Yeah, I've heard that argument many times, and I've seen this particular video. Essentially, it is a straw man. Due to the towers' unprecedented height (tallest buildings in the world at the time), the structural design was unique in that both horizontal forces (wind) and vertical forces (gravity) had to be accounted for--called the "tube within a tube" design, the towers were the first of their kind. The exterior steel columns were designed specifically to resist the horizontal (wind) forces--which could reach 80 mph at 1000 ft coming off NY harbor. The vertical (gravity) support columns were internal, and due to their proximity they sustained heavy impact damage.

(Both hijacker pilots banked the aircraft as they closed on the buildings with the intention of damaging as many floors as possible--North Tower--hit first--sustained damage between the 93rd and 99th floors and the South Tower between the 77th and 84th floors. Note that each floor weighed 4500 tons, therefore the weight above the damage in the North Tower averaged 67,500 tons, and the weight above the damage in the South Tower was twice that, or 135,000 tons. For this reason, even though the South Tower was hit 17 minutes after the first strike, this tower was first to collapse.)

Two other factors were critical to the architectural design--the elevator system and the individual floor plans. The original plan was for buildings of 80 stories, but due to the floor space requirements and the fact that elevators were the only feasible means to access the entire building--particularly the upper floors--(the only stairwells in the towers were the internal emergency fire escapes). Elevator design presented a unique structural problem.

(If you had watched the 9/11 documentary you would have noted that when Chief Pfieffer and his crew, including the videographer, Jules Naudet, entered the lobby of the North Tower, they found all the windows at ground level blown out and there were people either burning or burned--Jules refused to film them. The explosion of jet fuel came down the elevator shafts and raised hell on the ground floors.)

The architecture and structural design of the twin towers is available at many websites. Sructural engineer describes WTC tower vulnerabilities

Without going into more details on the unique structure of the towers and extent of the impact and fire damage to the floors effected (Killtown website is loaded with data), here is a piece of info that should be noted:

NYC requires seismic monitoring of any construction project within the city (Seismic monitors are also required during controlled demolitions of buildings and other tall structures). On 9/11, 9 such monitors were active at various construction projects in lower Manhattan. These monitors recorded both the impact of the aircraft and the building collapse. Seismic and demolition engineers analyzed this data and determined that the data WAS NOT consistent with that recorded during a controlled demolition.

But hey, none of this means a damned thing to a "troofer" who has experience hanging out of helicopters and filming power towers. Right? Keep plugging away there, payne. That koolaid is some potent sh!t.

In all your cover-up bullshit you didn't mention that WTC7 was not hit by an airliner, only had small fires inside and fell at free-fall speed straight down into its footprint like a classic controlled demolition. Barry Jennings, who worked for NYC was in WTC7 before it fell in the afternoon. He talks about explosions going off on the lower floors which trapped him inside the building until firefighters rescued him. This was before either tower fell so the explosions cannot be blamed on collateral damage.

An in-depth look at conspiracist claims about WTC 7

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page

There are glaring flaws with the claims that WTC 7
was brought down by explosives.

Most of these points will be examined in more detail below.


The building suffered severe structural damage from the debris from the north tower collapse. Firefighters described a gaping hole in the south face. We will see glimpses of south face damage through the smoke in photos below and will see clear images of the massive damage to the southwest corner.

No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demolitions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational explanation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse. An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://tinyurl.com/n5xap

Some CTs contend that WTC 7 was demolished to conceal sensitive information that was stored there by some of its tenants. This is one of the silliest of all 9/11 CT claims. Sure: whenever I have information on my hard drives or documents that I don’t want anyone to get their hands on, I always wire my building with explosives, set it on fire, and demolish it.

In addition, keep in mind that information was recovered from many computer hard drives found in the WTC rubble. http://tinyurl.com/nmgmc Investigators were keen to have this information, to trace any transactions that may have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. As the 9/11 Commission report details, these transactions turned out to not have suspicious origins. http://tinyurl.com/k659n pg. 145-152

Fires raged uncontrolled on many floors for hours. Lack of hydrant pressure due to broken water mains left firemen nearly helpless to extinguish the blazes.

The building was visibly bulging and was making groaning noises: when a steel-framed building does that it’s in very serious trouble.

Demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse from nearby neither saw nor heard anything indicat-ing an explosive demolition.

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse.

Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explosive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse.

Seismograph of WTC 7 collapse from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument." –Brent Blanchard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc

Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris haphazardly through a building and then setting that building on fire for seven hours. Precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment.

The fires in WTC 7 developed slowly. Had water pressure and manpower been available, those fires probably could have been extinguished. CTs: is it your contention that the "conspirators" would have blown up WTC 7 at 5:20 anyway, rather than risk discovery of their demolitions charges? If so, wouldn't such a demolition be far more suspicious than the collapse of a building that was fully involved with fire?

Conspiracist claims about WTC 7 are not supported by evidence or by logic.

Details of damage to WTC7

Links for 9/11 research

46 Minute Video debunks controlled demolition of WTC

Payne is the INSULT KING. He thinks that if he accuses others of insults, he will not be recognized as insulting. But we are a pretty smart bunch here at OPP. We aren't going to fall for that crap. I offer plenty of rebuttal, but Payne just continues with his anti-Semitic insults. So let's try my recent post again. It shows how Muslims have inflicted barbaric pain on the world since 600 AD, and the Israelis have been a favorite target. Payne will not respond with anything but insults. Here goes:

Here is some history. Mohammad was collecting his "messages" from Allah around 600 AD, messages that proclaimed his new religion/way of life was the only true way. All other religions and idols of those religions had to be destroyed. So when Mohammad attracted 10,000 devoted followers, they started traveling throughout western Arabia from their home base in Medina, destroying temples and idols of other religions, and killing those who would not convert to Islam. After Mohammad's death ten years later, his "messages" were collected into a book called the Quran. In 637 AD, the new leaders of Islam struck out to carry their new religion/way of life to new lands. They went first into Mesopotamia where they slaughtered all who would not convert. Many Mesopotamians fled to Persia. Entire villages, men, women, and children were slaughtered if they didn't run or convert. So the native population of Mesopotamia, who brought us writing, mathematics, science, and more was replaced by barbaric Arabs. Not content with that, the Muslims carried their barbaric ways west into the land of the Israelites and Turkey. By 900 AD, Muslims were killing and destroying temples in eastern Europe. That is when Christians got involved, waging war in the first Crusade. A total of six Crusades were fought, repeatedly pushing Muslims back into the Middle East. We should not be surprised if the Crusaders were barbaric against the Muslims. When fighting barbarians in a war, Christians likely dished out the same treatment that they received.

Muslims are the aggressors, not the Jews.

Are you kidding? Irrational unintelligent Lib claims that Christians taught Muslims to be barbarians.

Here is some history for you. Mohammad was collecting his "messages" from Allah around 600 AD, messages that proclaimed his new religion/way of life was the only true way. All other religions and idols of those religions had to be destroyed. So when Mohammad attracted 10,000 devoted followers, they started traveling throughout western Arabia from their home base in Medina, destroying temples and idols of other religions, and killing those who would not convert to Islam. After Mohammad's death ten years later, his "messages" were collected into a book called the Quran. In 637 AD, the new leaders of Islam struck out to carry their new religion/way of life to new lands. They went first into Mesopotamia where they slaughtered all who would not convert. Many Mesopotamians fled to Persia. Entire villages, men, women, and children were slaughtered if they didn't run or convert. So the native population of Mesopotamia, who brought us writing, mathematics, science, and more was replaced by barbaric Arabs. Not content with that, the Muslims carried their barbaric ways west into the land of the Israelites and Turkey. By 900 AD, Muslims were killing and destroying temples in eastern Europe. That is when Christians got involved, waging war in the first Crusade. A total of six Crusades were fought, repeatedly pushing Muslims back into the Middle East. We should not be surprised if the Crusaders were barbaric against the Muslims. When fighting barbarians in a war, Christians likely dished out the same treatment that they received.

So tell me again newly-informed Lib -- Who taught barbarism to whom?