9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.


Home Forums Discussion Forum 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

This topic contains 12 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Clark 3 hours, 3 minutes ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #50132 Reply

    Clark

    I am starting this forum because I have been repeatedly accused of deliberately sabotaging the original one. My accusers could have opened a replacement thread; they did not do so even after I suggested it; I really do not understand what passes for thinking in such minds.

  • #50134 Reply

    Clark

    PLEASE DO NOT POST ‘NAKED’ LINKS. PLEASE USE THE LINK BUTTON ABOVE THE COMMENT BOX

    …or, if you know how, type out a full a-tag link manually. When naked links are posted the forum software embeds content from the link target. When the thread becomes long the embedded content makes the page very demanding, taking ages to load and requiring excessive memory on users’ systems.

    I’m unlikely to post much on this forum having said all I wish to say on the original. WTC7 probably just collapsed, most likely due to appalling design and construction (as documented by the UAF report), though I do wonder if a very brave team rigged demolitions (WTC7 was on fire, distorting, leaning and making alarming creaking noises!) on the afternoon of 9/11 – surviving firefighters had been ordered not to search for their missing comrades in the vicinity of WTC7 due to the risk of it collapsing. The New York Fire Department was on the verge of mutiny, so maybe some kind of deal was done, though the only reason I can think of for keeping such an emergency demolition secret would be to encourage conspiracy theorists. To those who claim this to be impossible in such a short time, military demolition teams do this as their day job, behind enemy lines.

    The UAF report makes reference to four other engineering investigations of WTC7’s collapse; the FEMA Building Performance report, the NIST report, the ARUP report and one I can’t remember the name of, so there is plenty of material to investigate for anyone genuinely interested. Two reports were produced for two court cases; WTC7 was built above an electricity transformer substation, which it destroyed when it collapsed. Con Edison, owners of the substation, sued the owners of the WTC claiming that WTC7 collapsed due to faulty design and construction. Con Edison won, but the verdict was overturned on appeal. I mention these matters because demolition theorists generally don’t seem to know, and instead of examining this copious evidence they merely parrot things they find on Truther websites.

    g and free-fall are NOT the same thing; see my comments on the original thread. Contrary to Chandler, acceleration at g does not prove free-fall, eg. a vehicle could accelerate horizontally at g but it would not be in free-fall. Try to use your brains! And buildings subject to controlled demolition typically fall slower than g anyway.

    For the record, I am not a supporter of the “official story”. I think that the 9/11 attacks were quite possibly a Gladio B operation. Gladio B, exposed by whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, is a “strategy of tension” operation similar to the original Gladio operation in Europe, but using Jihadists in the place of violent right-wing extremists. Gladio B is run by NATO Secret Services, and 9/11 was used as the pretext to make the invasion of Afghanistan (for the Unocal pipeline) a NATO operation. NATO has no government of its own, so NATO Secret Services lacks government oversight.

    But there is little suspicious about the collapses of the Twin Towers; they collapsed as any structural engineer would have expected them to under the circumstances; structural failure inducing progressive collapse. The Twin Towers were of the most lightweight construction ever implemented in such tall buildings; occupants complained that they swayed excessively in high winds, spilling coffee out of cups on desks, making the floor assemblies creak, and causing tower computers to fall over. They had been fitted with thousands of viscous dampers (ie. shock absorbers) to prevent occupants from suffering motion sickness.

    9/11 was NOT used as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq; that was fake “weapons of mass destruction” and fake informants such as ‘Curveball’. Nor was it used as a pretext for the devastation of Libya (fake massacre in Benghazi), nor the infiltration of Jihadists into Syria (“Assad is a dictator”).

    The real scandal of the 9/11 Commission Report is that it was 60% based on confessions extracted under torture. It is well established that torture produces false confessions; it also permanently corrupts the evidence trail. Condoleezza Rice authorised the CIA torture programme; she should be your target rather than the mediocre engineers and desk-jockeys of NIST.

    Conspiracy theorists, your pristine thread awaits you; enjoy your boring circle-jerk 😀

  • #50147 Reply

    Node

    I am starting this forum because I have been repeatedly accused of deliberately sabotaging the original one.

    Start as you meant to continue, eh Clark. Your very first sentence in this new forum contains two deceptions:

    (1) The thread you link to isn’t the original 911 thread. The original is https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/ and you deliberately sabotaged that one too (read the final page for proof). You killed off a long-running (8 years) very popular (11807 posts) feature of Craig’s website out of petulance.
    (2) You imply that the accusations are false but the evidence is there to be seen – you exploited a bug in the blog software which makes a thread unstable when too many videos are embedded. The 1st sentence in your next comment proves you know about this vulnerability yet you continued to add trivial and irrelevant videos until it made browsers crash.

    So this is my first and last comment here. I want open discussion and you won’t tolerate it.

    • #50148 Reply

      Clark

      Node, these personal accusations are off-topic, as will be my defence against them.

      I was referring to the original UAF Report thread. Yes, there is the much earlier 9/11 Post of Craig’s, which became entirely overtaken with arguments about building collapses. There is much more to 9/11 than that; it seems to me that building collapses serve as a very effective distraction from the points I raised in the second comment of this thread.

      As a moderator I repeatedly reopened the original 9/11 Post; it was Craig who instructed site admin to close it. I was unaware of the problem in the forum software, so I was incapable of exploiting it. When I discovered it I warned others and tried to get it fixed. As a last resort I opened this forum, but…

      It is the height of irony that you accuse me of sabotage, and yet you vow to boycott the thread.

      • #50149 Reply

        Clark

        Node, February 8, 11:39: – “…a bug in the blog software which makes a thread unstable when too many videos are embedded”

        No it’s not just videos; the software embeds content upon posting any naked link.

  • #50271 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    I am so pleased Clark has condemned ‘Naked’ links on here – I’m a bit of a prude myself.
    Still, I know Clark is a bit sensitive on ‘Lucky Larry’, so here is a very short video, which I will just write the title to (simply search video + title):
    ‘EXPLAIN THIS – Plans to Rebuild WTC-7 Over 1 Year Before It’s Destruction’.
    I’ve spent years on 9/11, and this is a new one on me. ‘All roads lead to Rome’, or in this case, an ‘Inside Job’.

    • #50275 Reply

      Clark

      “EXPLAIN THIS” – Sure. WTC7 was a dreadful building, worse in its own ways than even the Twin Towers. The UAF Report documents that column loads were wildly uneven, with column 79 carrying far more than most others, nearly four times the load of column 65. WTC7 was built partly on foundations laid years earlier, intended for a building around a third of the weight of WTC7. A quick scan of the UAF Report reveals steel members running this way and that, at odd angles, supported by further ad-hoc components. Further, this report establishes that global collapse of the building would have ensued from the failure of just six core columns. WTC7’s design looked like it had been cobbled together from spare parts to place the maximum office space on the least support at minimal expense; replacement was the best fate for it, so it is entirely to be expected that rebuilding had been considered.

      • #50283 Reply

        Clark

        The reason the WTC buildings were so poor was that the Port Authority has an exemption from state building “codes”, ie. regulations. Building codes have been improved in response to the collapses on 9/11.

    • #50281 Reply

      Clark

      The video Paul Barbara refers to is here.

      Silverstein took the lease of the WTC complex only six weeks before the attacks, but he says that the plans for the replacement WTC7 were drawn up eighteen months before, in April 2000. So whoever had the plans drawn up, it presumably wasn’t Silverstein Properties. So the alleged conspiracy has to be extended, as they always seem to. This theory also needs yet more conspirators to arrange the attack on the Pentagon. One of my tests for a “conspiracy theory” is whether the alleged conspiracy has to be expanded without limit.

      Paul, rather than just linking to that uninformative and rather anti-Semitic* video, I think you should do some research and find out who did have WTC7’s replacement designed. And as the video alleges that the attacks were essentially an insurance fraud, you should also find out and post how much it eventually cost Silverstein Properties to redevelop the WTC complex; without that information, the video’s claim that the insurance payout was excessive is merely malicious gossip.

      * Anti-Semitic tropes from 04:00 onward – slowing Silverstein’s voice to make him sound sinister, and then repeating, with reverb, “but at least I got the money” over and over, because everyone knows that money is all Jews care about. Videos like this are an appeal to unpleasant emotions; you should link to documentary evidence instead.

      • #50282 Reply

        Clark

        “Paul, rather than just linking to that uninformative and rather anti-Semitic* video…”

        Sorry Paul, you didn’t link to it, you provided a search term. But my arguments still apply.

      • #50303 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark February 18, 2020 at 14:33
        My understanding is that Larry Silverstein designed and owned WTC 7 from the outset, and six weeks prior to 9/11 signed the deal to lease the rest of the WTC buildings.
        So it was ‘Lucky Larry’ who designed the new WTC 7 in 2000.
        ‘BOMBSHELL! Larry Silverstein designed NEW WTC-7 in April of 2000’.
        ‘…And as the video alleges that the attacks were essentially an insurance fraud, you should also find out and post how much it eventually cost Silverstein Properties to redevelop the WTC complex; without that information, the video’s claim that the insurance payout was excessive is merely malicious gossip…’
        I don’t believe 9/11 was designed as an insurance fraud (nor do I believe that is implied in the video, or believed by anyone I know) or that Larry Silverstein had any part in planning 9/11, but certainly he took full advantage of the planning, of which he had to be aware, to make a financial (and literal) ‘killing’. The implication is that Larry Silverstein was fully aware of the plans for 9/11, and used it to maximum effect.
        What you don’t seem to understand, is Silverstein paid only some $15 million dollars as his share of the first installment, and that was it! That was all it cost him, as he only paid that one initial installment (the other $100 million was apparently paid by his backers, who were presumably adequately reimbursed). That was a tiny fraction of the prohibitive price it would have cost to have the asbestos removed, or to have the Twin Towers manually dismantled.
        And of course the Twin Towers had never been a popular place to work, never been fully occupied, and never made money. So the iconic landmark Towers were in reality a massive White Elephant, a financial drain, and condemned because of asbestos (though people were still using it, I don’t know how that worked).
        And he had enshrined in the insurance, right to rebuild on the extremely valuable site.
        An absolute dream come true. He had miraculously turned a huge albatross around his neck, into a golden opportunity.
        All are agreed that WTC 7 was a very peculiar building, but he had just spent millions on it before making the plans for the new building in 2000. One presumes he had not been made aware of the plans for 9/11 before he spent the millions refurbishing WTC 7, but only learnt later, probably when he started making the plans for the new WTC 7. Again, another albatross miraculously transformed into a golden opportunity.

        • #50304 Reply

          Clark

          Evidence, Paul, evidence. You claim that Silverstein paid or didn’t pay this or that, but without evidence it’s just tittle-tattle. Transactions produce paper trails. Property deals get reported in trade magazines, and maybe in announcements by the parties involved or the authorities. You need to produce a robust case. By that I mean official figures or court records – there must be thousands of court exhibits – not just some allegations on a Truther website or a YouTube vid.

          See, what you’re doing looks very bad. On the face of it, Silverstein was a victim of an attack on his property, so what you’re doing appears to be victim-blaming. I have no idea, but people he worked with, colleagues, friends of his may have been killed or injured that day. You say there was some conspiracy which saved his life by setting up his dermatology appointment, but you present no evidence for this, and if it’s not so Silverstein was probably traumatised by his narrow escape, and possibly mortified if anyone he knew was killed or injured.

          You claim that Silverstein Property had a “right to rebuild”, but I read that the insurance policy specified an obligation to rebuild in the event of payout. I have no more evidence than you, but it’s you making allegations, not me. Surely the insurance policy must have been presented in the insurance court cases, making it publicly available, yet I have never seen it on any of the Truther websites that make such allegations.

          You say that Silverstein Properties had undertaken “refurbishment”; are you sure? Maybe tenants had paid for it. You haven’t presented a paper trail. If rebuilding plans had been drawn up, for when was rebuilding proposed? The millions for refurbishment are nothing against the billions for rebuilding, and you don’t stop replacing tyres just because you plan to get a new car in two years time.

          What about payouts for collateral damage? The collapses of the Twin Towers destroyed gas, electricity and water mains. They damaged roads and an underground railway station, and who knows what else. Are you just assuming that the Port Authority paid for all this, and the clean-up? Paperwork, paperwork. There have been dozens of court cases; Con Edison sued Silverstein Properties, Silverstein Properties sued Airport security companies, etc. etc. etc. It’s not like there are no documents available, in fact going through them all would be a massive task, but all I’ve ever seen on Truther sites is allegations without any supporting documents, or at best just a couple of citations out of potentially thousands, with no attempt to put them in context or summarise the court case.

          It looks like lazy, sensationalist, prejudiced victim-blaming. People get very angry about this because it’s so much like what the Nazis did – accused the Jews of conspiring against everyone else, and on the basis of that blame tried to exterminate them all, causing a massive six-year war.

          Do you see my point?

  • #50292 Reply

    Clark

    Truther pseudocode:


    include supports_demolition, supports_big_hole_in
    include db(truther_sites)
    def string claim
    def float veracity
    def int count, wow
    start:
    get claim
    / veracity = supported_by_evidence(claim) / These lines commented out as
    / if veracity > 0 append_to_case(claim, veracity) / supported_by_evidence() not
    / endif / executable on Truther CPUs.
    wow = supports_demolition(claim, wtc1)
    wow = wow + supports_demolition(claim, wtc2)
    wow = wow + supports_demolition(claim, wtc7)
    wow = wow + supports_big_hole_in(claim, wtc5)
    if wow > 0 {
    for count = 1 to truther_sites_known
    repost (claim * rnd(10)) truther_site(count)
    next count}
    goto start:

Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.
Your information: