To 9/11 TM: WTC7 being a CD is illogical.

[quicknthedead]

WTC7 is the main reason why people believe 9/11 was an inside job, referring to it as the “smoking gun of 9/11”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).

Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD. There is only the fact that it looked like one (plus added speculation to help bolster this viewpoint). Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one?

The answer is no because logically it could not have been. Here's why.

#1. If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare.

Interestingly, CD expert Danny Jowenko stated it might have been possible for a team of experts to have quickly prepped the building for CD the day of 9/11. Yet when he was then told that WTC7 had been on fire all that day, he went silent in bewilderment, for he then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was.

#2. If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11.

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible.

In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD.

For it to have been controlled demolition means our hypothetical perpetrators would have known their plan was dependent upon #3 and #4 taking place, but these were not givens. One might argue they could have ensured #3 happening (i.e., destroy the towers by CD “also”), but no one could possibly have known the extent of #4 (ensuing damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers) that would be needed to take place sufficiently for their “cover story”. Therefore, "they" would have known "their plan" was severely flawed from the beginning and would not have carried it out; thus "their plan" would have become "non-existent", and this is why "they are non-existent".

There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.

Think about it.
Your thoughts are welcome.

[alex04]

it doesn't make sense to me either, but for a simpler reason.

If they went to the trouble of sending a couple of planes into the other two buildings to 'cover up a CD', then why make the 3rd building collapse 'look like a CD' ?:boggled:

[stateofgrace]

On top of what you have just posted I would like just to add to this comment.

Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one? I have always had an issue with "It looks like a CD" because does it really make sense? Sure, I agree it does look like a CD but this in itself is a problem. Say, hypothetically all the conditions you have laid out in your post are met, that the "preps" went to this extraordinary effort to make all this happen,does it really make sense that they would not try and disguise the demolition of WTC 7? Does it really make sense that they would wait for the dust cloud to settle, allow the demolition to be filmed? Allow fire-fighters anywhere near it? Does it really make sense that they would demolish a building in full view of everybody when they had a perfect opportunity to do so when it was obscured?

The point is, if WRC 7 was demolished then it makes no sense that they would have allowed it to look like a CD. It makes far more sense that, if they really wanted to get away with it, they would have disguised it, maybe brought it down immediately after the towers had collapsed, hidden from view.

The fact that it looks like a CD, in my opinion makes it even less likely it was a CD, simply by the fact that had the "perps" had the fore thought to actually fore fill the criteria you have laid down then, as you say, it beggars belief that they would be so sloppy with the demolition of this building when they had plenty of opportunity to destroy it beforehand.

[LashL]

To 9/11 TM: WTC7 being a CD is illogical.

In other news, the pope is Catholic, bears [rule 10] in the woods, and Francisco Franco is still dead. See this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3649421&postcount=4) for "non animated visualization aids" (aka photographs) if necessary.

[sleahead]

Quickandthedead, many people here have put forward the same arguments, but they have no effect on our resident troofers. Have you tried to put these points at a troof venue? What do Scholars for 9/11 Troof and Justice think? (You are a member, I believe).

[DC]

according to beachnut, a CD always looks like a Collapse, so it would be very eye-catching would they produce a CD that does not look like a collapse.

and also if WTC7 would have not collapsed, alot JREFers would get suspiciously, they expect buildings to collapse.

[uk_dave]

according to beachnut, a CD always looks like a Collapse, so it would be very eye-catching would they produce a CD that does not look like a collapse.

and also if WTC7 would have not collapsed, alot JREFers would get suspiciously, they expect buildings to collapse.

No DC, it's 'truthers' who lack the imagination to understand that buildings can suffer catastrophic structural failure through impact damage and fire and that this can lead to total collapse of the structure.

It doesn't mean that it always will lead to failure, but the (high) possibility is there.

The 'truth' movement would rather believe that buildings NEVER fail unless they are deliberately demolished or damaged by earthquakes. That is your failing as a 'truther' : No imagination.

And to quicknthedead:

They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).

No, it looked like massive structural failure.

[DC]

No DC, it's 'truthers' who lack the imagination to understand that buildings can suffer catastrophic structural failure through impact damage and fire and that this can lead to total collapse of the structure.

It doesn't mean that it always will lead to failure, but the (high) possibility is there.

The 'truth' movement would rather believe that buildings NEVER fail unless they are deliberately demolished or damaged by earthquakes. That is your failing as a 'truther' : No imagination.

And to quicknthedead:
No, it looked like massive structural failure.

ah i see, the OCT needs imagination.

how a building is collapsing seems not to be intersting for JREFers, collapse start is global collapse.
it doesnt mather how symmetric a building collapsed asymmetric damage and fiires will always lead to a symmetric collapse.

[boloboffin]

All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did.

Danny Jowenko had also been primed for this by being played the Silverstein "pull it" comment. He talks about it several times during his full interview.

[Blender Head]

Danny Jowenko had also been primed for this by being played the Silverstein "pull it" comment. He talks about it several times during his full interview.

I admittedly haven't heard or watched the full interview, but did Jvenko agree that 'pull it' is demo slang for demolishing buildings with explosives?

[boloboffin]

Jowenko's first language isn't English, but he speaks it quite well. He had no problem accepting that Silverstein was talking about demolishing the building. He says it several times.

[uk_dave]

how a building is collapsing seems not to be intersting for JREFers, collapse start is global collapse.
it doesnt mather how symmetric a building collapsed asymmetric damage and fiires will always lead to a symmetric collapse.

I'm sure the progression of the collapse is a fascinating subject. It's just not one that is supported by alot of detail and the description of the collapse would not provide any useful data for future construction projects.

If you were to speak with a structural engineer they would most likely discuss with you the subject of "Disproportionate collapse" and how building codes (and insurers) insist that structures do not suffer structural failure out of proportion to the damage they might sustain. However, your structural engineer is unlikely to touch upon the subject of "collapse arrest".

But if you think differently, I suggest you go and speak with a suitably experienced structural engineer.

[DC]

the description of the collapse would not provide any useful data for future construction projects.

Bull :rule10

[DC]

I'm sure the progression of the collapse is a fascinating subject. It's just not one that is supported by alot of detail and the description of the collapse would not provide any useful data for future construction projects.

If you were to speak with a structural engineer they would most likely discuss with you the subject of "Disproportionate collapse" and how building codes (and insurers) insist that structures do not suffer structural failure out of proportion to the damage they might sustain. However, your structural engineer is unlikely to touch upon the subject of "collapse arrest".

But if you think differently, I suggest you go and speak with a suitably experienced structural engineer.

and i do have email contact to a very well known structural engineering professor that is agreeing that WTC7 is a CD.

[slyjoe]

Not this again - prove it.l

[SpitfireIX]

Bull :rule10


No, it's not. Buildings are designed not to collapse, therefore, studying how a buiding collapses is about as important to construction engineering as studying how an airliner behaves when it impacts the ground at 500 mph is important to aeronautical engineering.

[DC]

No, it's not. Buildings are designed not to collapse, therefore, studying how a buiding collapses is about as important to construction engineering as studying how an airliner behaves when it impacts the ground at 500 mph is important to aeronautical engineering.

why do we waste money to see very detailed how a car deforms in a crash?
do we build cars to crash them?

[scissorhands]

why do we waste money to see very detailed how a car deforms in a crash?
do we build cars to crash them?

What a terrible analogy.
The point of designing buildings to be safe in this scenario, is that they dont collapse in the first place.
:)
Many designs wouldnt have collapsed after the plane impacts and fires, we already know what they are..

[pomeroo]

and i do have email contact to a very well known structural engineering professor that is agreeing that WTC7 is a CD.


Does he have a name? Most structural engineers who swallow the fantasist snake oil, by the oddest coincidence, have no names.

[pomeroo]

It has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that Silverstein's conversation with the unnamed FDNY commander had nothing to do with the subject of demolition. The distortion of his words was a deliberate deception perpetrated by a movement based entirely on falsehoods. Silverstein was selected as an object of slander primarily because he is Jewish.

By revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the fantasy movement, WTC 7 has turned out to be its Waterloo. No conspiracy liar has come close to fitting the collapse of this building into any sort of coherent conspiracy theory. It simply can't be done.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd? Doesn't the claim that it takes weeks to place explosives to knock down a building work against the theory that all the stars were aligned on 9-11 where a bunch of buildings completely fell down just like a cd without any of that preparation?

A possible motive could be the WTC-7 was meant to have fallen down in the morning with the rest of the buildings but something went wrong and it took longer. For instance maybe it was a dud or a third plane never made it.

Then there is always the CT that wtc-7 was where the 9-11 operation was run from so it was destroyed when the mission was complete.

[uk_dave]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd? Doesn't the claim that it takes weeks to place explosives to knock down a building work against the theory that all the stars were aligned on 9-11 where a bunch of buildings completely fell down just like a cd without any of that preparation?

A possible motive could be the WTC-7 was meant to have fallen down in the morning with the rest of the buildings but something went wrong and it took longer. For instance maybe it was a dud or a third plane never made it.

Then there is always the CT that wtc-7 was where the 9-11 operation was run from so it was destroyed when the mission was complete.

Well you could take a week or so to wire up an undamaged building for a controlled demolition.

Or you could throw some really big bits of steel at it and cause some fires to burn uncontrolled for about 7 hours and have it collapse into a mess.

I suspect that you want something in between. You know, a bit of damage and fire from the towers collapse, and a helping hand from the demolition charges, yes?

So, how much of a helping hand did the damaged wtc7 need? and WHY? and HOW?

[DGM]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd? Doesn't the claim that it takes weeks to place explosives to knock down a building work against the theory that all the stars were aligned on 9-11 where a bunch of buildings completely fell down just like a cd without any of that preparation?

A possible motive could be the WTC-7 was meant to have fallen down in the morning with the rest of the buildings but something went wrong and it took longer. For instance maybe it was a dud or a third plane never made it.

Then there is always the CT that wtc-7 was where the 9-11 operation was run from so it was destroyed when the mission was complete.
How did the charges last so long in the fires? Why no loud noises? (yes I've been to a few CD's and I do know how loud and unforgettable they are)

[RAZEtheFLAG]

How did the charges last so long in the fires? Why no loud noises? (yes I've been to a few CD's and I do know how loud and unforgettable they are)

I thought the main ct was thermite?

[uk_dave]

ahhhh the magical therm(?)te....

apparently it can also cure acne and embarrassment in front of girls....if used correctly

[Drudgewire]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd? Doesn't the claim that it takes weeks to place explosives to knock down a building work against the theory that all the stars were aligned on 9-11 where a bunch of buildings completely fell down just like a cd without any of that preparation?

CD companies around the globe are currently working on ways to eliminate explosives from future projects and are instead turning to the less costly and time-consuming method of "dropping large chunks of buildings twice their size on them."

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/psyduck.gif

[scissorhands]

Round and round we go, you had best not ask DC about the correct method of using thermite for cutting columns, his example involved each theoretical device being the size of a small truck attached to each column, when scaled up.
You would have thought someone might have noticed the installation of such devices?

[RAZEtheFLAG]

ahhhh the magical therm(?)te....

apparently it can also cure acne and embarrassment in front of girls....if used correctly

I think it has already been decided by most official version believers that the buildings could have fallen down by something other then cd charges correct? So what if they used something else?

[DGM]

I thought the main ct was thermite?
Therm?te is the most moronic claim out there. Dr Jones made that up because he's smart enough to know that cutting charges make a hell of a noise. The "truth" movement is gullible enough to eat it up. Are you that gullible?

[DC]

Does he have a name? Most structural engineers who swallow the fantasist snake oil, by the oddest coincidence, have no names.

yes, Joerg

[Drudgewire]

I think it has already been decided by most official version believers that the buildings could have fallen down by something other then cd charges correct? So what if they used something else?

Like thermite? Let's find out:




That answer is...






*dramatic music*






http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/momentfalse.jpg


OOOOOOOH!! I'm very sorry. :(

[RAZEtheFLAG]

CD companies around the globe are currently working on ways to eliminate explosives from future projects and are instead turning to the less costly and time-consuming method of "dropping large chunks of buildings twice their size on them."

It was already decided by some that the buildings fell from something other the explosives before there was any evidence of a large chunk of building and a ten story gash emerged. It's not in the fema investigation. So how many different things besides explosives can completely take down a building in a few hours? Would hitting most building near the top with a chunk of something normally work in bringing a building straight down? How about a wrecking ball to one side?

[DC]

Round and round we go, you had best not ask DC about the correct method of using thermite for cutting columns, his example involved each theoretical device being the size of a small truck attached to each column, when scaled up.
You would have thought someone might have noticed the installation of such devices?

and was it correctly scaled up? or did the one calculating it, assume a massive column of 3 x 3?

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Well what EXACTLY did bring down wtc-7? What's the official word on it?

[stateofgrace]

A possible motive could be the WTC-7 was meant to have fallen down in the morning with the rest of the buildings but something went wrong and it took longer. For instance maybe it was a dud or a third plane never made it.

Of course it is possible as it is also possible that little great men with laser beams were inside each towers and decided fool the entire planet with their super duper holographic plane projector. Then decided it would be a wiz to deploy space beams in order to bring down each tower apart from WTC 7 which they used their personal lasers on. Of course there is zero evidence to support this possibility. Got any to support your possibility?


Then there is always the CT that wtc-7 was where the 9-11 operation was run from so it was destroyed when the mission was complete.
See above and also see the OP post. Try to address the OP and maybe stop trying to introduce in trashy James Bond plots, it helps if you have something based remotely in reality when you post.

Before you or anybody else decides to derail this thread any further, here is the OP, again. This is what this thread is about, not your groundless day dreams.

WTC7 is the main reason why people believe 9/11 was an inside job, referring to it as the “smoking gun of 9/11”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).

Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD. There is only the fact that it looked like one (plus added speculation to help bolster this viewpoint). Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one?

The answer is no because logically it could not have been. Here's why.

#1. If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare.

Interestingly, CD expert Danny Jowenko stated it might have been possible for a team of experts to have quickly prepped the building for CD the day of 9/11. Yet when he was then told that WTC7 had been on fire all that day, he went silent in bewilderment, for he then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was.

#2. If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11.

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible.

In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD.

For it to have been controlled demolition means our hypothetical perpetrators would have known their plan was dependent upon #3 and #4 taking place, but these were not givens. One might argue they could have ensured #3 happening (i.e., destroy the towers by CD “also”), but no one could possibly have known the extent of #4 (ensuing damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers) that would be needed to take place sufficiently for their “cover story”. Therefore, "they" would have known "their plan" was severely flawed from the beginning and would not have carried it out; thus "their plan" would have become "non-existent", and this is why "they are non-existent".

There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.

Think about it.
Your thoughts are welcome.
I have bolded for you, a request from the OPer, who happens to be part of the truth movement. Have you got any thoughts on the OP? Any at all ?

[Drudgewire]

It was already decided by some that the buildings fell from something other the explosives before there was any evidence of a large chunk of building and a ten story gash emerged. It's not in the fema investigation. So how many different things besides explosives can completely take down a building in a few hours? Would hitting most building near the top with a chunk of something normally work in bringing a building straight down? How about a wrecking ball to one side?

How about unicorns? Everyone always forgets about the unicorns because they're so cute, not taking into account the rogue faction who are hell-bent on plunging the world into darkness.

And trust me, it's every bit as sound a theory as thermite.

[DGM]

Well what EXACTLY did bring down wtc-7? What's the official word on it?
Combination of fire and damage. Read the NIST interim report.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Did you all miss it?

Well what EXACTLY did bring down wtc-7? What's the official word on it?

[pomeroo]

yes, Joerg


Ah, that would be Joerg Schneider. Here is my e-mail exchange with him from December of 2006:
Dear Professor Schneider,
You and Professor Bachmann are often cited by conspiracists who contend, against all evidence, that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. As you know, every demolition expert and structural engineer in America rejects this thesis as baseless and insupportable.
Matthys Levy, author of the book 'Why Buildings Fall Down,' was shocked to learn that conspiracists were distorting his words to make it appear as though he shared their fantasies. Are you aware of the claims made on your behalf? Do you really endorse a pernicious and unscientific view that ignores mountains of contradictory data?
Please be good enough to clarify this matter.
Yours Truly,
Ronald Wieck

Hello,
I said that Building WTC7 was most probably brought down by controlled demolition. I do not believe that this is a possibility for the two towers. I do neither know Mr. Levy nor his book.
Best regards
J. Schneider


So, you agree with Prof. Schneider about the Twin Towers? No? You say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Please, tell us more.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Combination of fire and damage. Read the NIST interim report.

Interim? Aren't they sure? How are you? Sure?

[uk_dave]

Did you all miss it?

Well what EXACTLY did bring down wtc-7? What's the official word on it?

Dunno. What's the CT word on it?...

What?
When?
How?
Why?

Fire away

[DGM]

Interim? Aren't they sure? How are you? Sure?
Have you read it? I can wait for the final. You do know that NIST was not going to do a report on WTC7? Now the scope of the project has increased (thus the delays).

[quicknthedead]

it doesn't make sense to me either, but for a simpler reason.

If they went to the trouble of sending a couple of planes into the other two buildings to 'cover up a CD', then why make the 3rd building collapse 'look like a CD' ?:boggled:

Yes, alex04, I agree with you completely. This argument is another excellent rationale pointing to the illogic of WTC7 being a CD, so much so it could have its own thread.

I was hoping someone would bring it up here...and you did right off the bat!

NEWS FLASH: "Lead-off batter hits a home run!"

Thanks!

[bonavada]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd?

That's a hell of a twisted logic stream you have there.
You include the simple term "knocked down" in your reasoning but fail to mention the fires that freely raged for hours in the building. Correct me please if I am wrong but the use of such inferno's is not usually included in the demolition industry.
The demise of WTC7 may have looked somewhat "just like" a controlled demolition but that is it. That is all you have.

Look below, just like a nice cuddly kitty right?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848275711a61ea.jpg


African Wildcat. Say no more.


BV

[DC]

Ah, that would be Joerg Schneider. Here is my e-mail exchange with him from December of 2006:
Dear Professor Schneider,
You and Professor Bachmann are often cited by conspiracists who contend, against all evidence, that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. As you know, every demolition expert and structural engineer in America rejects this thesis as baseless and insupportable.
Matthys Levy, author of the book 'Why Buildings Fall Down,' was shocked to learn that conspiracists were distorting his words to make it appear as though he shared their fantasies. Are you aware of the claims made on your behalf? Do you really endorse a pernicious and unscientific view that ignores mountains of contradictory data?
Please be good enough to clarify this matter.
Yours Truly,
Ronald Wieck

Hello,
I said that Building WTC7 was most probably brought down by controlled demolition. I do not believe that this is a possibility for the two towers. I do neither know Mr. Levy nor his book.
Best regards
J. Schneider


So, you agree with Prof. Schneider about the Twin Towers? No? You say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Please, tell us more.




Sehr geehrter Herr ................,


Der Artikel im Tagesanzeiger gibt meine
seinerzeitige Aussage korrekt wieder und ich bin
auch heute noch der Ansicht, dass das WTC7 - zum
Voraus professionell vorbereitet - am 11.
September gesprengt wurde.


Mit freundlichem Gruss
J. Schneider

I asked him about WTC7 and he confirmed that in his oppinion WTC7 was brought down by a CD.

i do agree with him about WTC7

[scissorhands]

But you dont agree with Joerg about the twin towers?

[quicknthedead]

On top of what you have just posted I would like just to add to this comment.

I have always had an issue with "It looks like a CD" because does it really make sense? Sure, I agree it does look like a CD but this in itself is a problem. Say, hypothetically all the conditions you have laid out in your post are met, that the "preps" went to this extraordinary effort to make all this happen,does it really make sense that they would not try and disguise the demolition of WTC 7? Does it really make sense that they would wait for the dust cloud to settle, allow the demolition to be filmed? Allow fire-fighters anywhere near it? Does it really make sense that they would demolish a building in full view of everybody when they had a perfect opportunity to do so when it was obscured?

The point is, if WRC 7 was demolished then it makes no sense that they would have allowed it to look like a CD. It makes far more sense that, if they really wanted to get away with it, they would have disguised it, maybe brought it down immediately after the towers had collapsed, hidden from view.

The fact that it looks like a CD, in my opinion makes it even less likely it was a CD, simply by the fact that had the "perps" had the fore thought to actually fore fill the criteria you have laid down then, as you say, it beggars belief that they would be so sloppy with the demolition of this building when they had plenty of opportunity to destroy it beforehand.

Your thrust "it doesn't make sense to look like a CD" is the same as alex04's previous post, and another home run!

Score: 2-0!

Thanks, stateofgrace!

[RAZEtheFLAG]

So what knocked off the fire-proofing in wtc-7? You know the only reason NIST claims the towers could have fell since the fires and structural damage weren't enough to bring down the towers? I'm just trying to get a feel for just how much proof you guys need to accept the official line. So far it doesn't sound like much. In fact the only standard that needs to be met by any of you seems to be just as long as it's not a cd or an inside job it must be true.

[A W Smith]

So what knocked off the fire-proofing in wtc-7? You know the only reason NIST claims the towers could have fell since the fires and structural damage weren't enough to bring down the towers? I'm just trying to get a feel for just how much proof you guys need to accept the official line. So far it doesn't sound like much. In fact the only standard that needs to be met by any of you seems to be just as long as it's not a cd or an inside job it must be true.


when it is stated that fire protection has a two or three hour fire rating. what does that mean within the context of a seven hour fire?

[bonavada]

I do not believe that this [Controlled Demolition] is a possibility for the two towers.

Is it safe to read that as Schneider stating that CD of the Twin Towers was impossible on that day?
OOPS.

BV

[RAZEtheFLAG]

That's a hell of a twisted logic stream you have there.
You include the simple term "knocked down" in your reasoning but fail to mention the fires that freely raged for hours in the building. Correct me please if I am wrong but the use of such inferno's is not usually included in the demolition industry.
The demise of WTC7 may have looked somewhat "just like" a controlled demolition but that is it. That is all you have.

Look below, just like a nice cuddly kitty right?

African Wildcat. Say no more.


BV

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

[Garb]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

Structural damage?

Windsor tower?

[RAZEtheFLAG]

when it is stated that fire protection has a two or three hour fire rating. what does that mean within the context of a seven hour fire?

Buildings never burn for more the a couple of hours in your world? It doesn't mean because it goes past the rating on the fire-proofing the building completely collapses. None of the fires on 9/11 were even throughout most of the buildings. And still where are you getting your final version of EXACTLY what happened to WTC-7 from? Do you even need it or did you already make up your mind? If it's just fire and damage from the falling towers then what's taking NIST so long to put that in a report? Isn't it that simple? So what else can take down a steel structure high-rise according to you without weeks of preparation? Are airplane crashes across the street it?

[scissorhands]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times.

I think you had best produce some examples.

[AZCat]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

Yes, there has been at least one so-called "global collapse" of a steel high-rise building - the Equitable Life Insurance Building.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

What?
When?
How?
Why?

Fire away

Why don't you send that to NIST? Or are others held to a higher standard because they don't share your world view?

[DC]

But you dont agree with Joerg about the twin towers?

i dont think so

[quicknthedead]

Quickandthedead, many people here have put forward the same arguments, but they have no effect on our resident troofers. Have you tried to put these points at a troof venue? What do Scholars for 9/11 Troof and Justice think? (You are a member, I believe).

Good idea, sleahead.

I think I will post this over at stj911 (and include as well the other rationale just mentioned that "making it look like a CD" also points to the illogic of it being a CD).

I'll have to re-discover the link (twice I have deleted it in the not-so recent past because this forum became boring to me as far as good communication among people).

But I found it once, so I guess I can find it again -- I like detective work. :)
I just wish I could remember how I found the link before. :boggled:

Now that you mention it, I wonder how they will answer as this involves simple, yet irrefutable logic.

I will update on how it goes.
Thanks for your suggestion.

[bonavada]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?


WTC7 was significantly damaged when the towers fell. Fires raged unfought in the building for hours. The building collapsed due to those facts.
You are on a loser.

BV

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Yes, there has been at least one so-called "global collapse" of a steel high-rise building - the Equitable Life Insurance Building.


Never heard of it. What century was it built?

[scissorhands]

i dont think so

So just like Jowenko, Schneider is only 33% correct about the events of 9/11?
Thats a very low ratio of correct analysis.
Can you trust him????

[RAZEtheFLAG]

I think you had best produce some examples.

I don't think I can post links yet. Why don't you source one that did besides on 9/11?

[DGM]

I don't think I can post links yet. Why don't you source one that did besides on 9/11?
Yes you can.

[AZCat]

Never heard of it. What century was it built?

Why does that matter? Shouldn't a collapse of any steel-framed high-rise be relevant?

If you want to read about it, the book High Rise/Fire & Life Safety by John O'Hagan has a section on the fire and collapse.

[uk_dave]

Why don't you send that to NIST? Or are others held to a higher standard because they don't share your world view?

NIST aren't proposing 'controlled demolition', the 'truth' movement is.

Care to explain:

What?
When?
How?
Why?

[scissorhands]

I don't think I can post links yet. Why don't you source one that did besides on 9/11?

Because there havent been any other buildings built with the designs involved on 9/11 that have been hit by airplanes or falling skyscrapers and then burnt for hours to compare them with.
Only dishonest/ ignorant people in the troof movement try to make this comparison.:)

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Why does that matter? Shouldn't a collapse of any steel-framed high-rise be relevant?

If you want to read about it, the book High Rise/Fire & Life Safety by John O'Hagan has a section on the fire and collapse.

You claim it compares but you seem to be deliberately evasive about the details. If it doesn't matter when it was built then why don't you tell me? Give me all the details of how it suffered global collapse from fire. Do you have a link I can see or do I need to go to the book store to confirm your claim? Will it be a waste of my time?

[pomeroo]

I asked him about WTC7 and he confirmed that in his oppinion WTC7 was brought down by a CD.

i do agree with him about WTC7


So, he doesn't know what he's talking about on the subject of the Twin Towers. You agree with him with he disagrees with every other structural engineer and you disagree with him when agrees with the other experts.

He has, of course, made no special study of WTC 7. He's just parroting fantasy movement propaganda.

[pomeroo]

You claim it compares but you seem to be deliberately evasive about the details. If it doesn't matter when it was built then why don't you tell me? Give me all the details of how it suffered global collapse from fire. Do you have a link I can see or do I need to go to the book store to confirm your claim? Will it be a waste of my time?


Yes, attempting to read a serious book will be a waste of your time.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Because there havent been any other buildings built with the designs involved on 9/11 that have been hit by airplanes or falling skyscrapers and then burnt for hours to compare them with.
Only dishonest/ ignorant people in the troof movement try to make this comparison.:)

So you don't even have one? Does that make you angry?

[A W Smith]

Buildings never burn for more the a couple of hours in your world?

it is expected that fires can be brought under control within that time frame; at what point were the fires in building seven brought under control ?It doesn't mean because it goes past the rating on the fire-proofing the building completely collapses. None of the fires on 9/11 were even throughout most of the buildings. And still where are you getting your final version of EXACTLY what happened to WTC-7 from?
Bolded is an example of a straw man logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) see "5-Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version."Do you even need it or did you already make up your mind? If it's just fire and damage from the falling towers then what's taking NIST so long to put that in a report? Isn't it that simple? So what else can take down a steel structure high-rise according to you without weeks of preparation? Are airplane crashes across the street it?

This is your evidence of a controlled demolition? Do you not see that yours is an argument from incredulity and that is a logical fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
are you aware that building seven caused no fatalities and that it is a simple property loss? Is the delay of the final report your only absence of evidence proof of a controlled demolition?

[AZCat]

You claim it compares but you seem to be deliberately evasive about the details. If it doesn't matter when it was built then why don't you tell me? Give me all the details of how it suffered global collapse from fire. Do you have a link I can see or do I need to go to the book store to confirm your claim? Will it be a waste of my time?

Go do your own damn research. I'm tired of supporting lazy truthers. I gave you the title of the book, so you can either see if your library has a copy or buy it (like I did). I'm sure there are other descriptions of the building, the fire and the collapse out there but I'm just as sure that YouTube doesn't have video footage (too bad for you).

[uk_dave]

Will it be a waste of my time?

The thing is, maybe you will be wasting your time...or maybe you won't. Your problem is that possibly what you're being told here is actually true and all that stuff you've been fed by the 'truther' websites is false. It's your decision.

But be aware, your decision matters not a jot. You're just one person. You can either reject the rational explanation and continue with your belief in the 'truther' dogma (it doesn't matter, you wont change anything...you'll just continue to look silly) or you can be rational and accept that maybe you don't know enough to form your own opinion and you really need to speak with people who are properly trained in these matters to get an accurate perspective..............

....it really just depends upon how willing you are to continue to be wrong.

[scissorhands]

So you don't even have one? Does that make you angry?

What?
The fact that there are no other buildings designed similarly and having sustained the same damage to compare with?
No.
Why would that make me angry?:)
Its just a fact.

[DGM]

So you don't even have one? Does that make you angry?
Why would that make us angry? We are smart enough to know there"s a first time for everything. How about you?

[RAZEtheFLAG]

temper temper. Just come up with some comparisons that's all. Tell me how you claim to know without an official version yet. Tell me how it takes weeks to set up explosives to bring down a building completely but on 9-11 it happened three times without weeks of preparation because why? You know that a plane crash across the street is the only thing in the world that can accomplish this because why? Just tell me don't get angry.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Why would that make us angry? We are smart enough to know there"s a first time for everything. How about you?

So why the insults and name calling? Is it fear?

[DGM]

temper temper. Just come up with some comparisons that's all. Tell me how you claim to know without an official version yet. Tell me how it takes weeks to set up explosives to bring down a building completely but on 9-11 it happened three times without weeks of preparation because why? You know that a plane crash across the street is the only thing in the world that can accomplish this because why? Just tell me don't get angry.
This is by far the dumbest post I've read in weeks. Congratulations.

[AZCat]

Yes, attempting to read a serious book will be a waste of your time.

The sad thing is that it is a really good book. O'Hagan covers high-rise fire fighting strategies, describes a number of examples in-depth, and talks about full-scale fire tests and their conclusions, all of which should be relevant to someone who is interested in the WTC building collapses. It's a bit outdated but still applies. The fire safety guys here might have more recent books they recommend.

[A W Smith]

Never heard of it. What century was it built?

It was built the same "century" as the world trade center was built. Including building seven. Got any straw-men in that bag of woo you are carrying?

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Go do your own damn research. I'm tired of supporting lazy truthers. I gave you the title of the book, so you can either see if your library has a copy or buy it (like I did). I'm sure there are other descriptions of the building, the fire and the collapse out there but I'm just as sure that YouTube doesn't have video footage (too bad for you).

I don't believe you have something that compares. Source it. Is this book you speak of the only source of something that compares to 9/11? Must be some book. I will look it up you can bet on it. Then I'm going to come back looking for you.

[DGM]

So why the insults and name calling? Is it fear?
No. After awhile moronic comments only deserve ridicule. Why don't you want to know what happened?

[AZCat]

I don't believe you have something that compares. Source it. Is this book you speak of the only source of something that compares to 9/11? Must be some book. I will look it up you can bet on it. Then I'm going to come back looking for you.

Fine. I'll be waiting. I won't hold my breath though (experience with truthers has taught me that much).


On Edit: What in the world do you mean by "compares to 9/11"? I produced something that met your criteria - not something that is supposed to compare to 9/11. It's your idiotic premise that other steel-framed high-rise building collapses are comparable to the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7, not mine.

[scissorhands]

I will look it up you can bet on it. Then I'm going to come back looking for you.

:)
LOL
We have a stalking situation.

[1337m4n]

RAZEtheFLAG:

People get irritated when you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion other than questions that have already been answered at length elsewhere on these forums. I suggest you use the forum's "Seach" function.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

It was built the same "century" as the world trade center was built. Including building seven. Got any straw-men in that bag of woo you are carrying?

What year? Tell me everything you know about it.

[AZCat]

What year? Tell me everything you know about it.

Why don't you just go read the book (or find alternative sources)? Then you don't have to worry about "believing" us JREFers.

[A W Smith]

RAZEtheFLAG:


while you are "researching", can you provide us with an example of a phenomena that has occurred, that had never occurred for the first time?

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Fine. I'll be waiting. I won't hold my breath though (experience with truthers has taught me that much).


On Edit: What in the world do you mean by "compares to 9/11"? I produced something that met your criteria - not something that is supposed to compare to 9/11. It's your idiotic premise that other steel-framed high-rise building collapses are comparable to the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7, not mine.

That's fine. Just as long as it's a steel structured high-rise that suffered global collapse from fire. I just thought I would have heard of it by now. Especially since I'm now questioning it you would think some here would jump at the chance to produce it to the person they are insulting and calling names just to rub it in their face. But for some reason I'm the one who needs to go hunt down your so-called proof.

[A W Smith]

What year? Tell me everything you know about it.

That is off topic here in this thread. Start a new thread with an opening post explaining what you don't know about it. I understand it will be a long post for you, but i have time.

[1337m4n]

Read a Book, Read a Book, Read a ************* Book

[RAZEtheFLAG]

RAZEtheFLAG:


while you are "researching", can you provide us with an example of a phenomena that has occurred, that had never occurred for the first time?

The global collapse part is the only thing that is not only the first time it's the only time. That's why some claim it still has never happened from just fire and damage.

[1337m4n]

That's fine. Just as long as it's a steel structured high-rise that suffered global collapse from fire. I just thought I would have heard of it by now. Especially since I'm now questioning it you would think some here would jump at the chance to produce it to the person they are insulting and calling names just to rub it in their face. But for some reason I'm the one who needs to go hunt down your so-called proof.

My heart bleeds for you, you poor soul who must take a whopping 30 minutes out of his busy, busy day to visit the local library. You must feel so tortured.

[scissorhands]

Just as long as it's a steel structured high-rise that suffered global collapse from fire.

Maybe you just forgot to mention the structural damage?
Did it slip your mind?

[DGM]

The global collapse part is the only thing that is not only the first time it's the only time. That's why some claim it still has never happened from just fire and damage.
Actually there's a youtube (?) video of an apartment building doing just that. Try to find it.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

That is off topic here in this thread. Start a new thread with an opening post explaining what you don't know about it. I understand it will be a long post for you, but i have time.

I didn't bring up the phantom proof. Why doesn't someone start a thread and produce this comparison? I would love to see it.

[AZCat]

That's fine. Just as long as it's a steel structured high-rise that suffered global collapse from fire. I just thought I would have heard of it by now. Especially since I'm now questioning it you would think some here would jump at the chance to produce it to the person they are insulting and calling names just to rub it in their face. But for some reason I'm the one who needs to go hunt down your so-called proof.

No, I made it all up. I have a tremendous inferiority complex, so I find it necessary to post lies (lies that I sourced, no less. Faking a book written by someone else was pretty difficult, but worth it) on internet forums tricking otherwise honest, diligent researchers into wasting precious time when they could be out on street corners with megaphones and pamphlets further spreading the undeniable truth about tv fakery/space beams/therm*te.</sarcasm>

[A W Smith]

The global collapse part is the only thing that is not only the first time it's the only time. That's why some claim it still has never happened from just fire and damage.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Maybe you just forgot to mention the structural damage?
Did it slip your mind?

The more it compares the better. Let's see it.

[AZCat]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

I wondered how long it would be until someone brought up Kader.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

No, I made it all up. I have a tremendous inferiority complex, so I find it necessary to post lies (lies that I sourced, no less. Faking a book written by someone else was pretty difficult, but worth it) on internet forums tricking otherwise honest, diligent researchers into wasting precious time when they could be out on street corners with megaphones and pamphlets further spreading the undeniable truth about tv fakery/space beams/therm*te.</sarcasm>

Ok sorry about your complex but thanks for not wasting my time looking for this book that supposedly has this comparison in it. I didn't think there was one.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

I wondered how long it would be until someone brought up Kader.

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

[scissorhands]

The more it compares the better. Let's see it.

There arent any other examples of the type of buildings suffering the type of damage that occurred on 9/11 to compare with.
I kind of hoped this would have sunk in by now.
It is your pathetic movement that tries to make comparisons with totally different constructions on fire, and its up to your pathetic movement to explain why.
Find a comparison.

[1337m4n]

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

What's wrong with Kader?

Every time it's brought up, we have people like you mocking it like it's a bad example. But not one of you have bothered explaining to us why.

[A W Smith]

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

Global collapse?

this was your post. do you remember it?
The global collapse part is the only thing that is not only the first time it's the only time. That's why some claim it still has never happened from just fire and damage.

[stateofgrace]

Ok sorry about your complex but thanks for not wasting my time looking for this book that supposedly has this comparison in it. I didn't think there was one.

You clearly don't understand sarcasm, nor do you understand the concept of staying on topic, nor do you understand that this thread is not a platform for you to launch into everything bloody twoofer conspiracy about WTC 7. It is about this OP.



WTC7 is the main reason why people believe 9/11 was an inside job, referring to it as the “smoking gun of 9/11”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).

Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD. There is only the fact that it looked like one (plus added speculation to help bolster this viewpoint). Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one?

The answer is no because logically it could not have been. Here's why.

#1. If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare.

Interestingly, CD expert Danny Jowenko stated it might have been possible for a team of experts to have quickly prepped the building for CD the day of 9/11. Yet when he was then told that WTC7 had been on fire all that day, he went silent in bewilderment, for he then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was.

#2. If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11.

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible.

In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD.

For it to have been controlled demolition means our hypothetical perpetrators would have known their plan was dependent upon #3 and #4 taking place, but these were not givens. One might argue they could have ensured #3 happening (i.e., destroy the towers by CD “also”), but no one could possibly have known the extent of #4 (ensuing damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers) that would be needed to take place sufficiently for their “cover story”. Therefore, "they" would have known "their plan" was severely flawed from the beginning and would not have carried it out; thus "their plan" would have become "non-existent", and this is why "they are non-existent".

There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.

Think about it.
Your thoughts are welcome. Get on topic, start a new thread or I will report you for derailing this thread.

[AZCat]

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

I guess I need to clarify: I am not claiming that there is any comparison between any of these events and the collapses of September 11th. Instead, I was correcting the error in your post #51 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3694818&postcount=51) of this thread.

The "truth movement" seems to think that previous high-rise steel building collapses (or the alleged absence of them) have some relevance to the September 11th collapses, yet have failed to provide any explanation why they are relevant. Perhaps if you took a moment and explained what you were trying to prove we might get somewhere.

[AZCat]

Get on topic, start a new thread or I will report you for derailing this thread.

It's as much my fault as his, stateofgrace. I'll stop responding to off-topic tangents.

[stateofgrace]

It's as much my fault as his, stateofgrace. I'll stop responding to off-topic tangents.

Thank you. I understand the frustration but the OP in this thread deserves attention because it is based on critical thinking and because it comes from a member who has previously stated his position as being a truth movement member and he believed 911 was an inside job.

I find it refreshing to see such honesty from the truth movement and feel that this thread should not be allowed to sink into yet another WTC 7 free for all.

Stateofgrace.

[RAZEtheFLAG]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

[stateofgrace]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

Reported.

[A W Smith]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

So you are saying it didn't even have the weight of a 44 story building sitting on top of it and yet it still collapsed in fifteen minutes?

Do you care to address the op (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3693504&postcount=1)?
particularly this?
Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD.

[quicknthedead]

according to beachnut, a CD always looks like a Collapse, so it would be very eye-catching would they produce a CD that does not look like a collapse.

and also if WTC7 would have not collapsed, alot JREFers would get suspiciously, they expect buildings to collapse.

Hi DC,

I notice you did not comment on the point of the post.

Can you overcome its logic (i.e., that it is illogical for WTC7 to be a CD)?

[1337m4n]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise.

Relevance? Are taller buildings somehow more resistant to global collapse?

It was poorly built

Define "poorly built". Did it use square instead of triangular support sections? Was the steel too thin?

and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked.

False.

And irrelevant even if it were true: the WTC buildings had their fireproofing stripped off, remember? Several groups had been questioning the quality of the fireproofing in the upper floors of the Twin Towers, remember?

The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire.

Relevance? Do fire alarms prevent buildings from collapsing somehow?

I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires.

But, was it hit by an airliner? Or by thousands of tons of falling debris?

It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse.

Read the reports again.

Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

There's also the book AZCat suggested.

I also have this (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Cairo-Suburb-Building-Fire--Collapse-Kills-14/46$25161), but of course you are going to find some inane reason to nitpick such as it being built in a hot climate rather than in New York. So why do you help us out, and tell us exactly what criteria you are looking for?

[bonavada]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

What you ask is nigh impossible. The events at the WTC were unique with no parallel. Considering the intractibility of your tenet I could justifyably turn the question on its head and ask.....When has a steel structured high-rise building suffered similar damage and fires and NOT collapsed?

But I wont.

BV

[quicknthedead]

And to quicknthedead:

No, it looked like massive structural failure.

Yes, it looks like a massive structural failure to you (and to me as well); on this there is no question. However, I can understand why those in the 9/11 truth movement say it looks like a CD.

Both are honest interpretations of what was seen.

Nonetheless, the truth of the collapse can only be one of the answers...and the point of my post is it is illogical to think WTC7 was a CD.

[Confuseling]

Regarding the OP: Good post. One minor detail I think you might have overlooked is the extra risk of getting caught inherent in the fact that the building's smaller.

Explosives placed at ground level are all things being equal more likely to create visible flashes, audible bangs, and detectable seismic signatures. Additionally, with less wreckage, I can only assume that a higher proportion of the wreckage would be tainted with chemical residue or remnants of devices, making them considerably easier to find. There will be less destruction unleashed during the collapse, and no smoldering pile equivalent to the WTC 1 and 2 remains, so deliberately destroyed structural elements will be found more quickly, and in a condition more representative of their condition at the point of collapse.

In short, it would be an insane plan - far too insane for anybody capable of pulling it off to actually believe in.

ETA: I realise that these comparisons only make sense in the 'deliberate demolition' as opposed to 'controlled demolition' case where only a few columns are attacked, but as that is the only remotely plausible hypothesis, that's where I'm going.

[quicknthedead]

and i do have email contact to a very well known structural engineering professor that is agreeing that WTC7 is a CD.

DC,

I believe you if you say so.

All the same, if you could line up you 100 SE's that say it was a CD, and I were to line 100 SE's that say it was not, this still would not address the point of the post: It is illogical to think that WTC7 was a CD based upon the parameters involved.

And I think if we could get all 200 of our SE's together, and they all honestly evaluated the logic of the post, they would be in agreement.

If you have logic to overcome it, please share it.
If you don't, that is OK too.

However, now that you are here and are for 9/11 truth, your addressing this one way or another would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[bonavada]

Both are honest interpretations of what was seen.


AFAIAC this is true. WTC7 did look like a controlled demolition. But that is it. Appearances can be deceptive.
I wonder in what other manner could/would any high rise building collapse after major structural failure? I cannot for the life of me imagine any other fashion in which that building might have fallen to the ground given the damage.
Also, am I right in thinking that WTC 7 was not "steel structured" in the sense that the towers were?

BV

[RAZEtheFLAG]

What you ask is nigh impossible. The events at the WTC were unique with no parallel. Considering the intractibility of your tenet I could justifyably turn the question on its head and ask.....When has a steel structured high-rise building suffered similar damage and fires and NOT collapsed?

But I wont.

BV

There are plenty of buildings that have had structural damage and fires and didn't end up looking anything like a CD. Bombs, gas explosions, earthquakes, arson, still no global collapse.

[bonavada]

There are plenty of buildings that have had structural damage and fires and didn't end up looking anything like a CD. Bombs, gas explosions, earthquakes, arson, still no global collapse.

No global collapse from earthquakes? Are you serious?

ETA Retract. I may have missed your point above.

But to re-iterate. I stated similar damage. That is, a building hundreds of storeys high collapsing onto a much smaller neighbour, causing major damage together with large untackled fires. Show me an example of a building that stood despite that?
I think you will have difficulty finding one.
Of course my question is ridiculous. The difference between me and you is I recognise that.

BV

[twinstead]

RAZEtheFLAG, many, if not most, 911 conspriacists are SURE that WTC7 was brought down by CD. How are they sure? Do you imply that the 'official story' about WTC is physically impossible?

[quicknthedead]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd? Doesn't the claim that it takes weeks to place explosives to knock down a building work against the theory that all the stars were aligned on 9-11 where a bunch of buildings completely fell down just like a cd without any of that preparation?
Sorry, RAZEtheFLAG. I do not understand what you mean.


A possible motive could be the WTC-7 was meant to have fallen down in the morning with the rest of the buildings but something went wrong and it took longer. For instance maybe it was a dud or a third plane never made it.

Then there is always the CT that wtc-7 was where the 9-11 operation was run from so it was destroyed when the mission was complete.

Like everyone so far, you are not addressing the point logic of the post.

It states basically that a plan made ahead of time by hypothetical conspirators to do a CD on WTC7 would never have gone forward because the plan was flawed from the beginning.

How was it flawed?

No one could possibly have known the extent of damage caused by the towers collapsing (and if they were even to collapse).

Without knowing ahead of time the extent of debris damage to WTC7 resulting from collapse of the towers (which would be needed in order to provide the green light for setup of WTC7 for CD to provide a cover story for its destruction {i.e., an explanation other than CD}), no one in their right mind would have proceeded with the CD. To do so would mean acting upon a seriously flawed plan, which would be illogical and make no sense.

You did not address this point of logic.

(BTW, the nice thing about logic is you don't have to go to school to get it, although that could certainly help depending upon the person; and everyone is capable of dealing with it if they want to.)

Can you overcome it now? (At least give it a try.)
Thanks.

[quicknthedead]

If it's just fire and damage from the falling towers then what's taking NIST so long to put that in a report? Isn't it that simple? So what else can take down a steel structure high-rise according to you without weeks of preparation? Are airplane crashes across the street it?

RAZEtheFLAG,

I don't think there is anything all that simple about 9/11 except that evil had a field day, and sometimes (most of the time?) things are complex.

[quicknthedead]

Thank you. I understand the frustration but the OP in this thread deserves attention because it is based on critical thinking and because it comes from a member who has previously stated his position as being a truth movement member and he believed 911 was an inside job.

I find it refreshing to see such honesty from the truth movement and feel that this thread should not be allowed to sink into yet another WTC 7 free for all.

Stateofgrace.

Thanks, stateofgrace, and I do appreciate your efforts to keep it on track.

Isn't there anyone in the 9/11 truth movement who wants to offer a logical response to the OP?

Yes, no, anything...?

If nothing...well, maybe that's an answer by itself.

Please, think about it.
Thanks.

[quicknthedead]

Quickandthedead, many people here have put forward the same arguments, but they have no effect on our resident troofers. Have you tried to put these points at a troof venue? What do Scholars for 9/11 Troof and Justice think? (You are a member, I believe).

Good idea, sleahead.

I think I will post this over at stj911 (and include as well the other rationale just mentioned that "making it look like a CD" also points to the illogic of it being a CD).

I'll have to re-discover the link (twice I have deleted it in the not-so recent past because this forum became boring to me as far as good communication among people).

But I found it once, so I guess I can find it again -- I like detective work. :)
I just wish I could remember how I found the link before. :boggled:

Now that you mention it, I wonder how they will answer as this involves simple, yet irrefutable logic.

I will update on how it goes.
Thanks for your suggestion.

OK, sleahead, I just posted this OP (for both logic points) over at the stj911 forum.

Since it is open only to members, I will keep an eye on it periodically to see if there are any meaningful replies that I can provide from there to here.

[Arus808]

can some tell Raze to start his own thread and stop deraling this one. Or just point him toe ht WTC 7 interim report and ignore him until he has a real question, or has evdience of his claims

[quicknthedead]

AFAIAC this is true. WTC7 did look like a controlled demolition. But that is it.
Appearances can be deceptive.
I wonder in what other manner could/would any high rise building collapse after major structural failure? I cannot for the life of me imagine any other fashion in which that building might have fallen to the ground given the damage.


The bolded part is true for everyone and should always be part of consideration and deliberation.
9/11 TM would do well to dwell upon this regarding WTC7 (and the logic in the OP).

Sometimes stating the "obviously simple" is best.

Thanks, bonavada. :thanks

[quicknthedead]

Regarding the OP: Good post. One minor detail I think you might have overlooked is the extra risk of getting caught inherent in the fact that the building's smaller.

Explosives placed at ground level are all things being equal more likely to create visible flashes, audible bangs, and detectable seismic signatures. Additionally, with less wreckage, I can only assume that a higher proportion of the wreckage would be tainted with chemical residue or remnants of devices, making them considerably easier to find. There will be less destruction unleashed during the collapse, and no smoldering pile equivalent to the WTC 1 and 2 remains, so deliberately destroyed structural elements will be found more quickly, and in a condition more representative of their condition at the point of collapse.

In short, it would be an insane plan - far too insane for anybody capable of pulling it off to actually believe in.

ETA: I realise that these comparisons only make sense in the 'deliberate demolition' as opposed to 'controlled demolition' case where only a few columns are attacked, but as that is the only remotely plausible hypothesis, that's where I'm going.

Yes, excellent observation, Confuseling! And no, I had not thought of this.

I have added it to my list of points that now number three on this subject found in the OP.

Thanks!

PS Strange, thing, but I posted my thanks to you for this point awhile back and then came to find that the post never happened.

I am sure it was due to (my) "operator error". :boxedin:

[gumboot]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise.

Actually it was three four storey buildings. A lower building has less liklihood of collapsing due to a lower gravity load from upper floors, so this doesn't really assist your argument.



It was poorly built

This is false.


and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked.

Making it an excellent comparison to the WTC towers and WTC7.



The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire.

Both of these are false, although neither has any bearing on the structural performance of the building.



I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires.

This is false.


It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse.

The fire spread rapidly throughout Building One, and the upper floors soon became untenable. The blaze blocked the stairwell at the south end of the building, so most of the workers rushed to the north stairwell. This meant that approximately 1,100 people were trying to leave the third and fourth floors through a single stairwell.

The first fire apparatus arrived at 4:40 p.m., their response time having been extended because of the relatively remote location of the facility and the gridlock conditions typical of Bangkok traffic. Arriving fire-fighters found Building One heavily involved in flames and already beginning to collapse, with people jumping from the third and fourth floors.

Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade could effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly collapsed at 5:30 p.m., and Building Three at 6:05 p.m.

Stellman, J. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, International Labour Organisation (1998)

(my bolding)

[Miragememories]

WTC7 is the main reason why people believe 9/11 was an inside job, referring to it as the “smoking gun of 9/11”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).

Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD. There is only the fact that it looked like one (plus added speculation to help bolster this viewpoint). Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one?

The answer is no because logically it could not have been. Here's why.

#1. If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare.

Interestingly, CD expert Danny Jowenko stated it might have been possible for a team of experts to have quickly prepped the building for CD the day of 9/11. Yet when he was then told that WTC7 had been on fire all that day, he went silent in bewilderment, for he then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was.

#2. If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11.

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible.

In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD.

For it to have been controlled demolition means our hypothetical perpetrators would have known their plan was dependent upon #3 and #4 taking place, but these were not givens. One might argue they could have ensured #3 happening (i.e., destroy the towers by CD “also”), but no one could possibly have known the extent of #4 (ensuing damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers) that would be needed to take place sufficiently for their “cover story”. Therefore, "they" would have known "their plan" was severely flawed from the beginning and would not have carried it out; thus "their plan" would have become "non-existent", and this is why "they are non-existent".

There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.

Think about it.
Your thoughts are welcome.

You can find my thoughts on this here;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3696612#post3696612

MM

[A W Smith]

You can find my thoughts on this here;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3696612#post3696612

MM
Well I took a look at that thread and in typical 'kneejerk' fashion,
the usual cast of clowns are re-establishing their ability to post
absolutely nothing of substance regarding this topic.

Your points are nothing special and I see no difficulty in responding to them.

I'm not so foolish as to expect my responses to carry any weight but for the odd visitor who may be interested, I'll provide a response.

quicknthedead writes; " If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare."

Preparation time is dependent on the number of participants, their level of expertise, the amount of continuous time available and the method used to remove the core support. You have no idea what the answer is to any of these points is, so your statement is pure speculation. Danny Jowenko, regardless of how you interpret his reaction to the information about the WTC 7 fires, his expert opinion was that it would have been possible to successfully prep WTC 7 in the time available on 9/11.
um. no it wasn't. when confronted with the problem that the building was on fire. all day. Jowenko postulated that the building had to be prepared in advance

quicknthedead performs an act of mindreading; "...for he [Danny Jowenko] then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was."

Danny Jowenko has never said or given any contrary indication that he changed his mind about the possibility of a same day CD preparation of WTC 7.

Assuming that you are not an expert in controlled demolition methodology, you have no credibility in claiming you know the sole basis for Danny Jowenko's determination that the WTC 7's collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.
Danny Jowenko, when interviewed several months later, stated that he absolutely stood by his original controlled demolition belief. As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD. Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue (http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/contracts/cld/rd/courts/Krygoski.html).

quicknthedead writes; "If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible."

Your thinking here is really missing the point.

Obviously, if WTC 7's collapse was a CD, then it was part of the larger 9/11 plan.

Yes, it reveals that those responsible must have known about the fate of the WTC Twin Towers. It does not mean that the perpetrators expected aircraft crashes were going to bring about the collapses of the Twin Towers. The aircraft attacks served the primary purpose of "shock and awe" and they succeeded brilliantly. They also provided a cover story for the demolition of the Twin Towers. They had to be certain the Twin Towers would collapse and they had no reasonable expectation to base a belief that the aircraft impacts would achieve that result. The plan called for certainty, and not "let's see what happens." Therefore, it's logical to assume that if the WTC 7 collapse was a CD, then so were the Twin Towers collapses. The perpetrators planned the future in advance and they obviously did so in great detail. I don't understand why you would expect them not to?
You have Two problems Merry Melodies,
1) your go to guy. Danny Jowenko does not support your contention that the twin towers were controlled demolition. Now who is the Cd expert? You? or him?
2) The stealth CD of building seven depends on it suffering collateral damage from the twin towers. Now had no debris come in contact with seven. or if the towers toppled in a southerly direction. How could the collapse of seven be explained away?


quicknthedead writes; "In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD."

I'm arguing MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose), so I have no reason to argue against LIHOP scenario.

You continue to lock your belief to the Official Story idea that the collapses of the Twin Towers were the consequence of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.
As does Jowenko. Remember him? Your expert?
Regarding WTC 7; given it's proximity to WTC 1, and given the knowledge that WTC 1 was prepped to completely collapse, it was understandable that a CD of WTC 7 could easily be masked if it occurred under the umbrella of the huge collapse of WTC 1. This is where the plan must have hit it's first real snag.

For some reason the CD of WTC 7, timed to follow closely behind that of WTC 1, failed. This problem was corrected but the planned cover story was gone.

The apparent contingency plan was to let the fires become the reason for a collapse. Therefore they had to allow sufficient time for the fires to burn and create some credibility, if only a little, for their case.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.

MM
I don't know who is more of a conspiracy fantasy fan boy. You or Terral.
I have highlighted the two paragraphs above so the lurkers can see how paranoid and ridiculous you sound.

[Miragememories]

um. no it wasn't. when confronted with the problem that the building was on fire. all day. Jowenko postulated that the building had to be prepared in advance

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

You are absolutely wrong!

Actually, I wish you were right because if Jowenko had said the WTC 7 CD had to have been prepared prior to 9/11, then he would be directly acknowledging it as part of the whole 9/11 event.

But he doesn't. His response remained that it must have been a crime of opportunity [CD of WTC 7] and that the perpetrators must have responded in this manner because of the financial losses incurred by the damage from the collapse of WTC 1.


Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue (http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/contracts/cld/rd/courts/Krygoski.html).

I have no idea, and obviously you don't either, as to 'what in hell' your talking about.

My only reference to U.S. control demolition experts was this;
"As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD."

Please explain how that can be constructed to mean; "Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue (http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/contracts/cld/rd/courts/Krygoski.html)."

My recommendation is that maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.


You have Two problems Merry Melodies,

Do you really feel altering my username makes your responses better?


1) your go to guy. Danny Jowenko does not support your contention that the twin towers were controlled demolition. Now who is the Cd expert? You? or him?

That is old, well covered ground. If you wish to debate that issue, I suggest you post to that old thread that has already dealt with it. If that's too much bother, I'll dig up the link when time permits.


2) The stealth CD of building seven depends on it suffering collateral damage from the twin towers. Now had no debris come in contact with seven. or if the towers toppled in a southerly direction. How could the collapse of seven be explained away?

As we know, the towers didn't topple. They were never intended to. With WTC 1's 110 story height, those demolishing WTC 1 could be assured that sufficient debris and dust would enshroud WTC 7 and effectively mask that demolition.


As does Jowenko. Remember him? Your expert?

An expert, not "my expert."


I don't know who is more of a conspiracy fantasy fan boy. You or Terral.
I have highlighted the two paragraphs above so the lurkers can see how paranoid and ridiculous you sound.

I think you have proven yourself to qualify as the most ridiculous A W Smith.

MM

[beachnut]

You can find my thoughts on this here;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3696612#post3696612

MM
Pure fantasy. The standard no fact, no evidence, pathetic fiction, the trademark of 9/11 truth. Why do you and 9/11 truth avoid facts and produce pure fiction?

How does RDX avoid being cooked off in a large office fire that WTC7 experienced? Why did Smith Solomon Barney allow RDX to be planted in the walls of their office, when their own security would be tighter than most military buildings? Bad fiction, very bad.

Your lack of depth in your failed ideas about 9/11 leave so much to want, I have to turn to a Clancy novel for real fact based fiction, your ideas on 9/11 are stillborn.

[Miragememories]

Pure fantasy. The standard no fact, no evidence, pathetic fiction, the trademark of 9/11 truth. Why do you and 9/11 truth avoid facts and produce pure fiction?

Your lack of depth in your failed ideas about 9/11 leave so much to want, I have to turn to a Clancy novel for real fact based fiction, your ideas on 9/11 are stillborn.

Why don't you observe the responses of more mature members like R. Mackey and at least make some attempt to put something other than your own bigotry into your unsolicited replies Beachnut?

MM

[beachnut]

Why don't you observe the responses of more mature members like R. Mackey and at least make some attempt to put something other than your own bigotry into your unsolicited replies Beachnut?

MM
When will you find some evidence instead of hearsay?
You want to use your human approach with Danny! Funny stuff, your diatribe at LCF lacks logic.
Danny Jowenko, Controlled Demolitions Expert from the Netherlands
Seems his experience with fire is lacking! Cool, an expert right for the fantasy world of 9/11 truth on WTC7, but wrong on 1 and 2 fantasy. Seems he is a 33 percent guy, not as good as the 75 percent terrorists. He flunks the truth smell test of ironic oxymoronic logic.

Why don't you observe the rules of logic, and present some facts and evidence.
Your claims are pure fantasy. You have no evidence to back them. You have completely ignored evidence to manufacture false ideas.
It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.
MM
Pure fantasy: I think when you gain maturity and take a few physics course, you many understand fire, energy, and gravity.

It seems I am a bigot for evidence. Seems like you are a hearsay expert who makes up statements with zero base in fact. You think explosives survive fires, or that thermite was used. Who knows what you believe, it has no coherent base in fact. You are prolific in posting tons of zero fact based 9/11 truth nonsense. You need to get track and respond to the OP.

A bigot against the lies of 9/11 truth. You seem to be a fan of 9/11 truth's false ideas and made up stories. Cool, what was the OP and why do I agree, with logic? OH…
There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.
Got facts? You may want to study up on fire safety, and why steel looses strength. Good luck, nice post. Thank you very much. Keep up the good work, you may one day find some facts you can make logical conclusions with.

[A W Smith]

here is an expert claiming that the twin towers would take a year to prepare. What does he get wrong MM? Who is more qualified? You? An anonymous Internet poster? or him?

EkZMQAC95kI&

[DGM]

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/



MM:
Could you post a link to the source article for us that are not allowed to view the police state known as Loose Change Forum?

[A W Smith]

MM:
Could you post a link to the source article for us that are not allowed to view the police state known as Loose Change Forum?


this jumped out at me

DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, that can also be. Look if that man (NYFD Commander on site at WTC7] is bribed by Silverstone because he wants his payment... and here you also have a nice percentage then he writes that simply down. This is how America is tied together. That makes September 11th very hard

So MM . the firefighters are in on it? yes or no? The firefighters had a transit on the building watching the progression of a three story bulge. And None of them, Not a one, Noticed a demolition team of forty men, Run into the building to plant those charges and then run out? A building that was being carefully watched? all day?

[Miragememories]

MM:
Could you post a link to the source article for us that are not allowed to view the police state known as Loose Change Forum?

I was unaware that this link was blocked to 'visitors'?

MM

[DGM]

I was unaware that this link was blocked to 'visitors'?

MM
LCF message
Your access to this board has been blocked by the administration.

I was banned and if I click on links this is what I get. You can look at my post there, I don't think I broke any rules (except not toting the "truther" line).

[Miragememories]

this jumped out at me



So MM . the firefighters are in on it? yes or no? The firefighters had a transit on the building watching the progression of a three story bulge. And None of them, Not a one, Noticed a demolition team of forty men, Run into the building to plant those charges and then run out? A building that was being carefully watched? all day?

The firefighters were heroes and not conspirators.

This mythical bulge I cannot comment on as the visual evidence as witnessed by NIST's infamous southwest corner photo encompasses the area that the bulge is claimed to exist.

" At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors."

http://bp0.blogger.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s400/swcornerdamage.jpg

MM

[johnny karate]

The firefighters were heroes and not conspirators

And yet after six years, not a single firefighter that was on the scene, that witnessed firsthand the fire and damage that you claim was insufficient to cause the collapse, has expressed the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding the collapse of WTC7. Why do you suppose that is?

I seem to recall you and I going round and round on this very issue a while back and you eventually just shrugging your shoulders and walking away. Have you come up with anything since then, or are you still content to keep ignoring this very glaring contradiction in your theory?

[A W Smith]

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

You are absolutely wrong!

Actually, I wish you were right because if Jowenko had said the WTC 7 CD had to have been prepared prior to 9/11, then he would be directly acknowledging it as part of the whole 9/11 event.

But he doesn't. His response remained that it must have been a crime of opportunity [CD of WTC 7] and that the perpetrators must have responded in this manner because of the financial losses incurred by the damage from the collapse of WTC 1.

You wish? You wish there was a conspiracy. but unfortunately for you. there wasn't.



I have no idea, and obviously you don't either, as to 'what in hell' your talking about.

My only reference to U.S. control demolition experts was this;
"As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD."

Please explain how that can be constructed to mean; "Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue (http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/contracts/cld/rd/courts/Krygoski.html)."

My recommendation is that maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.
unwilling to go on record why?

maybe this?
Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

But. You can not be black balled from bidding on projects in the United States, hell I can even bid on demolition if i had the proper insurance riders. There is no way to prevent the lowest bidder from getting work. If they are not awarded contracts, they can sue. They can even sue the government for government projects. Danny Jowenko has either overlooked this point of is unfamiliar with the bidding process for construction or demolition projects in the United States. It is you who better brush up on reading and comprehension





An expert, not "my expert."



MM

Not YOUR expert? Well you seemed to have exerted a lot of effort to transcribe and post his testimony here
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

Is that not YOUR post? If it is then he is YOUR expert.

[quicknthedead]

OK, sleahead, I just posted this OP (for both logic points) over at the stj911 forum.

Since it is open only to members, I will keep an eye on it periodically to see if there are any meaningful replies that I can provide from there to here.

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???

:clap:

I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!

:eusa_silenced:

No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor! :thanks

[AZCat]

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???

:clap:

I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!

:eusa_silenced:

No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor! :thanks

I am sorry to hear of this behavior by one of the factions of the "truth movement", but I am not surprised. Hopefully you will be posting more here as a result.

[BenBurch]

It has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that Silverstein's conversation with the unnamed FDNY commander had nothing to do with the subject of demolition.

Its not EVEN clear that his conversation has any effect one way or the other on the response to the fires in the building.

[theauthor]

Ah, that would be Joerg Schneider. Here is my e-mail exchange with him from December of 2006:
Dear Professor Schneider,
You and Professor Bachmann are often cited by conspiracists who contend, against all evidence, that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. As you know, every demolition expert and structural engineer in America rejects this thesis as baseless and insupportable.
Matthys Levy, author of the book 'Why Buildings Fall Down,' was shocked to learn that conspiracists were distorting his words to make it appear as though he shared their fantasies. Are you aware of the claims made on your behalf? Do you really endorse a pernicious and unscientific view that ignores mountains of contradictory data?
Please be good enough to clarify this matter.
Yours Truly,
Ronald Wieck

Hello,
I said that Building WTC7 was most probably brought down by controlled demolition. I do not believe that this is a possibility for the two towers. I do neither know Mr. Levy nor his book.
Best regards
J. Schneider


So, you agree with Prof. Schneider about the Twin Towers? No? You say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Please, tell us more.




So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

[pomeroo]

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

You are absolutely wrong!

Actually, I wish you were right because if Jowenko had said the WTC 7 CD had to have been prepared prior to 9/11, then he would be directly acknowledging it as part of the whole 9/11 event.

But he doesn't. His response remained that it must have been a crime of opportunity [CD of WTC 7] and that the perpetrators must have responded in this manner because of the financial losses incurred by the damage from the collapse of WTC 1.



I have no idea, and obviously you don't either, as to 'what in hell' your talking about.

My only reference to U.S. control demolition experts was this;
"As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD."

Please explain how that can be constructed to mean; "Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue (http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/contracts/cld/rd/courts/Krygoski.html)."

My recommendation is that maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.



Do you really feel altering my username makes your responses better?



That is old, well covered ground. If you wish to debate that issue, I suggest you post to that old thread that has already dealt with it. If that's too much bother, I'll dig up the link when time permits.



As we know, the towers didn't topple. They were never intended to. With WTC 1's 110 story height, those demolishing WTC 1 could be assured that sufficient debris and dust would enshroud WTC 7 and effectively mask that demolition.



An expert, not "my expert."



I think you have proven yourself to qualify as the most ridiculous A W Smith.

MM


All of your fantasies have been thoroughly discredited. No explosives went off immediately prior to the collapse of WTC 7. Larry Silverstein, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, LOST money, making it the dumbest insurance scam in history. Nobody noticed the extensive prep work involved in wiring a 47-story building for demolition. Not one of your fellow liars has come close to fitting this event into any sort of coherent conspiracy theory.

[pomeroo]

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?


They should be ignored because they haven't studied the subjects. Who knows why they permitted themselves to be used by a mindless, evil movement?

[pomeroo]

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???

:clap:

I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!

:eusa_silenced:

No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor! :thanks


To conspiracy liars, you are guilty of an unthinkable and unforgivable crime: you displayed intellectual integrity.

[LashL]

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???

:clap:

I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!

:eusa_silenced:

No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor! :thanks


Oh, my. I guess it just goes to show that the *cough* "scholars" for truth and justice are not even remotely interested in either truth or justice, except for a particular form of "swift justice" that they engage in when one of their members doesn't toe the party line.

Sad (in the sense that the *cough* "scholars" are once again shown to be merely touting an ideology at all costs rather than being interested in facts or evidence), but not at all surprising to those of us who have seen them for what they really are for years now.

Still, it's unfortunate that you were treated so harshly, and I wish you all the best going forward now that you've unburdened yourself of the yoke of the truth™ movement nonsense.

[quicknthedead]

Thanks, AZCat.

BTW, I apologize for some of my past conduct towards you and boloboffin over at DU forum. Unfortunately, this 9/11 topic seems to make you "kinda ornery" at times (but I think I've got this problem licked now).

[AZCat]

Thanks, AZCat.

BTW, I apologize for some of my past conduct towards you and boloboffin over at DU forum. Unfortunately, this 9/11 topic seems to make you "kinda ornery" at times (but I think I've got this problem licked now).

Please - don't worry about it. I just wrote an email the other day expressing regret that the internet seems to compress all of us into two-dimensional personalities, and that it becomes too easy to forget what we have in common in our real lives when all we encounter of each other online are the parts with which we disagree. I'm just as bad as anyone else (you've seen my posts at DU, so you should know what I mean), hence my admiration of those internet denizens who seem to keep calm and respectful of all others even in the most trollish of encounters. We should all strive to be more civilized, but (as with most things human) often we (including me) fall far short.

I look forward to a continued positive exchange with you - it is much more rewarding than sniping at each other.

[quicknthedead]

Oh, my. I guess it just goes to show that the *cough* "scholars" for truth and justice are not even remotely interested in either truth or justice, except for a particular form of "swift justice" that they engage in when one of their members doesn't toe the party line.

Sad (in the sense that the *cough* "scholars" are once again shown to be merely touting an ideology at all costs rather than being interested in facts or evidence), but not at all surprising to those of us who have seen them for what they really are for years now.

Still, it's unfortunate that you were treated so harshly. Good luck to you going forward now that you've unburdened yourself of the yoke of the truth™ movement nonsense.

Thanks, LashL.

Yes, it was harsh. The fact is I was looking forward to conversing more with metamars and Tony S., but this abrupt "HALT!" means my two replies to them (and both took some time to do) was all for nothing, and I never have liked wasting my time.

Let me see...I think I could say that differently:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice is a waste of time.
:slp:
Sounds about the same, doesn't it?

Yes, it is sad to see a lack of scruples in them; but everybody makes choices, and they've made theirs.

[quicknthedead]

I also, AZCat.

And those are good words you just penned!

I will take them to heart.
Thanks!

[slyjoe]

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

A consensus where the group consists of two people? That's funny.:rolleyes:

[quicknthedead]

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

Hi theauthor,

Interesting.

You take their opinions on WTC7 being a CD as correct (and please remember, all opinions are subject to error as much as they are to being right), but then you are silent about their expert opinions on the twin towers not being CD's.

OK. Let's hold that thought for a moment and go to the question.

Why would anyone rig WTC7 for CD (well before 9/11)?

Is not the answer, in view of all that we know about what actually happened on 9/11, basically, "So they could do it as a CD on 9/11 because of expected debris damage from the fallen towers" (because they could then be able to "mask" the CD inside their cover story of debris damage)? Of course, this predicates they would have to know well in advance that the twin towers would be coming down.

You are silent on the opinions of these two CD experts when it comes to the towers. They both thought those buildings were not CD's, and yet at the same time you hold up their opinions on WTC7 as corroboration it was a CD.

It looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

The towers were not CD's according to them, which would mean our hypothetical perpetrators could not have known anything in advance about these buildings collapsing on 9/11, which would mean they would know nothing about any potentiality for debris damage occurring to WTC7.

So again, why would hypothetical perpetrators rig WTC7 for CD in the first place?

Since your CD experts claim the twin towers were not CD, this means according to them they were not rigged for CD by our hypothetical bad guys, which then means our hypothetical bad guys could not have known there would be any fallen debris to cause damage to WTC7 that they could use in "masking" their crime in their cover story in their CD of WTC7.

I am repeating myself here (as well as using reverse logic) in the hope that this will become clear to you. Once you see it you understand. However, you first need to be honest with yourself, clear your head of preconceived notions, and look at it fresh.

So, with the above in mind, why would hypothetical perpetrators rig WTC7 for CD? They would have had no hopes of getting away with the crime undetected since blowing up buildings in downtown Manhattan is a dead giveaway that major criminal undertakings are afoot. For you see, they would not have had their cover story.

The above may sound like twisted wording of the scenario, but this is exactly what it would be...and this yields an inescapable truth. To think WTC7 was a CD would be very twisted logic, so much so that it would be illogical and absurd.

Please understand, I am not addressing the reason(s) for blowing up the building per se (that question would have its own thread on "Conspiracy-Theory-Planet Forum.Blog", which I am not concerned with in this exercise).

This is simply looking at our hypothetical perpetrators to see if they would have planned and executed WTC7 as a CD within the known parameters.

The answer is they wouldn't, for they would have had no plan. And if they did have one, it would have been an unreal one, which means this has all become nonsense.

Therefore, to think WTC7 was a CD is illogical.



In addition, there are two other, different, powerful logic points that also mean logically that WTC7 could not have been a CD (thanks to alex04 and Confuseling):


---------------------


#2 {alex04}
If WTC7 was a CD, then it makes no sense they would have allowed it to look like one. It makes far more sense, if they really wanted to get away with it, they would have disguised it, maybe brought it down immediately after the towers had collapsed (as in "hidden from view"), or perhaps brought it down in manner of a more off-center demolition.

The fact that it looks like a classic CD, in the opinion of many, makes it even less likely to be a CD, simply by the fact that, had the "perps" exercised forethought of mind to disguise it properly, it beggars belief they would be so "sloppy" with the demolition in doing it so well.


---------------------


#3 (Confuseling}
The extra risk of getting caught is inherent in the fact that the building's smaller.

Explosives placed at ground level and all things being equal more than likely will create visible flashes, audible bangs, and detectable seismic signatures. Additionally, with less wreckage, one can assume a higher proportion of wreckage tainted with chemical residue or remnants of devices, making them considerably easier to find. There will be less destruction unleashed during the collapse, and no smoldering pile equivalent to the WTC 1 and 2 remains, so deliberately destroyed structural elements will be found more quickly, and in a condition more representative of their condition at the point of collapse.

In short, it would be an insane plan - far too insane for anybody capable of pulling it off to actually believe in.


---------------------


The truth of the 3 logic streams above is simple to understand.
What is hard is for some who have already made up their minds to accept it.

[gumboot]

Senior FDNY officers at WTC7 claim it had suffered sufficient damage from fires and debris impact that collapse was a near certainty. This is a fact.

Senior FDNY officers possess a level of professional expertise in regards to this incident that exceeds the professional expertise of everyone else who has commented on the collapse of WTC7. This is a fact.

Senior FDNY officers possess more information about the specific circumstances of this incident than any other expert who has commented on the collapse of WTC7. This is a fact.

Only three options are available.

1. FDNY senior officers are correct and WTC7 collapsed from debris and fire damage.
2. FDNY senior officers are correct in that WTC7 would have collapsed from debris and fire damage, however before this occured the building was imploded and FDNY senior officers failed to notice this.
3. FDNY senior officers are lying.

These are the only three options available in regard to the collapse of WTC7. There are no alternative explanations.

Options 2 and 3 bring senior officers of the FDNY into disrepute. Option 1 does not.
Options 1 and 2 accept that WTC7 would have collapsed due to fire and structural damage. Option 3 does not.

[Confuseling]

Quicknthedead, welcome to the dark side. You will find it interesting here :)

I wonder whether anyone else is a member of the Scholars' forum, and can tell us whether the thread still exists, or has disappeared down the memory hole?

Gumboot - to be fair, they could have just been grossly mistaken. ;)