Here is some more :
According to this link, A36 steel is used.

As with most steels, A36 has a density of 0.28 lbm/in³ (7.8 g/cm³). A36 steel in plates, bars, and shapes with a thickness of less than 8 in (200 mm) has a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi (250 MPa) and ultimate tensile strength of 58,000–80,000 psi (400–550 MPa). Plates thicker than 8 in have a 32,000 psi (220 MPa) yield strength and the same ultimate tensile strength.[1]

A36 is a standard carbon steel, without advanced alloying.


Here is the thermal expansion graph versus the temperature. The thermal expansion is a measure of density and as such elasticity i have learned and as such determines how much strength and stiffness the steel column still has.

87-5f05e.gif


87-5f06e.gif



Here are the links :

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/bsi/87-fire-protection.html

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/arti...al-that-could-have-saved-the-twin-towers/1004

The story in the lower link, is a bit of a lost cause because A36 steel is used everywhere and is abundant.

It is all explainable. The only real event that stinks is that prior knowledge was present and nothing was done about it. And as such with hindsight the collapse was an convenience for the bush administration. SR-71and UFO's my good man... Keep on believing in controlled demolition and do not ask yourself : Why is there no research done about the prior knowledge ?
 
Last edited:

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
so you see, no matter what proof you find, the idea that anyone but middle-eastern terrorists were responsible is entirely illogical.
Ignoring the physics of how the WTC buildings came down is illogical, as is ignoring; the physics of how so much of the Murrah building came down, the fact that JFK and MLK were shot from different directions than the supposed locations of their alleged assassins, the fact RFK was shot from far closer than his alleged assassin was and more bullets were fired than his gun could hold, the fact that our government murdered hundreds of men, women, and children on camera at Waco, and all sorts of other insanity. Unfortunately, the people who engage in such madness know our population will embrace all sorts of illogical rationalizations to keep on ignoring the facts which prove our establishment is rotten to the core.

Cuz I'm special hehehehe
Actually, it's just because this is already the most viewed secton of the web of the few places where people spelled "officer Obie" wrong, or at least wrong the same way you did.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
UFO sightings and the SR-71... :rolleyes:


JFK : Cuba, certain nuclear inspections...



weapon contracts...



DimonA


Google will be your friend.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Rather, I've given you the reason why it did happen; explosive demolition. Unfortunately, you're obviously too busy looking up your rectum to come to terms with that.

Explosives? Which explosives? C4? Nano-thermite? Comp B? RDX? If a conventional explosive;

How did they set them up? It would require a lot of man hours, a lot of men, and it would not be something you could "hide" with a construction story.

What did they use for detonation? Shock tube? Det cord? Remote det? if they used command detonation there would literally be millions of piece of unexploded shocktube, det cord scattered everywhere. Not too mention they would have to make sure that the connection were not cut by any fires, or falling debris.

Nano-thermite? If so, how did they keep it from detonating in the fires? It only takes a spark to set of thermite, is you contention that somehow they kept it from going off in the middle of raging fires.

If you can tell me the number of, and size of the beams that needed to be cut I can tell you within probably a case how much a particular explosive would be needed to bring the building down, that's what I did in the military.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
22,314
1,426
126
That list as it applies to WTC7 is short one tennant (at least). CIA had its field office in that building too...
I don't know about how relevant tennants are to it all from the POV of which ever Conspiracy was involved. I think we are so far from proving anything other than there are some issues that don't make sense ... don't make sense not only to me but to folks who are expert in some aspect of this event...

I am acutely aware that there exist folks who 'hate' government because it is government and will do what ever it takes to diminish the power it has garnered over the years...

I'd not be surprised by anything now a days...

I kind of expected that. Because i have also seen lists where the CIA was present on. And there where also empty floors or at least floors where the tenants where not known. It seems that many of the tenants into banking and investing had connection to the CIA.

But thinking of CIA, i had to think of what George Tenet claimed :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance -- Black called it an "out of cycle" session, beyond Tenet's regular weekly meeting with Rice -- would get her attention.

Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.



He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."

But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses.

Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts, and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."

Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden.

The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent, the two men told Rice. Black acknowledged that some of it was uncertain "voodoo" but said it was often this voodoo that was the best indicator.

Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies.

As they all knew, a coherent plan for covert action against bin Laden was in the pipeline, but it would take some time. In recent closed-door meetings the entire National Security Council apparatus had been considering action against bin Laden, including using a new secret weapon: the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, that could fire Hellfire missiles to kill him or his lieutenants. It looked like a possible solution, but there was a raging debate between the CIA and the Pentagon about who would pay for it and who would have authority to shoot.

Besides, Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.

Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. "Adults should not have a system like this," he said later.

The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about.

Philip D. Zelikow, the aggressive executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and a University of Virginia professor who had co-authored a book with Rice on Germany, knew something about the July 10 meeting, but it was not clear to him what immediate action really would have meant. In 2005 Rice hired Zelikow as a top aide at the State Department.

Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn't get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.

Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Which explosives?
Evidence suggests at least nano-thermite explosvses were used, though one can't rightly rule out the possiblity that other forms explosves were used too.

How did they set them up? It would require a lot of man hours, a lot of men...
One can't rightly argue that it would have taken too much time and effort to set up enough explosives to bring the buildings down while also maintaining that it didn't take any explosives to bring the building down, as the two claims are mutually exclusive. That said, it most certainly did take a lot of time and effort, and I'd like to see a proper criminal investigation figure out exactly how it was done.

What did they use for detonation?
Most likely remote detonators to avoid the various issues you mention, though det cord and shock tube aren't notably distinguishable from much of the other forms wiring and such in buildings to the untrained eye.

It only takes a spark to set of thermite, is you contention that somehow they kept it from going off in the middle of raging fires.
Only a small portion of each building was on fire, not rightly raging fires by any stretch, and casings can protect explosives from sparks and heat.

If you can tell me the number of, and size of the beams that needed to be cut...
Pretty much all of the columns had to be cut to result in the rate and scale of the destruction of the buildings which took place. As for the size and number of columns, you can find some details on that in the NIST "report". Anyway, you can find some truth speaking people better suited to addressing the intricacies of the demolitions here, most of whom you could contact though AE9/11T if you want to discuss the matter in more detail.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Evidence suggests at least nano-thermite explosvses were used, though one can't rightly rule out the possiblity that other forms explosves were used too.

This isn't "evidence".

One can't rightly argue that it would have taken too much time and effort to set up enough explosives to bring the buildings down while also maintaining that it didn't take any explosives to bring the building down, as the two claims are mutually exclusive. That said, it most certainly did take a lot of time and effort, and I'd like to see a proper criminal investigation figure out exactly how it was done.
Um, no, arguing that it would not have been possible for anyone to set up the explosives is exactly a reason to maintain that there were no explosives used.

Most likely remote detonators to avoid the various issues you mention, though det cord and shock tube aren't notably distinguishable from much of the other forms wiring and such in buildings to the untrained eye.
No it doesn't look like "other forms of wiring", and as far as an "untrained eye", we aren't talking rocket science, and just about any police officer, or firefighter should be able to tell you what it is, and it would literally be scattered everywhere.

Only a small portion of each building was on fire, not rightly raging fires by any stretch, and casings can protect explosives from sparks and heat.
Raging is exactly what they were. There weren't small camp fires slowly smoldering in the buildings. And regardless of whether they were engulfing or not, next to thermite it would ignite.

Pretty much all of the columns had to be cut to result in the rate and scale of the destruction of the buildings which took place. As for the size and number of columns, you can find some details on that in the NIST "report". Anyway, you can find some truth speaking people better suited to addressing the intricacies of the demolitions here, most of whom you could contact though AE9/11T if you want to discuss the matter in more detail.
Avoiding talking about your own theory? Interesting.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
1. Nobody had anything to gain from the demolition of the WTC besides the terrorists that crashed the planes into the buildings.

man, this thread has gained about 10 pages since i last looked.

cui bono?

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

and another:

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"