GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[geoschmo]

Slaughtermeyer said:

I suggest you forward your explanation for the collapse of WTC7 to Dr. Sunder of the NIST. Dr. Sunder may find it helpful because he has been unable to come up with an explanation of his own. When asked for an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 and why the collapse of the building was barely mentioned in the NIST report Dr. Sunder replied: "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

Truthfully I didn't pay much attention to this thread after my post so I just noticed yoru reply. What's outrageous is this New York Magazine article you link too came out a full year after the Popular Mechanics Aritcle, but they are giving quotes from Dr. Saunders from early in the investigation before all the facts were in. They've conveinently ignored any evidence that doesn't fit their conspiracy theory.

From the Pop Mech March 2005

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

If you ignore the facts, it's easy to come up with many plausible theories. But it takes a real art for self-denial to ignore inconvienent truths like "gravity makes things fall".

9/11 was not a conspiracy.Only the far left liberal nutjobs claim that,

The only real thing GW needs to be impeached for is allowing the flood of criminal aliens and terrorists across our borders and even considering the fact of allowing them amnesty.Not to mention the fact these illegals dont pay taxes yet are given medicare,EIC,and other services all on the tax payers dime.Bush has truely sold out those who put him into office.Im totally disgusted!

[Atrocities]

You guys really just need to ignore these kind of conspiracy threads. No matter how much evidence you post proving that these conspiracy theories are just half backed inventions of twisted and ill informed low brow anti-American whack jobs, they won't believe you. For them ignoring the truth, the evidence, and laws of physics is a way of life. Hell they made a movie that is prominently featured on both Google Video and You-Tube. These two seemingly left wing loving sites tout this tripe filled movie as being the best movie ever made about the events of 9/11. I guess fiction does sell. Most people who have seen this movie will admit that it is complete bunk, but hey, the conspiracy loving dim wits of the world believe in it so who the hell are we to say to them that they are crazy? Oh wait, that would be inferred by our laughing hysterically at them as they continue to believe that George Bush was behind the 9/11.

What I love is now that this movie is out, nut jobs use it as proof that their whacked out theories are valid. And the movie uses these whacked out nut jobs theories as proof that there was a conspiracy. Its just one whacked out nut job pointing to another whacked out nut job and saying "well he said it happened" back and forth like some retard circle jerk.

In fact that is the best way to describe this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing; a whacked out crazy left wing circle jerk.

[Atrocities]

If you ignore the facts, it's easy to come up with many plausible theories. But it takes a real art for self-denial to ignore inconvenient truths like "gravity makes things fall".

- Geo

Excellent comment. This one is an award winning statement. Well said Geo.

[Slaughtermeyer]

geoschmo said:
Truthfully I didn't pay much attention to this thread after my post so I just noticed yoru reply. What's outrageous is this New York Magazine article you link too came out a full year after the Popular Mechanics Aritcle, but they are giving quotes from Dr. Saunders from early in the investigation before all the facts were in.

Dr. Sunder made those comments on Jan. 18 2006, well after the lame Popular Mechanics attempt to explain the collapse of WTC7 appeared. [see footnote 6 from this article.]

The "working hypothesis" which the NIST had in early 2006 apparently was so inadequate that a few months later the NIST commissioned an "Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios" and the "Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance."

The reliability of the photograph that Popular Mechanics claims shows "about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out" apparently is being seriously questioned because according to NIST there was a "lack of information about impact damage to the south face of WTC 7" and the "new images" which the NIST obtained in 8/06 did not rule out the need to investigate the possibility that the building was imploded. [ pages 7 & 8 of this report]

More importantly, Popular Mechanics has admitted that the photograph which they use as the basis for their conclusion about the damage to WTC7 is being deliberately witheld from viewing by the general public. This admission was made by Popular Mechanics "researcher" David Coburn when he was interviewed by Arizona talk show host Charles Goyette. Here's the pertinent part of that interview:

CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that’s interesting…if that’s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you’ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn’t show that. So I’m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don’t show me the picture.

PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that’s a fine kettle of fish, isn’t it? ….What did you see there that I can’t see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that’s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You’re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they’ve done the worst possible thing, they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn’t know we had different classes of citizens. You can’t tell me it’s because it’s a criminal case because they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ….I can’t answer that question.

CG: I know you can’t.

The entire interview can be heard here:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/4527367b2b25/

[capnq]

I just found this in a webcomic archive yesterday.

Not that I expect it to make a difference...

[Gandalf Parker]

LOL
I like that.

[Atrocities]

Slaughtermeyer in all honesty I believe what Popular Mechanics has said and quite honestly would never buy into or believe or even consider what any of these conspiracy theorists have to say. I saw the interview with the guys who made that conspiracy movie and the men from PM magazine. Those film guys were rude, offensive, unwilling to listen, and hostile. Those film producers have absolutely [/b]no[/b] creditability what so ever.

In fact I would not ever take anything these whack job morons would say seriously. And thankfully neither does any one else. From the looks of it, only half brain dead morons on Youtube and Google Video believe this nonsense that the US Government is behind the events of 9/11. And that does not bode well for your cause.

As to you, well if you want to ignore rational and scientific facts from reputable engineers and scientist in favor of discredited, and much laughed at crack pots, then that is your choice, but please don't try and pass this tripe off as real fact. It just makes you and all of your conspiracy buddies look laughably stupid. No one with any sense of intelligence will ever take this conspiracy theory crap seriously. That is a simple and undeniable fact of life so why not just dispense with continuing to argue the point and humbly move on to bigger and better game.

If I had moderator powers in this forum, I would lock this thread.

[capnq]

Locking the thread would just confirm the True Believers' opinion that The Truth Is Being Suppressed. Better to let everyone see for themselves how irrational the arguments are.

[geoschmo]

As much as I disagree with Slaughtermeyers point of view on this issue it seems to me he's been quite calm and reasonable in the discussion. He's got a right to express his opinion and even attempt to convince others of it's correctness. We can't go locking people down just because we disagree with them, even if what they say makes us uncomfortable.