Let us now in the thick of it with one of the most revealing articles to be published in the field, and at multiple levels. Published by AFP (American Free Press), it revealed that the seismological observatory Lamont-Doherty had recorded the morning of September 11, 2001 two huge seismic changes of very short duration just before the collapse each of the twin towers in Manhattan, before the debris hit the ground.
"The seismographs of Lamont-Doherty, Columbia University in Palisades, in the State of New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that remains unexplained.
While aircraft impact caused minimal vibration of the ground, major earthquakes with peaks of unusual activity occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded an earthquake with a magnitude of 2.1 during the fall of ten seconds of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a tremor of 2.3 during the collapse of eight seconds of the North Tower at 10:28:31. [...]» A8
noted in passing the importance of this information. The fact that the two skyscrapers, high of about 415 meters (1362 and 1368 feet), were reduced to dust respectively ten and eight seconds each is indeed disturbing when one learns that a falling body is approximately eight seconds to travel the same distance without any resistance other than air.
Does this mean that the dozens of floors below the area intact Impact of the North Tower will offer virtually no resistance?
continue with the rest of the article.
"[...] However, seismic data show that Palisades - while the collapses beginning - a huge seismic ˝ ˝ peak indicated the time at which the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest shock were all recorded at the beginning of the collapses clearly falling debris before touching the ground. These
˝ ˝ unexplained peaks in the seismic data give credence to the theory that powerful explosions in the base of the towers caused the collapses.
˝ A pronounced peak of short duration ˝ is what looks like an underground nuclear explosion on a seismograph, told AFP seismologist Thorne Lay of UC Santa Cruz, California.
Both are unexplained peaks over 20 times higher than the amplitude of other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to crumble.
Experts can not explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. [...]
While steel is often tested for traces of explosives, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in relating the towers, the engineers involved in the assessment of buildings managed by FEMA did not lead any kind of test . [...]» A8
Article then continued by revealing the discovery by crews cleaning up the site, large pools of molten steel at the base of the rubble of the towers, more than a month after the tragedy. Same amazing finds, moreover, under the debris of Building 7, which was struck by any plane, but which collapsed anyway in the late afternoon the same day.
"[...] In the basements of buildings in ruins, where the 47 central support columns were connecting with the founding of hot spots ˝ literally molten steel were discovered more ˝ one month after the collapse. Such waste heat so intense and persistent, to 70 feet [21 meters] below the surface in a sub-supplied with oxygen, could explain how the structure could give crucial support. [...]»
article then quotes Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc.. (CDI) of Phoenix, a company that calls itself ˝ innovator and leader in the global field of controlled demolition and implosion of structures ˝. This same Loizeaux who cleaned including the site of the federal building Alfred P. Murrah to Oklahama City after the terrorist attack of 1995.
"[...] AFP asked Loizeaux about the reports of molten steel on the site.
˝ ˝ Yes, he said, ˝ in some places was on the hot molten steel in the basements ˝. These places incredibly
were localized hot ˝ three, four and five weeks later, what were then removed debris ˝, said Loizeaux. He added that the molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which had mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538 degrees Celsius]. [...]
Experts do not believe that the aviation fuel or paper could have generated such heat.
This is impossible, they say, since the maximum temperature which be reached by hydrocarbons like jet fuel burning in air is 1520 degrees F [827 degrees Celsius]. WTC fires are fuel rich, as was demonstrated by the thick black smoke, they argue that they did not reach this upper limit.
The warmest areas of debris on the surface, where oxygen was plentiful, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basement. [...]» A8
As reported this article, the presence of molten steel under the debris (see Annex Photos - PH-5.16) becomes confusing for the simple reason that the steel has a melting point of about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538 degrees Celsius], and begins to weaken significantly beyond that of 1292 degrees Fahrenheit [700 degrees Celsius] (W169). The official version says it is kerosene, the fuel for airliners, which weakened the steel structure on burning.
To give a benchmark, consider the picture of another fire, the Windsor Building in Madrid. According to CNN, the highest temperature reached during the fire was 800 degrees Celsius (or 1472 degrees F) (W157) (see photos attached - PH-7.4 to 7.9). Is a comparison of photos of the fire with those of the World Trade Center allows us to believe that a similar or higher temperature was reached in New York?
Furthermore, kerosene reached during combustion maximum temperature of 1517 F, and only when conditions are optimal, that is to say when it is fully oxygenated. Moreover, it is important to note that almost all the tanks of kerosene has been consumed during the brief but intense initial explosion in the form of huge fireballs that we all have observed in horror, live on television (see Appendix Photos - PH-2.1 to 2.7).
So why is it that we have solved the molten steel in the ruins?
Several other sources have also reported the presence of molten steel on the site of the World Trade Center. For example, Waste Age magazine, which targets professionals waste management, recycling and refilling, reported this.
"[...] But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to his regular duties, the NYDS [Department Health of the City of New York] has played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams up human remains - ensuring the comings and goings of trucks between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to receive debris. [...]» W170
Meanwhile, GCN (Government Computer News) reported a year to the day after the attacks that "for six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 and 1500 degrees Fahrenheit degrees [between 315 and 815 degrees Celsius], sometimes more.
˝ In the first weeks, when worker raised at a steel beam of debris, molten steel dripping at the end ˝ said [Greg] Fuchek [president of sales at LinksPoint Inc.. who worked jointly with the Fire Department of New York]. [...]» W171
Even the chaplain at Ground Zero, Herb Trimpe, testified to the presence of molten steel in an interview with the Times Herald-Record of Middletown, NY, published on September 8, 2002.
"[...] I realized that it was warmer on the site. The fires have burnt up 2000 degrees [Celsius 1093] to the basement for a long time before they come to these places and they cool.
I spoke with several contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal at the bottom, the beams were simply completely melted due to heat. [...]» W172
also mention a publication of the NEHA (National Environmental Health Association), quoting Ron Burger, a public health consultant of the National Center for Environmental Health.
"[...] A veteran of disasters from flooding of the Mississippi River and Mount St. Helens Burger testified that he remembered the volcano, he forgot that he was at the heart of Manhattan. ˝ To feel the warmth, seeing the molten steel, layers over layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mount St. Helens and the thousands of [people] who fled that disaster. [...]» W173
also quote an excerpt published by the PAIL (Structural Engineers Association of Utah) in October 2001.
"[...] Twenty-one days after the attacks, fires were still burning and molten steel was still flowing. [...]» W174
But do it anyway, abstraction, for a moment, the shortfall of at least 1000 degrees F [538 degrees Celsius] for the steel can be melted, and examine the logic of the thing. North and South towers had collapsed after burning for respectively 102 and 56 minutes, is it not natural to assume that the temperature reached the upper floors of the hardest hit have peaked in the moments before the collapse, since c is at this point that the steel yielded? Otherwise, why the towers would collapse if they fire the temperature was actually in decline?
However, an article The New York Times reveals the latest radio communications firefighters reached the 78th floor of the south tower at 9:56, just seconds before it collapsed on them. Far from describing the hellish temperatures which one would expect, the Chief Orio Palmer transmits a voice without fear that two water lines would be sufficient to attack two isolated pockets of fire.
Here is an excerpt of the article published November 9, 2002.
"The voices, captured on a recording of radio transmissions from the Fire Department, betray no fear. The words are pragmatic. Two hose
Fire is needed, Chief Orio Palmer says from one of the top floors of the south tower seriously damaged the World Trade Center. Only two hoses to attack two isolated pockets of fire. ˝ We should be able to come to grips with two hoses ˝ he said firefighters from the 15th Division who followed him climbing the stairs of the doomed tower. [...]» A1
Two pockets of fire isolated, can be contained with two simple casings. Could this be the cause of the collapse of this gigantic skyscrapers 110 stories? Yet, against all odds, at 9:59, the south tower collapsed into dust. But
push the reasoning of the official version still further and assume that the fire, despite the laws of science, has actually reached temperatures high enough to have weakened the steel structures. Forget also the vibrations received by the seismographs at the beginning of the collapses. Just imagine a fire so hot, so devastating to the upper floors that could weaken the steel structure at this level. This structure must be remembered, consisted of 47 steel pillars in the center. Is it conceivable that the physically weakened core columns at the top of the skyscraper is could cause the collapse of all the sections below, still intact as they had no way been weakened by fire, in a manner as symmetrical?
not forget that the impact of the plane could affect the stability of the building, some say? Who better than Leslie Robertson, structural engineer in chief during the construction of the World Trade Center, to enlighten us on this. In an interview on the BBC, Mr Robertson said the towers have specifically designed for them to survive such an impact.
" [...] ˝ We designed the project to withstand the impact of the largest aircraft of its time, either the Boeing 707. That meant taking the airliner, do hit the building, destroying a large section of its structure and it takes the shot. ˝ [...] »A6
then go back to February 1993, following the first attack against the World Trade Center during which a bomb had exploded in the underground parking lot and see what the Seattle Times reported.
"The engineers had to consider all the imaginary risks when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, this time the twin towers were an unprecedented format for structures made of steel and glass.
'We thought about everything you could imagine that could happen with the buildings, even including the possibility that a plane hit his side,' said John Skilling, head structural engineer. [...]
Worried by a case where a plane had crashed into the Empire State Building, Skilling's team had presented an analysis showing that the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
'Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem is the fact that kerosene (aircraft) flowed into the building. There would be a horrible fire. Many people would be killed, 'he said. 'But the structure is still there. " [...]
The support columns are closely spaced, and although several of them were destroyed, others bear the weight. [...]
While Skilling is not an explosives expert, he claims that there are people who know enough to demolish buildings to cause the collapse of a structure similar to that of the World Trade Center.
'I guess if you take the most competent expert in this type of job and if you give the task to build these buildings to the ground, I would bet that he would succeed. " "W188
Observe also the words that kept Frank A. DeMartini, head of the supervision and construction of the World Trade Center on the History Channel's airwaves Jan. 25, 2001.
"The building was designed for a [Boeing] 707 filled to capacity crashes on him. It was the largest aircraft that existed at that time. I think the building could probably withstand multiple impacts of commercial aircraft because its structure is like the mosquito net to your door. This intense grilling versus the airplane is the equivalent of a pencil that pierces the net. It really does nothing to the screen. "W229
And as we know, both towers survived, in fact, the respective impact of the planes. The official report of the inquiry do not blame indeed these impacts for the collapses. Only the fire would be responsible for structural failure of buildings, which goes against statements made by John Skilling, who said that even if several support columns were destroyed, the other would be sufficient to support the weight of the building.
It is also important to realize that not a skyscraper built on a steel structure has suffered the same fate after a fire, either before or after September 11, 2001 (A7). So what are the odds that the only three occasions in our history - including Building 7 - where a skyscraper collapsed due to fire are grouped in the same day?
Many major fires yet attempted to overcome other skyscrapers in the past. Include only a few examples.
October 17, 2004, in Caracas, Venezuela, the tallest building in the city was engulfed in flames. Its 56 floors, 16 burned for 17 hours without causing its collapse (see photos attached - PH-7.10 to 7.14).
February 23, 1991, eight of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia for 18 hours were ravaged by a fire described as the most important of the century by the officials. It did not collapse (see photos attached - PH-7.3).
May 4, 1988 in Los Angeles, the building of 62 floors of the First Interstate Bank burned for three and a half hours over four floors and survived as well (see photos attached - PH-7.1 and 7.2).
We have already mentioned the case of Windsor Building, Madrid in Spain, which caught fire Feb. 12, 2005. This 32-storey tower has seen its top ten floors literally be engulfed by a blaze raging for nearly a full day. One section of wall collapsed, but the main structure survived the tragedy.
same time, we remember these disturbing images broadcast on television, showing survivors clinging to the windows of the World Trade Center in the areas hardest hit, waving a piece of cloth and begging them to come to their assistance (see photos attached - PH-5.9 and 5.10). Is it logical to believe that the fire may have been sufficiently intense that it melts the steel columns, but have both been possible for these people to remain in the windows without burning bright?
Moreover, it is surprising to know that from 1995 to 2001, collection of fire-resistant structure on some specific floors of the twin towers was improved. Indeed, as explains one of the official documents of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology - a U.S. federal agency which was responsible for submitting an extensive report and detailed on the technicalities of the collapse of World Trade Center), 18 of 110 floors of the north tower and 13 of the 110 floors of the South Tower had their fire protection to be strengthened in the years preceding September 11, 2001.
Taking into account that the zone of impact of Flight 11 against the north tower extended from 92nd to 99th floor, and that Flight 175 destroyed floors 78-84 of the South Tower, consider this excerpt from the report of the NIST.
"[...] From 1995 to 2001, thermal protection was improved in a number of floors affected by fire September 11, 2001. Specifically, in the WTC1 [north tower], the floors 92 to 100 and the 102nd had been improved, and in WTC 2 [South Tower], the floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97 had been improved. [...] According
Port Authority [of New York City], 18 floors of WTC1 and 13 floors of WTC 2 were improved. The Port Authority also said: 'The whole area Impact of Tower 1 (92-99) had been improved with a fire retardant spray due to a thickness of an inch and a half. Only the 78th floor had been enhanced with a fire retardant spray, and half an inch thick in the impact zone of the tower 2 (78-84) '. [...]
Data analysis indicates that the thickness measurements of [retardant] of the two towers were similarly distributed and the data were therefore combined. [...]
The average thickness of 256 individual measurements was taken into account assessed at 2 ½ inches [...]. Thus, the average thickness of [retardant] found on the upper floors improved seems more important than that assessed from photographs taken on the lower floors improved. [...]» W198
Thus we learn that in the case of the north tower, recovering anti-fire of all of the area hardest hit by the fire had been recently improved. Moreover, the beams of upper floors, so those in the impact area, had received a protection of at least two inches and a half thick of flame retardants, such as the extract explains. The NIST report then went on revealing that during the construction of the World Trade Center, the original thickness of fire-recovery was three quarters of an inch.
is why it is particularly surprising to discover the following passage in the same report.
"[...] In February 1975 a fire broke out in the WTC1 [north tower], spreading the 9th to the 19th floor. After the fire, the Port Authority has contacted Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson (SHCR) structural engineers behind the design of the World Trade Center, to assess structural damage incurred and to report, in general, the fire resistance of the bearing system. In his report dated 1 April 1975 SHCR imparted to the Port Authority that the fire did not cause structural damage, but he had some upper sections of curved beams connected to the main beams, curved beams joints, and altered the angles of support stages. [...]» W198
chained report citing that despite the curvature of some stringers beams and joints, SHCR engineers had concluded in April 1975 that a thermal protection thereof was not necessary since they were not part of the structural system itself.
Thus, the fire had spread over ten floors from the 9th to the 19th floor of the north tower, then had caused any structural damage, thanks to a fire protection with a thickness of three quarters of an inch. Therefore it seems curious that in 2001, when equipped with a fire protection with a thickness greater than two and a half inches at the point of impact, structure of the north tower caved in within two hours.
*****
then examine this controversial issue affecting one of the materials used in building the World Trade Center, asbestos is known for its carcinogenic properties. It is interesting to know that a political debate, economic and social issues surrounding the complex for several years before the terrible events. Indeed, the presence of asbestos in large quantities in these buildings regularly raised concerns for public health. The need for a process of elimination full of asbestos in the towers was seen as urgent and essential by many.
From an economic perspective, however, this possibility posed a major problem. The cost of the work of sanitizing being assessed in billions of dollars, these astronomical amounts undoubtedly weighed heavier than the public safety in the balance. That is why the World Trade Center was a real embarrassment for the State and the U.S. government, which had obviously no intention to fund such work.
What a coincidence, so beneficial to the authorities when the two towers disappeared into dust, taking away the same time this thorn from the side. But the presence of asbestos and other materials in the rubble of the towers quickly became a new source of concern from the earliest moments. A thin gray dust that covered everything on a perimeter spanning several hundred meters per round (see photos attached - PH-11.1 to 11.6), fears and rumors of foul air and toxic even were quick to spread.
Despite the danger, up to 40,000 people participated in relief efforts and cleaning during the weeks that followed the tragedy. Of these, nearly 70% still suffer from respiratory problems, according to a study by Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. Many of the complications caused by exposure to this toxic air, moreover, are permanent.
"There should no longer be any doubt about the effects [of the fall of the] World Trade Center on the health of people. Our patients are sick, "said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the study, in an article in The New York Times on September 6, 2006 (W97).
In connection with this aspect of the tragedy, it would be difficult to ignore the revelations bumper published in two consecutive reports of the U.S. television network CBS. These exposed to light, less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the documents of the Department of Health of the City of New York and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showing that the authorities had to elements indicating the toxicity of air around the World Trade Center, and despite this information, they declared that the area was safe for the public.
"An overwhelming evidence that the government knowingly endangered New Yorkers after Sept. 11 was discovered.
CBS 2 News has obtained documents revealing that Lower Manhattan was reopened a few weeks after the attack even if the air was not safe.
The two devastating memos, composed by local and federal governments, show they knew. They were aware that the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly danger to health. They still sent field workers and referred people to their homes.
˝ Not only did they know that it was not safe, they do not pay attention the opinions of experienced people working for the city and EPA ˝, said Joel Kupferman, of the group Environmental Justice Project. U1 [...]»
An explosive memo from the Division of Preventive EPA, dated October 5, 2001, and explained that "... the site poses threats to workers potentially exposed to hazardous substances . U2
Citing including asbestos, refrigerants, hazardous wastes and substances such as ethylene and harmful to the health of workers, the memo from the EPA was directed in particular to the administration of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, two days after the agency has publicly stated that air quality was deemed safe. The authorities nevertheless decided to maintain their position during the subsequent weeks.
That should let these people who support perplexed that the government can not be behind the terrorist attacks because it would never endanger its own citizens.
*****
now flying over one of the key aspects of 11 September, the Building 7 World Trade Center. As mentioned earlier, unlike the twin towers, this skyscraper of 47 floors built in 1985 was not hit by any airplane. Located at the north end of the site (see attached map - PH-1.1 to 1.8), the official version says it was damaged by debris during the collapse of the north tower, which would have caused fire intense enough to cause its collapse at 17:20 the same day.
However, images taken at different times of day reveal only a few minor pockets of fire. They do not support the theory blaming the fire intensity for the total destruction of the building. Can be seen at the height of the fire to 15h with a maximum of three non-contiguous floors affected by fire alone (see photos attached - PH-6.1 to 6.12), whereas during the final collapse, late afternoon, the blaze seemed almost extinguished. In fact, even experts in building mean the collapse of Building 7 as one of the greatest mysteries that their profession has ever known.
From the first moments of the collapse of this building, video images rarely released later by the media can see clearly the center of the building engulfed initially, then followed the rest of the structure, so similar to the implosion of a typical demolition using explosives.
repeatedly in interviews on major television stations, members of the movement "9-11 Truth" or various organizations demanding a reopening of the investigation into the attacks asked the stations to broadcast these images This strangely they refused to do. These activists saw themselves rather generally ridiculed publicly, despite the fact that ever-growing proportion of Americans doubt that their government now conceals the truth behind the attacks.
A survey of the New York Times dated October 14, 2006 also indicated that 81% of Americans do not believe their government is telling the whole truth on the subject (W44). Moreover, according to a Zogby International poll dated 30 August 2004, half of New York at that time believed that U.S. officials were aware in advance of the attack but they have left to occur (V7).
But back on the Building 7 and let us to situate the building compared to the World Trade Center complex (see maps attached - PH1.1 to 1.6). The Building 7 was actually the only one of seven buildings to be located outside the main quadrangle were erected where the other six buildings, including the twin towers. Between the North Tower and Building 7 was the Building 6, an eight-storey building that survived the tragedy even though he was one of the hardest hit by the fires and debris.
.jpg)
Nearby, the Building 5, the top nine floors and also along the two towers, was the victim of a huge blaze in a intensity well above that achieved in the North and South towers, and in Building 7. The fire lasted all day, but this building also refused to crumble.
A question arises naturally. Why Building 7 collapsed there when he was the farthest of the two towers, it was hit by isolated pockets of fire and it was at least five times more massive than Buildings 5 and 6?
Consider then an article published in the December 4, 2001 The New York Times, which tells us that a building 24-story, built in 1907 and located near the World Trade Center was severely damaged by the collapse of the South Tower on the day of the attacks. This building was engulfed in flames for nearly two days. Yet it does not collapse.
"It was an indescribable moment in an endless night, the fire that had raged for almost two days in the skyscraper at 90 West Street racket and still sparkled when Derek Trelstad, a structural engineer, entered in the building and began cautiously to ascend the stairs, the double filter of his wheezing in smoke.
charred debris hanging from the ceiling and piled on floors projected strange shadows in the light of emergency equipment from the outside, passing through the smashed windows of the north facade of the building. September 11, flaming steel debris from the south tower crashed against the thick terra cotta facade and had caused the fire inside.
˝ It was like a haunted house Supreme ˝, said Mr. Trelstad, Chief Project Officer at LZA / Thornton Tomasetti in Manhattan, a firm that helps the City to assess the structural soundness of buildings around the disaster site.
But Mr. Trelstad soon made remarkable discoveries when he looked behind the burned debris, examining the steel structure's original building materials and fire resistant tiles that protected archaic largely.
He found that with the exception of a few places where the columns of the structure had been bent slightly to the upper floors, the building, a landmark building from 1907 designed by Cass Gilbert, had battled the fire and essentially won.
The building has avoided the fate of the World Trade Center 7, this skyscraper of 47 floors located at the north end of ˝ ˝ ground zero whose collapse after a fire Sept. 11 proved to be a mystery. In addition, the skyscrapers of 1907 will be renovated and inhabited. [...]
Lessons surrounding ˝ ˝ ground zero go well beyond protecting against fire. At the structural level, debris from the South Tower had struck the front of the Bankers Trust building, a skyscraper of 40 floors built in the 70, and destroyed a steel column to a height of 11 storeys on its facade. But even the portions of floors immediately above the hole does not collapse.
Similarly, the steel components of one of the towers were violently propelled westward like spears and are encased in a corner of the American Express Tower, destroying a column of three-storey structure without producing any secondary collapses. Debris from WTC Building 7 were carved sections of two adjacent buildings, the Verizon Building, an edifice of the University of New York City, which also remained standing. [...]
When the South Tower collapsed, said Mr. Trelstad, the engineer, some of its huge columns fell and tore several steel beams, or cons-pillars between the windows on the north facade of 90 West Street. A series of beams, the 11th to the 3rd floor of the east side of its facade, was destroyed as if a giant claw had ripped the front of the building. [...]
[M. Trelstad] was first struck by the degree of devastation and the strangeness of the scenery. Fires ignited by debris from the South Tower had ravaged the 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 23rd floors, and most sections of North 4th, 5th, 8th and 21st floors. [...]
engineers argue that any direct comparison between the WTC Building 7, which was also set on fire by falling debris but then collapsed, and 90 West Street is proving difficult. Initially, the conditions under which the two buildings initially faced on Sept. 11 are not clear.
Then the recent discovery that WTC7 housed tens of thousands of gallons of diesel to power generators in the event of power outages caused a debate among engineers on whether extremely high temperatures could have softened the steel and leads to the collapse.
But before this debate is not resolved, say the engineers, the collapse remains one of the deepest mysteries that their profession has ever known. No other modern skyscraper steel structure has never collapsed in a fire, with the exception of the twin towers.
addition, the floors of WTC 7 were not supported by these lightweight steel beams that may have been the first elements to weaken and give in the twin towers. Instead, said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president of Cantor Seinuk Group and structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, the floors were supported by sturdy I-beams
Irwin Cantor, one of the structural engineers at the original design of the building is no longer affiliated with Cantor Seinuk, said ˝ Something does not make sense.
˝ ˝ It why to this day, the engineering community is ready to say 'I know what caused the collapse of this building' said Mr. Cantor, who is now a consultant engineer and commissioner in the Department of City Planning.
Although Mr. Cantor said he believed that diesel has played a role in the collapse, he says he is also likely that the anti-fire in WTC7, which was completed in 1987, was damaged by impact of falling debris.
This type of fire-resistant coating was the same type as that used in virtually all modern buildings with steel structure [...]» B1
Several elements are worth noting in this extract. First recall that the 90 West Street, this old building in 1907, was located closer to the twin towers than Building 7 was on. However, according to the article, experts have warned against comparisons between the two buildings, citing two main reasons. The first, ˝ the conditions under which two buildings initially faced on Sept. 11 are not clear ˝. Is it possible to be more vague?
After all, the two buildings did not they both been hit by debris from the towers fall, 90 West Street seems to have been much more severely affected? And then the two buildings did not they were both engulfed in flames, Building 7 for about seven hours by isolated pockets of fire and the second for nearly 48 hours, in a much less benign?
However, we learn that a large quantity of diesel was in Building 7. Let us first emphasize that anyone who has ever tried to burn this type of gas known as diesel is not readily flammable. We can also assume that such a reasonable amount of diesel would be kept in a safe place. Moreover, if 'tens of thousands of gallons of diesel, had actually caught fire, a fire of a rare intensity would then spread to the building over an area much greater than what the photos show and the videos.
Therefore it seems unlikely, especially in view of available images, tens of thousands of gallons of diesel have caught fire Sept. 11 in Building 7. In this regard, here is an excerpt from the official report of the Agency for Crisis Management Federal (FEMA) entitled 'World Trade Center Building Performance Study' published in May 2002.
"[...] The characteristics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the collapse of the building remain unknown to date. Although the total diesel gas on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability that this happened. [...]» W68
Thus, even the government agency FEMA considers unlikely that the diesel is ignited. But back to the article in The New York Times cited above. He explained that debris from the collapse of the south tower had possibly damaged the lining of fireproof steel columns. Is it necessary to emphasize coating and coating that protects each independently of the pillars of the building? Therefore, it appears not unlikely that the debris has been divesting each of their protection, or enough of them to cause the collapse of the symmetrical building?
course, this does not constitute definitive proof of an explosive demolition of Building 7, or inability to collapse solely due to fire, but is purely logical reasoning to put into perspective the likelihood of these assumptions.
*****
Between then directed Larry Silverstein, a powerful real estate mogul in New York.
was he who in 1980 won the bidding to construct the Building 7. This is also the man who also acquire property rights over most of the World Trade Center, including North and South towers. Interestingly, Mr. Silverstein completed the major transaction less than two weeks before the attacks, despite the difficult context due to the presence of asbestos. Cost: $ 3.2 billion. Of this amount, only $ 14 million provinrent his own personal fortune.
It was then the first time in 31 years of history since its construction, as the World Trade Center changed hands. At the time of the transaction, Silverstein soon munissait a solid insurance policy protecting against such terrorist attacks. Here's what the Financial Times reported September 15, 2001.
"The owners of the destroyed World Trade Center in lower Manhattan acquired the buildings just two months ago under a lease of 99 years, allowing them to withdraw their investment in the event of a terrorist act ˝ ˝.
Owners Silverstein Properties and Westfield America - a specialist in shopping malls - have bought buildings at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for $ 3.2 billion in July and completed financing transactions there are only two weeks ago. [...]» W76
Following the Sept. 11, Larry Silverstein obviously exploited the clause on terrorism, claiming to have suffered two separate attacks since two planes had crashed into the towers, in order, one suspects, to double its premium. The court decided otherwise and ruled that insurance matters, the attacks were to be interpreted as a single attack. Then came various twists in the case, and Mr. Silverstein ultimately touched nearly five billion dollars in insurance payments (W77). Apparently, this amount was not enough as Silverstein then decided to pursue airlines and airports involved. Let's see what the New York Times reported in its edition of March 27, 2008.
"Larry A. Silverstein, who won nearly $ 4.6 billion in insurance premiums to cover its losses and help to rebuild on the site of the World Trade Center, calls for 12.3 billion dollars in damages to companies airlines and airport security following the attacks of 11 September. [...]
But in seeking 12.3 billion dollars, it is by far the biggest claimant in the proceedings. [...]
A lawyer for the airlines, Desmond Barry, said that if Mr. Silverstein won his case, it could push the total claims beyond the amount of insurance available to airlines and security . 'There is no such assurance,' said Mr. Barry. [...]
Mr. Silverstein, through his company - World Trade Center Properties - owns the rights to lease a period of 99 years, worth of 3.2 billion, four buildings on the site, including the twin towers destroyed. He signed his lease in July 2001, just six weeks before the attacks.
Mr. Barry, who spoke on behalf of airlines, disputed that Mr. Silverstein had been more than compensated by the insurance payment of nearly $ 4.6 billion, obtained after nearly six years of litigation. [...]» W232
noted that a year after the attacks in September 2002, Larry Silverstein even triggered an outcry in recalling the historic day as part of a anniversary of the documentary TV channel PBS. By using the term 'pull it', a term commonly used in the demolition of buildings, he described his recollection of the last moments before the collapse of Building 7 (the full text follows for purposes of authenticity) .
"[...] I remember receiving a call from, uh, fire department chief, who said they were unsure of being able to control the fire, and j 'said ˝ We have already suffered a terrible loss of lives, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it * * and they have therefore taken the decision to pull * * and then we watched the building collapse. [...] [...]
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department order, telling Me That They Were not sure They Were gonna be Able to Contain the Fire and I Said We've ˝ HAD Such terrible loss of life, Maybe the smartest thing to do pull it IS ˝ and They Made That decision to pull and Then We watched The Building collapse. [...]» W78
This statement was seen by many as an admission on his part, voluntarily or otherwise, a use explosives to destroy Building 7. We also found later in the same document the term 'pull' used in a context clearly indisputable, while during the cleaning procedures at Ground Zero, a demolition team preparing to detonate explosives in Building 6 in the months after the attacks.
"We're getting ready to pull Building 6", or "We're getting ready to throw down the Building 6", launched the official.
Following the documentary, Silverstein was assailed by petitions demanding that he clarifies his controversial remarks. It is confined rather to refuse to be justified. But the pressure eventually became too great, some three years later. Indeed, not until September 2005 that the first release from Silverstein Properties tried to clarify the subject by explaining that the comment was referring to a group of firefighters rather than the building itself. In other words, Silverstein emerged from the shadows three years later to say he was simply referring to these firefighters in Building 7.
Only two details puzzling result of this explanation. First, an article published November 29, 2001 in New York Times we learned that from 11:30 on the morning of Sept. 11, the Assistant Fire Chief Frank Fellini, gave the order to fire to abandon efforts related to the Building 7, for security reasons (W79). Then, chapter five of the report of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) covering the Building 7 confirms that, earlier in the day, firefighters stopped the fire fight. It also teaches that the system of automatic sprinklers, for unexplained reasons, was defective (W68).
Thus, since the fire were evacuated from Building 7 early in the day, why this particular transition in the words of Larry Silverstein: "They Made That decision to pull and Then We watched The Building collapse? For, given the fact that no skyscraper had ever collapsed before due to fire, and while the twin towers hit by a Boeing had caused amazement by collapsing, then who could have predict that this building was about to collapse?
Yet without betraying the least surprise that Silverstein recounted his memories, his words reflect the same wording, however, a causal relationship. But why to wait three long years before finally explain his comments? And finally, even assuming that Mr. Silverstein has meant that he had asked the Chief of the fire department to remove the fire of Building 7 ... Is it usual that firefighters receive an order from a single property owner?
Let us, however, dwell on this aspect, since there is always some margin of error due to human expression and personal interpretation. But since we are talking of Building 7, it is important to note that the official report of the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, published in the summer of 2004, did not think it necessary to broach the subject of this collapse. The 47-story building was, however, that day became the first skyscraper in history to collapse due to fire, also in Benin compared to many others, as we have seen previously . Despite this, this aspect was totally ignored in the final report of the commission.
And that contained the Building 7? Among other notable tenants, like then, the CIA and other U.S. intelligence had established their offices in New York. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service), the federal agency responsible for collecting taxes, it took office. Management offices of Mayor Rudy Giuliani crisis were also there. They are located on the 23rd floor had also been undergoing renovations all special in 1998 for the modest sum of $ 13 million (W25).
These premises, which would serve as headquarters for emergencies due to terrorism or natural origin, had been modified specifically in order to survive the worst catastrophes and weather. The windows had been armored to withstand bullets, bombs and winds up to 200 miles per hour, the walls and doors, meanwhile, had been fitted with fire, precautions undoubtedly proved useful in that fateful day in 2001 for whoever was the inside.
But despite the existence of the crisis management center newly renovated, is from a warehouse at the port of New York, Pier 92, which were directed emergency operations from 11 September. Indeed, a control center was established there by FEMA as part of an exercise to biochemical, coincidentally, stand New York September 12, 2001, simulating a terrorist attack (W112).
The coincidence of the presence of a large delegation of FEMA in New York was subsequently coupled with a controversial statement of their spokesman, Tom Kenney, who stated in an interview with Dan Rather aired on CBS that her "team was one of the first to be deployed to support the City of New York in this disaster. We arrived late Monday night and we went into action Tuesday morning. "
Since September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday, the words of Tom Kenney were quick to controversial. FEMA How could she have arrived on site on Monday evening, if only someone knew what was going to happen tomorrow? The existence of bio-chemical exercise has not yet been publicly disclosed, the agency corrected the government about Kenney in the following days, attributing his confusion to fatigue and stress.
But Rudolph Giuliani, however, that returns the prize for most unexpected statement. Indeed, the mayor of New York surprised many by saying during a live interview with Peter Jennings on ABC's airwaves that he was warned that the World Trade Center would collapse several minutes before it occurs. Here is the excerpt in question.
'[...] I went to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, directly where were the police commissioner, fire department and the head of crisis management and we maneuver from here, when we were told that the World Trade Center would collapse. And he actually collapsed before we could leave the building, so we got stuck in this building for 10 to 15 minutes, and finally we found a way out and we left, we walked to the north and we brought many people with us. [...]» W69
Yet, nobody could predict such a scenario unless, of course, to have inside information, since in principle even terrorists were surprised that the twin towers collapsed. It may seem strange, even suspicious, that the mayor is aware of such a disaster. Moreover, it is legitimate to ask why the firefighters and civilians had no right to even notice.
Strangely, almost simultaneously unfolded on the West Coast a similar scene. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, published September 12, 2001, reported that the mayor of this city in Northern California had received a warning not to take his flight to New York the previous day.
"For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he received a call from what he described as 'the airport security' - eight hours complete before the start of the series of attacks yesterday - warning that Americans should be cautious in their air travel.
The mayor, who had booked a flight to New York yesterday morning from the international airport of San Francisco, said the call was not alarming ˝, which explains why I'm hesitant to make a dramatic statement ˝ . [...]
˝ It was not a strange call. I'm always interested to know if my plane is on time, and they always alerted when I have to be careful.
˝
[...] Where exactly is the appeal came a bit mysterious. The mayor said only that he had ˝ of its security personnel at the airport. [...]» ˝ O5
Is it more likely that Al Qaeda has been at pains to protect the mayor of San Francisco, or that the warning is not him managed by the U.S. administration itself? Whence then this information credible enough to cancel the trip the mayor of San Francisco to New York? And why the report of the inquiry he did not mention the source of this warning?
Thus, the country found itself with the same type of story disturbing on each side. The nation watched while without knowing the beginning of a long series of statements and newspaper articles as astonishing distressing.
One of these stories, in particular, was reported in a long Newsweek article, reproduced in particular by the FPI (Free Press International) September 24, 2001. Bizarrely, the following short excerpt is found deeply buried toward the end of this article about ten pages.
"[...] On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently on concerns about security. But only one had even imagined that four planes were hijacked and hitting targets in New York and Washington. [...]» O4
What a powerful information! How a journalist can he bring such an act without regard to state what was the true source of these concerns? And how can they simply move to another area, after mentioning this?
0 comments:
Post a Comment