Dutch company says Controlled Demoliton for bldg 7

[dbeach]

Prof. Proof later retracts<br><br>Wonder why??<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm">www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?<br>By Jerry Russell<br><br>On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.<br><br>The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.<br><br>My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence. <br><br>At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer. <br><br>But after all, it was only a Usenet post. I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful feedback in the discussion. As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.<br><br>However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Mel]

Here's my observations about the collapse of WTC 7, followed by some thought experiments maybe some of you would like to tackle:<br><br>Watch all videos of WTC 7's collapse here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html">www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY appreciable trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a fact that to me is only explainable via CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground with enough force to snap off small sections at the bottom. The columns essentially had no structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is not possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).<br><br>An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8">www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).<br><br>Now a couple of thought experiments:<br><br>1. If a laboratory worker hoisted a very long steel column (let's call it 500 feet, comprised of shorter steel columns, butt-jointed and, at the very least, bolted together...possibly welded...I believe NIST says the joints were welded) vertically such that its bottom was, say, 50 ft. off the ground, then dropped the column (and I have NO idea how this exact scenario happened to ALL the columns immediately behind the visible walls in the videos), would the column spear smoothly into the ground, systematically breaking itself apart ONLY at the bottom joints, and thus resulting in a pile of short pieces? And would this process continue unabated, all the way to the ground, even though the column is getting shorter and shorter, and thus lighter and lighter, as it proceeded into the ground?<br><br>2. If you are hanging 200 ft. above ground from the branch of a tree (a non-flexible branch, for this analogy), and someone "magically" removes the bottom 50 ft of the tree INSTANTLY (and this is what happened to all of Tower 7's steel columns immediately behind the visible walls... SIMULTANEOUSLY, no less), what's going to happen to you when the bottom of the tree hits the ground? What's going to happen to the trunk of the tree?<br><br>Anyone have any comments on these thought experiments and how they relate to the bizarre behaviour of WTC's walls? What prevented the walls of WTC 7 from behaving "appropriately" by coming to a jarring halt on their first several-story plunge, with vast amounts of facade material (windows, concrete, whatever) breaking loose from the jarring?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Mel]

<br>This 3 part video is second to none with regards to the CD of the three WTC buildings. Enjoy.<br><br>Part 1<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=911+Mysteries&hl=en-CA">video.google.com/videopla...s&hl=en-CA</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Part 2<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=911+Mysteries&hl=en-CA">video.google.com/videopla...s&hl=en-CA</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Part 3<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569&q=911+Mysteries&hl=en-CA">video.google.com/videopla...s&hl=en-CA</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Seamus OBlimey]

Qutb, nomo, I'll believe those planes brought the towers down when the experts start suggesting planes as a reliable method of demolition. <p></p><i></i>