Roundhead on WTC7

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Voluntarily splitting this from the Liberty thread before the mods do.

AH, a civil reply:D

Look, i admit to not being the most highly educated person on the planet.

Duly noted.

Having really not gotten involved AT ALL regards 9/11 till about 2.5 years ago, i had no reason to doubt the official verdict of events. I mean that sincerely.

I happened to come across a video somewhere that showed 7 coming down and an imploded building coming down, as reference.
I looked at that, thought about it, and quickly came to the conclusion(like anybody with any common sense who has seen it would)that the explanation didnt fit the features of its demise.

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage from the collapse of a 110 storey building across the street would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

It made me wonder. If a 1/2 hour show was run on like say CBS, and a guy like Griffin was allowed to show 7's demise and show bildings being demolished along with it, what a post show poll of viewers would reveal.
My guess is it would be fatal to the Govt.

Would you settle for a full hour on the BBC?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

The BBC documentary "The Third Tower" did exactly what you describe. They showed WTC7 from different angles, showed video of other buildings being demolished and allowed architect Richard Gage to make his case.

The anti-american sentiment espoused by the 9/11 twoof movement, if not the specific claims of the twoof movement itself, is more popular "across the pond" than it is in the US. Yet the BBC doing exactly what you described has had precisely zero effect on the integrity of the US/British/Israeli alliance.

[Travis]

Could somebody shut those crickets up!

[Par]

Could somebody shut those crickets up!



Awwwww.

KcbdrUW6ooY

[T.A.M.]

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage from the collapse of a 110 storey building across the street would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.


This is the key, which none of them can answer or explain. If the only way you have seen skyscrapers come down in the past, is from controlled demolition, then how can you say that a building brought down for ANY REASON, from ANY MEANS, should come down differently.

I am all ears truthers. Show me a 47 storey (or higher) building that collapsed prior to or after 9/11, from anything but CD, and how that collapse differed from the collapse of WTC7.

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage from the collapse of a 110 storey building across the street would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.


Since truthers seem to imply that different inputs can't have the same results, I honestly think simple math covers this fairly well...

1 + 3 = 4
2 + 2 = 4

Two different sets of inputs, exactly the same results. Inside job!

[Travis]

It really is amazing that a building collapsing looks just like a building collapsing.

[roundhead]

This is the key, which none of them can answer or explain. If the only way you have seen skyscrapers come down in the past, is from controlled demolition, then how can you say that a building brought down for ANY REASON, from ANY MEANS, should come down differently.

I am all ears truthers. Show me a 47 storey (or higher) building that collapsed prior to or after 9/11, from anything but CD, and how that collapse differed from the collapse of WTC7.

TAM:)


After watching the video, i was struck by the suddeness of the collapse. My thought(as a layman)was..Wow one minute its standing there, a few seconds later, its completely gone.

I noted the kink in the center of the Penthouse, which would logically mean the core of the building had failed.
What fires i have seen since regarding 7 seem if anything, scattered, and not of the intensity necessary to fell such an imposing structure.

My thought (again as a layman)is that with random, scattered fires, even if the are quite hot, i would expect the building to sag toward the area most weakened, perhaps partially sag and or collapse, and be left with much of the building still there, not completely diced up.IE: A strong wind blowing shingles off aroof hasnt compromised the tructural integrity of a home, it just mean you are goona get wet, the trusses are still there.

I am aware of the damage suffered from falling debris, and factor its damage into my view that such damage would be more cosmetic than structural, unlike closer buildings to the towers which suffered massive debris damage(yet still didnt evaporate from existence like 7 did)

I guess my opinion is on a scale of 1 to 10, the building suffered a 3 or 4 regarding fire damage, and about the same or maybe slightly less regarding debris damage. This assuming 10 being the threshold where the building would come down quickly from catastrophic damage.

I attach zero significance to the Silverstein quote regarding 7, perhaps i am wrong.
I would have definately liked Ghouliani to have been asked on the record by the commision about his statements that day.

All in all, the damage and fire seem extremely unlikely to have caused the complete and utter destruction we all saw.

Put me in the same camp as Val Romero after watching the collapses, except, unlike him, i dont eat out of a govt grant bowl. My spigot is turned off only by me.

The numerous accounts of molten metal under 7, dont seem to embrace the official tale that has been spun thus far(we still of course await the official verdict)
I wait with great interest to see how the molten metal, seemingly noted at all three sites, is explained as hydrocarbon fires dont seem to explain its existance.


TAM.... Your point above about searching for a non CD example is an excellent point. I admit there doesnt seem to be one in existance.
There have seemingly been much more extreme fires documented than what 7 experienced, but as those latger and hotter fires didnt result in any collapses that we can look at, you make an excellent point.
It speaks to my view how unusual it would be for a fire and even moderate structural damage(erring on the side of caution here)could cause the complete and utter destruction of the building.
It does look like a Cd, If you compare it to shots of other Cd's. It doesnt look like the aftermath of skyscrapers after they have suffered significant fire damage, because unlike all of them, 7 isnt around any more.

Applying nothing more that common sense to this question, i note

7 is not around anymore
Buildings that have been Cd'd arent either
Buildings of this ilk that have suffered huge fire damage are still around
7 isnt still around
Buildings that have been Cd'd come down like 7 did
7 came down like it was Cd'd if you compare it with Cd's

Molten metal was present at 7
It seemingly wasnt in other Cd's so this is a unique occurance, that certainly needs explaining, because it would be something not comparable to other Cd's.

[~enigma~]

GhoulianiCan't say Guliani? Why not? Does Gui sound too much like jew?Put me in the same camp as Val Romero after watching the collapses, except, unlike him, i dont eat out of a govt grant bowl. My spigot is turned off only by me.You do realize that you just made an accusation. You going to provide evidence that the government made Van Romero change his story?
The numerous accounts of molten metal under 7, dont seem to embrace the official tale that has been spun thus far(we still of course await the official verdict)
I wait with great interest to see how the molten metal, seemingly noted at all three sites, is explained as hydrocarbon fires dont seem to explain its existance.Explain how CD accounts for molten metal.

[roundhead]

I like Ghoul, it fits him better:D, I like nicknames. I call Rodriguez, who plays for my beloved Tigers, Pudge.


Romero did change his story 180, its well documented. He does receive Govt grants, i dont, what part isnt perfectly true. You can IMAGINE any implication you like.

Regarding Molten metal, reread my post. I noted it isnt a feature KNOWN to have been seen before in a CD. Its seeming presence is a mystery that needs explaining, and i thought i was clear about that. It doesnt, in my mind support CD, but as it in fact was present, and SEEMINGLY isnt a standard result of either a hydrocarbon fire, structural damage, or a CD, why it was noted is certainly something that should definately be accounted for.

[~enigma~]

I like Ghoul, it fits him better:D, Name is Guliani. If you can't call him by his name, why should anybody take you seriously? I like nicknames.So???? I call Rodriguez, who plays for my beloved Tigers, Pudge.Guiliani isn't a baseball player though is he?
Romero did change his story 180, its well documented. He does receive Govt grants, i dont, what part isnt perfectly true. You can IMAGINE any implication you like.So you can't provide evidence that he changed his story because the government told him to. Guess you can drop that argument now.
Regarding Molten metal, reread my post. I noted it isnt a feature KNOWN to have been seen before in a CD. Its seeming presence is a mystery that needs explaining, and i thought i was clear about that. It doesnt, in my mind support CD, but as it in fact was present, and SEEMINGLY isnt a standard result of either a hydrocarbon fire, structural damage, or a CD, why it was noted is certainly something that should definately be accounted for.
So why EXACTLY does it not "jive" with the official story?

[WildCat]

SEEMINGLY isnt a standard result of either a hydrocarbon fire,
Yes, it is. I am in the home repair business, and have seen molten metal in fire-damaged buildings. I used to keep a blob of molten aluminum that used to be a storm window on my desk. I have also seen molten lead, and have replaced steel beams that had warped into a pretzel in a "standard hydrocarbon fire".

[johnny karate]

roundhead, how do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?

[roundhead]

roundhead, how do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?


"Extensive" is subjective, as is debris damage if you use the same term.

I have found little in reading on truth sites that states fires or damage was "non existant", in fact, i cant recall reading anything that says "nonexistant. I wouldnt agree with anyone who said that, frankly. Its not factual.

My opinion is the damage was far from "remarkable enough" to have caused what we saw.

In this article, the author makes clear the vast majority of on the scene firefighters at 7 didnt assume it came down because of what they observed, they made the assumption it would come down BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO. A notable distinction.

Obviously, going back to early in the morning, very few firefighters would have died had they thought there was any possibility the Towers would collapse. Would you go into a building you KNEW was going to collapse, or even had a strong persuasion it might. Not likely.

Here is the paper, it raises excellent points, and a lot of clarification, IMO.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

[~enigma~]

Obviously, going back to early in the morning, very few firefighters would have died had they thought there was any possibility the Towers would collapse. Would you go into a building you KNEW was going to collapse, or even had a strong persuasion it might. Not likely.
You really haven't read any accounts from firefighters BESIDES the ones often quoted by truther lunatics have you?

[funk de fino]

"Extensive" is subjective, as is debris damage if you use the same term.

I have found little in reading on truth sites that states fires or damage was "non existant", in fact, i cant recall reading anything that says "nonexistant. I wouldnt agree with anyone who said that, frankly. Its not factual.

My opinion is the damage was far from "remarkable enough" to have caused what we saw.

In this article, the author makes clear the vast majority of on the scene firefighters at 7 didnt assume it came down because of what they observed, they made the assumption it would come down BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO. A notable distinction.

Obviously, going back to early in the morning, very few firefighters would have died had they thought there was any possibility the Towers would collapse. Would you go into a building you KNEW was going to collapse, or even had a strong persuasion it might. Not likely.
Here is the paper, it raises excellent points, and a lot of clarification, IMO.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf


Many would have, to save lives. That is why first responders are heros in real life and you are a keyboard warrior. Your attitude shows through in this post.

I joined the service knowing I may have to risk my life for others.

The firefighters do the same.

Your claim is despicable.

The paper is junk. Someone carried out assessmenst on the building and declared the fact it would come down. How many people were involved in this and do you think they were lying?

Its only natural that this info would be passed round the squads but it does not make the initial assessments wrong. You are treading very close to accusing somone of complicity in the FDNY, I do not think you want to go there.

There were fires reported on more than 1/3rd of the floors by the firefighters and by seen by observation. FEMA only reported the ones they had real evidence for and there could have been more they did not report that were not seen.

[~enigma~]

The firefighters do the same.

Your claim is despicable.

The paper is junk. Someone carried out assessmenst on the building and declared the fact it would come down. The firemen knew the towers were going to collapse before their trucks even stopped moving.

[DavidJames]

My thought(as a layman)...
My thought (again as a layman)...There is your problem. You admit your are ignorant of the subject, but that doesn't prevent you reaching your conclusions. That's what separates you from rational people and why I developed my concept of "ignorance and arrogance" to describe CTists. Being ignorant of something is nothing to be ashamed of, we all are ignorant in many areas. That can be solved, through honest* education.

However, when you are so arrogant as to assume you can draw conclusions, despite being ignorant, then you are a CTists. Relying on common sense and gut feeling just doesn't cut it in the technology business. If the architects and engineers who designed and built the towers had relied on common sense and gut instinct instead of science and physics, the towers would never have been built.

* Honest means genuine education, not reading CT sites.

[roundhead]

There is your problem. You admit your are ignorant of the subject, but that doesn't prevent you reaching your conclusions. That's what separates you from rational people and why I developed my concept of "ignorance and arrogance" to describe CTists. Being ignorant of something is nothing to be ashamed of, we all are ignorant in many areas. That can be solved, through honest* education.

However, when you are so arrogant as to assume you can draw conclusions, despite being ignorant, then you are a CTists. Relying on common sense and gut feeling just doesn't cut it in the technology business. If the architects and engineers who designed and built the towers had relied on common sense and gut instinct instead of science and physics, the towers would never have been built.

* Honest means genuine education, not reading CT sites.


I consider the Seattle newspaper credible:

We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load


DeMartini, the Wtc project manager:

Frank Demartini, on-site construction manager for WTC said in an interview on January 25, 2001.:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”



Are these gentleman not credible???



I understand, you hug the official lie, and try and belittle and personally attack anybody who doesnt side with you. Got it.
I am way to mature and self assured to have anybody ridicule an opinion i have formed. The fact you disagree is fine with me. Hopefully you will come to your senses, like i did.

I am not a professional policy guru either, nor world affairs expert, but guess what, i form an opinion and vote on who i think best represents my views.
Ya dig.

[DavidJames]

...said John Skilling...Frank Demartini, Are these gentleman not credible???Yes, I think those are credible people. Now tell me, do they believe 9/11 was an inside job? Do they believe the towers were brought down by a CD? Those are rhetorical questions as I already know the answer.I understand, you hug the official lieAnother example of your lack of critical thinking, to put it bluntly, you make **** up.I am not a professional policy guru either, nor world affairs expert, but guess what, i form an opinion and vote on who i think best represents my views.Ya dig.Another example of your poor ability to think clearly (related to my point above). This quote and you projection of what you believe I think, are not the result of rational and logical thinking.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I guess my opinion is on a scale of 1 to 10, the building suffered a 3 or 4 regarding fire damage, and about the same or maybe slightly less regarding debris damage. This assuming 10 being the threshold where the building would come down quickly from catastrophic damage.

Can you name a source other than between your gluteal folds for these figures?

Also, you have failed (refused?) to answer my questions, so I will ask again:

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Jeep in mind, we judge the truth movement by the behavior of truthers. So a prompt, straightforward answer would be beneficial to your cause.

[bje]

"Extensive" is subjective, as is debris damage if you use the same term.

This is subjective:

"i was struck by the suddeness of the collapse."
"i would expect the building to sag..."
"...and factor its damage into my view that such damage would be more cosmetic than structural,..."
"...yet still didnt evaporate from existence like 7 did."
"I guess my opinion is on a scale of 1 to 10, the building suffered a 3 or 4 regarding fire damage, and about the same or maybe slightly less regarding debris damage."
"All in all, the damage and fire seem extremely unlikely to have caused the complete and utter destruction we all saw."
"The numerous accounts of molten metal under 7, dont seem to embrace the official tale that has been spun thus far..."
"7 is not around anymore
Buildings that have been Cd'd arent either
Buildings of this ilk that have suffered huge fire damage are still around
7 isnt still around
Buildings that have been Cd'd come down like 7 did
7 came down like it was Cd'd if you compare it with Cd's"
"Molten metal was present at 7"Fortunately we have objective reality to render moot the fanciful subjective opinions of 9/11 Truthers.

[bje]

"Extensive" is subjective, as is debris damage if you use the same term.

This is subjective:

"i was struck by the suddeness of the collapse."
"i would expect the building to sag..."
"...and factor its damage into my view that such damage would be more cosmetic than structural,..."
"...yet still didnt evaporate from existence like 7 did."
"I guess my opinion is on a scale of 1 to 10, the building suffered a 3 or 4 regarding fire damage, and about the same or maybe slightly less regarding debris damage."
"All in all, the damage and fire seem extremely unlikely to have caused the complete and utter destruction we all saw."
"The numerous accounts of molten metal under 7, dont seem to embrace the official tale that has been spun thus far..."
"7 is not around anymore
Buildings that have been Cd'd arent either
Buildings of this ilk that have suffered huge fire damage are still around
7 isnt still around
Buildings that have been Cd'd come down like 7 did
7 came down like it was Cd'd if you compare it with Cd's"
"Molten metal was present at 7"Fortunately we have objective reality to render moot the fanciful subjective opinions of 9/11 Truthers.

[beachnut]

...
DeMartini, the Wtc project manager:
...Ya dig.

You are talking about the towers, and the topic is WTC7. Aircraft impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact by Robertson; the chief structural engineer. You failed to bring up calculations of kinetic energy used in the design.

DeMartini, the Wtc project manager: - he did not build the towers, Robertson was the one responsible for the structural design of the towers, you are missing vast amount of information to even begin to form an idea about the towers, and should concentrate on what you need to learn about WTC7 and fire.

This topic is not about a war in the 70s, or the towers, except for the damage they inflicted on WTC7. You missed the "out of control" fires in WTC7, you must not of been there and watched all day as the fires destroyed the building. This could be your problem you use internet videos of a few snapshots in time, and avoid the whole day as the building burned intensely, and destroyed WTC7. WTC7 could be expected to fail since zero effective fire fighting was applied! Learn more about fire, and why they destroy buildings. Try to understand why your ideas failed because you have an illusion a few minutes of video fires give you an understanding of WTC7 fires.

[johnny karate]

"Extensive" is subjective, as is debris damage if you use the same term.

I have found little in reading on truth sites that states fires or damage was "non existant", in fact, i cant recall reading anything that says "nonexistant. I wouldnt agree with anyone who said that, frankly. Its not factual.

My opinion is the damage was far from "remarkable enough" to have caused what we saw.

In this article, the author makes clear the vast majority of on the scene firefighters at 7 didnt assume it came down because of what they observed, they made the assumption it would come down BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO. A notable distinction.

Obviously, going back to early in the morning, very few firefighters would have died had they thought there was any possibility the Towers would collapse. Would you go into a building you KNEW was going to collapse, or even had a strong persuasion it might. Not likely.

Your parsing of the language of my post aside, it is a FACT that not a single member of the FDNY has once expressed any doubt, suspicion, or surprise regarding the collapse of WTC7 due to damage and fire, phenomena which many of them witnessed firsthand.

Your bogus claim that the "vast majority" of firefighters were told about the imminent collapse rather than coming to that conclusion on their own doesn't change the FACT that in the seven years since, not a single one of them has expressed the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding what they were supposedly "told".

The bottom line is this: Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you.

So again I ask: How do you account for that?

[Alferd_Packer]

DeMartini, the Wtc project manager:

Frank Demartini, on-site construction manager for WTC said in an interview on January 25, 2001.:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”



Are these gentleman not credible???





DeMartini had nothing to do with the original design and construction of the towers.


The last words of Frank DeMartini:

'Construction manager to base, be advised that the express elevators are in danger of collapse. Do you read?''

''Express elevators are going to collapse.''

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Roundhead must be a soft-spoken guy, the crickets are drowning him out again.

Here are the questions again in case you missed the, Roundhead:

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

And from Johnny Karate:

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?

[roundhead]

You are talking about the towers, and the topic is WTC7. Aircraft impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact by Robertson; the chief structural engineer. You failed to bring up calculations of kinetic energy used in the design.

DeMartini, the Wtc project manager: - he did not build the towers, Robertson was the one responsible for the structural design of the towers, you are missing vast amount of information to even begin to form an idea about the towers, and should concentrate on what you need to learn about WTC7 and fire.

This topic is not about a war in the 70s, or the towers, except for the damage they inflicted on WTC7. You missed the "out of control" fires in WTC7, you must not of been there and watched all day as the fires destroyed the building. This could be your problem you use internet videos of a few snapshots in time, and avoid the whole day as the building burned intensely, and destroyed WTC7. WTC7 could be expected to fail since zero effective fire fighting was applied! Learn more about fire, and why they destroy buildings. Try to understand why your ideas failed because you have an illusion a few minutes of video fires give you an understanding of WTC7 fires.



Skilling calculations were based on a FULLY LOADED 707. Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the above plane similar to a no where near fully loaded(fuel) 9/11 plane.
The above gentleman seem to imply what hit the Towers wasnt above the threshold of design, nor even close.

[roundhead]

Roundhead must be a soft-spoken guy, the crickets are drowning him out again.

Here are the questions again in case you missed the, Roundhead:

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

And from Johnny Karate:

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?


Your above reply twists the truth, most firefighters were TOLD it would collapse, it wasnt opinion they formed personally, refer to the paperr i cited above.

[~enigma~]

Skilling calculations were based on a FULLY LOADED 707. Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the above plane similar to a no where near fully loaded(fuel) 9/11 plane.
The above gentleman seem to imply what hit the Towers wasnt above the threshold of design, nor even close.
Wasn't the titanic claimed to be unsinkable?

[roundhead]

DeMartini had nothing to do with the original design and construction of the towers.


The last words of Frank DeMartini:



It would be a lie to state DeMartini wasnt fully aware of the design and qualifications the buildings had to withstand the impacts. Based on his statement, it isnt even remotely plausible the impacts would have felled the towers.

NIST agrees with him, the planes themselves didnt cause the collapse, dislodged fireproofing did. What a joke.

[~enigma~]

The debate on whether a baby born with Anencephaly can never achieve consciousness has just been disproven by the entire truth movement.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Your above reply twists the truth, most firefighters were TOLD it would collapse, it wasnt opinion they formed personally, refer to the paperr i cited above.

There were three questions there and you refused to answer all of them. We shall try again.

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.


Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?

Each question is now color coded so that you can easier see each one.

[R.Mackey]

Your above reply twists the truth, most firefighters were TOLD it would collapse, it wasnt opinion they formed personally, refer to the paperr i cited above.


"Most" doesn't cut it. There are seven firefighters that even that worthless whitepaper acknowledges as deciding, on their own, it was going to fall. Including chiefs of department.

If I'm a firefighter looking at a burning building, and my chief tells me that he's keeping people away from it because it could collapse, that doesn't mean that it necessarily cannot collapse. The leap of logic here is spectacularly idiotic.

[johnny karate]

Your parsing of the language of my post aside, it is a FACT that not a single member of the FDNY has once expressed any doubt, suspicion, or surprise regarding the collapse of WTC7 due to damage and fire, phenomena which many of them witnessed firsthand.

Your bogus claim that the "vast majority" of firefighters were told about the imminent collapse rather than coming to that conclusion on their own doesn't change the FACT that in the seven years since, not a single one of them has expressed the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding what they were supposedly "told".

The bottom line is this: Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you.

So again I ask: How do you account for that?

Bump for roundhead.

[roundhead]

"Most" doesn't cut it. There are seven firefighters that even that worthless whitepaper acknowledges as deciding, on their own, it was going to fall. Including chiefs of department.

If I'm a firefighter looking at a burning building, and my chief tells me that he's keeping people away from it because it could collapse, that doesn't mean that it necessarily cannot collapse. The leap of logic here is spectacularly idiotic.


Read Sword of truth's post i responded to. His statement was misleading, and i quite correctly pointed it out.

It seems closer to the truth to say what i did...Most firefighters on scene didnt come to the conclusion on they're own it was going to collapse, they were told by somebody it was going to and the word was spread that way.


I follow the Favre trade/retirement/back to the Packers fiasco fairly closely.

If say Mike and Mike state he is going to get trade to the Jets, thousands of people will come to the conclusion that is where he is going. All those conclusions are based off that single source.

If, AS AN EXAMPLE, Guliani called the fire chief and told him 7 was going to collapse, its likely the chief would pass the word down the line, then everybody would "Know"it was going to come down (in spite of a personal conviction)..If Guliani was incorrect, or lied, so would everybody on the food chain have bad information.


I have seen scant evidence of firefighters coming to a collapse conclusion independantly.


Having read your and Mc Queen's papers on this subject, i highly question your subjectivity on this matter. Your cherry picking of info and biased assumptions are quite evident, Imo.




Frank, having had two building collapse that day(and plenty of surprised reports regarding the first tower collapse, mindsets in the afternoon, with buildings having already fallen, and certainly at that point no reason to be sceptical of the reasons, were i there i would certainly go with what higherups told me, figuring they were privvy to info i wasnt, in spite of what i might have observed and inwardly thought. Its quite natural.

[R.Mackey]

Read Sword of truth's post i responded to. His statement was misleading, and i quite correctly pointed it out.

I was responding to you, not to Sword Of Truth. Your inference is illogical.


It seems closer to the truth to say what i did...Most firefighters on scene didnt come to the conclusion on they're own it was going to collapse, they were told by somebody it was going to and the word was spread that way.

No. The mistake here is a fallacy of the excluded middle. Firefighters could have done both.

Since firefighting takes teamwork, I would be surprised indeed if they hadn't been told. It's their commanding chief's job to tell them not to go in there, even if they would have come to that conclusion themselves.

This is very simple to understand.


I follow the Favre trade/retirement/back to the Packers fiasco fairly closely.

If say Mike and Mike state he is going to get trade to the Jets, thousands of people will come to the conclusion that is where he is going. All those conclusions are based off that single source.

If, AS AN EXAMPLE, Guliani called the fire chief and told him 7 was going to collapse, its likely the chief would pass the word down the line, then everybody would "Know"it was going to come down (in spite of a personal conviction)..If Guliani was incorrect, or lied, so would everybody on the food chain have bad information.

Irrelevant example. Football trades are matters of personal choice, and don't follow any predictable physics, thus are harder to predict. Burning buildings exhibit only a few classes of behavior, and safety guidelines in fighting them are well established. Firefighters always consider collapse as a possibility. Always.


I have seen scant evidence of firefighters coming to a collapse conclusion independantly.

Even MacQueen's paper admits to seven. He merely rejects them because it's "only seven." This is a destroying the exception logical fallacy.


Having read your and Mc Queen's papers on this subject, i highly question your subjectivity on this matter. Your cherry picking of info and biased assumptions are quite evident, Imo.

So in your subjective opinion, my subjectivity is questionable?

I should care, why, exactly?


Frank, having had two building collapse that day(and plenty of surprised reports regarding the first tower collapse, mindsets in the afternoon, with buildings having already fallen, and certainly at that point no reason to be sceptical of the reasons, were i there i would certainly go with what higherups told me, figuring they were privvy to info i wasnt, in spite of what i might have observed and inwardly thought. Its quite natural.

I'm not Frank, I'm Ryan. But you are correct, there were many reasons to suspect a collapse was possible, and those suspicions were correct. I fail to see how the above in any way supports your position.

[roundhead]

I see nobody has actually commented on the DeMartini statement, other than one person stating he wasnt the design engineer. I am aware of his position, at the time.

His Statement implies(and it would be idiotic to assume he wasnt privvy to enough information to make the statement he did)that the impact would be inconsequential.


Remember, Robertson hired DeMartini back in 1993 to assess the bomb damage.He was obviously qualified to assess damage, and the ability of the structures as built to handle it, more so than Robertson, obviously, or he wouldnt have paid him to tropubleshoot the issue

The Statement by Skilling speaks for itself.




Face it guys, the official is just that. People tasked with resolution of this matter get paid by the very people defending this crime.

Seemingly, only those who have no dog in the fight provide illuminating ,unbiased information. I choose to believe Skilling, he had no story to defend when making his statement, 9/11 hadnt happened. DeMartini died on 9/11, so we need not worry about his version of 9/11. Only his statement regarding the building before the incident.


It must SUCK to have to defend this lie on a daily basis.I feel for you guys a tiny little bit.

[Tbone]

It must SUCK to have to defend this lie on a daily basis.I feel for you guys a tiny little bit.

"Have to?"

Pray tell, why do you think the people here "have to" defend anything? Surely you believe that people are here by choice and aren't being coerced into doing this involuntarily or are being compensated for their efforts, right?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Still waiting, Roundhead.

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?

[R.Mackey]

I see nobody has actually commented on the DeMartini statement, other than one person stating he wasnt the design engineer. I am aware of his position, at the time.

His Statement implies(and it would be idiotic to assume he wasnt privvy to enough information to make the statement he did)that the impact would be inconsequential.

I've commented on DeMartini before, and I'll do it again here.

His comment was wrong. Simple as that.

If he had provided any calculations explaining why he believed that, it would be much easier to point out his mistake. But he did not. His comment is an unsupported opinion.

Every calculation done since then comes to a different answer, and you are welcome to try to find the mistakes therein.

[Grizzly Bear]

Still waiting, Roundhead.

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?
I'd be interested in an answer from him to this too... I've asked a few people who share his opinion and have yet to receive an answer.... I've waited over a month for people to 'educate' me about these parts of the issue

[roundhead]

I'd be interested in an answer from him to this too... I've asked a few people who share his opinion and have yet to receive an answer.... I've waited over a month for people to 'educate' me about these parts of the issue


I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.

As buildings of this ilk dont come down as a result of fire(or admittedly i am unaware of any such occurances) i have no idea what they might look like.


I know exactly what a Yorkshire Terrier looks like, every time i see one, i say to myself, gee there is a Yorkie. They have many distinguishing characteristics. As i know exactly what they look like, i am ALWAYS correct when i spot one, they have many identifying features.

If a small dog walked by that was green, and i asked the owner what kind of dog it was, i would be extremely sceptical if they stated it was a Yorkie, as Yorkies arent green, they are a variation of blue and gold, with minor variations.

Wtc7 is a Yorkie regarding demolition, it has those features to distinguish it as such


You guys have a green dog you are still trying to figure out the bloodline for.................Good luck with that.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.


As buildings of this ilk dont come down as a result of fire(or admittedly i am unaware of any such occurances) i have no idea what they might look like.

Ok, the first question has been answered (and by "answered" I mean you didn't answer it at all, you merely conceded that you don't have a clue). I would suggest that your next step would be to find out how a collapse caused by debris impacts and fires would look. This will involve a little research and the humility to admit that you are not God and you don't know everything.

Now you just have two questions remaining:

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?

[funk de fino]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.

As buildings of this ilk dont come down as a result of fire(or admittedly i am unaware of any such occurances) i have no idea what they might look like.


I know exactly what a Yorkshire Terrier looks like, every time i see one, i say to myself, gee there is a Yorkie. They have many distinguishing characteristics. As i know exactly what they look like, i am ALWAYS correct when i spot one, they have many identifying features.

If a small dog walked by that was green, and i asked the owner what kind of dog it was, i would be extremely sceptical if they stated it was a Yorkie, as Yorkies arent green, they are a variation of blue and gold, with minor variations.

Wtc7 is a Yorkie regarding demolition, it has those features to distinguish it as such


You guys have a green dog you are still trying to figure out the bloodline for.................Good luck with that.

Show us a video of a skyscraper building being CD' that looks like WTC7 collapse. Almost identical so we can compare.

I want sound also.

If you can't you are lying.

[stateofgrace]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.

As buildings of this ilk dont come down as a result of fire(or admittedly i am unaware of any such occurances) i have no idea what they might look like.


I know exactly what a Yorkshire Terrier looks like, every time i see one, i say to myself, gee there is a Yorkie. They have many distinguishing characteristics. As i know exactly what they look like, i am ALWAYS correct when i spot one, they have many identifying features.

If a small dog walked by that was green, and i asked the owner what kind of dog it was, i would be extremely sceptical if they stated it was a Yorkie, as Yorkies arent green, they are a variation of blue and gold, with minor variations.

Wtc7 is a Yorkie regarding demolition, it has those features to distinguish it as such


You guys have a green dog you are still trying to figure out the bloodline for.................Good luck with that.

Roundhead have you ever wondered about this? Ever questioned this? Seriously?

Let me do so for you.

You say WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition and basically your argument is, since it looked one it must have been one. Ok now put this in the context of the days events.

WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes, they were on fire yet your evil perps managed to pull off the most elaborate CD in the history of CD's. They fooled the entire planet into believing that these towers collapsed due to the plane damage and fires. It was the most meticulous secret CD in the history of CD's. Yet six hours afterwards, after the dust had settled, in front of the entire planets media, with no end of cameras pointing directly at it they decide to carry out an undisguised , open CD of an empty building.

And this makes sense?

Your perps had no end of opportunity to bring down this building, completely hidden, completely disguised, yet of reason that are beyond any form of rationality they decide to go for a demolition in front of everybody and give the game away.

Come on, lighten up for goodness sake.

[johnny karate]

Now you just have two questions remaining:

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Truthers claim that the debris damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC7. The FDNY as a whole, including every single firefighter that was on the scene, disagrees with you. How do you account for that?

Why do even the most prolific and loquacious Truthers tuck tail and run when faced with questions like these?

Come one, roundhead. Dazzle us with your insight and intellect.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.


Minus the flashes from the charges going off and the building having already been gutted, right? Those are biggies...

And that's not even considering sound. Seems there's a few key characteristics of CD missing from the collapse of WTC7, wouldn't you say?

[pomeroo]

It really is amazing that a building collapsing looks just like a building collapsing.


It's actually counterintuitive, if you're completely insane.

[pomeroo]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.

{snip-drivel}


...........Good luck with that.


No, you know nothing about demolition. The collapse of building 7 does not resemble a demolition as it lacks the simultaneous explosions near the base.

[pomeroo]

I like Ghoul, it fits him better:D, I like nicknames. I call Rodriguez, who plays for my beloved Tigers, Pudge.


Romero did change his story 180, its well documented. He does receive Govt grants, i dont, what part isnt perfectly true. You can IMAGINE any implication you like.


Instead of imagining things, why not heed the man's actual words? He acknowledges that you conspiracy liars will have a field day with his spur-of-the-moment remarks, calling them "an albatross around my neck." His professional opinion remains that there were no explosives used in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks.

[Björn Toulouse]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.



That's right, just like the rest of us. We've all seen a CD from the OUTSIDE!

[tsig]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.

As buildings of this ilk dont come down as a result of fire(or admittedly i am unaware of any such occurances) i have no idea what they might look like.


I know exactly what a Yorkshire Terrier looks like, every time i see one, i say to myself, gee there is a Yorkie. They have many distinguishing characteristics. As i know exactly what they look like, i am ALWAYS correct when i spot one, they have many identifying features.

If a small dog walked by that was green, and i asked the owner what kind of dog it was, i would be extremely sceptical if they stated it was a Yorkie, as Yorkies arent green, they are a variation of blue and gold, with minor variations.

Wtc7 is a Yorkie regarding demolition, it has those features to distinguish it as such


You guys have a green dog you are still trying to figure out the bloodline for.................Good luck with that.

All CDs I have seen fall asymmetrically because the explosive charges take out the supports and let gravity do the rest. So no building on 911 fell like a CD.

[Travis]

I know exactly what a demolition looks like, there are a multitude of such instances to reference.

Building 7 looks exactly like these.

As buildings of this ilk dont come down as a result of fire(or admittedly i am unaware of any such occurances) i have no idea what they might look like.

You have no idea what 47 story building collapsing from fire would look like yet you know that it shouldn't have looked the way the actual collapse of WTC7 looked?

Is there anything else you dismiss for "not looking right" despite having no knowledge of how it should look?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey roundhead... were you this much of a coward when you were in the armed services? Is that why you couldn't make a career of it?

I'm Just Asking Questions™. ;-)

And speaking of questions, here is what we have so far:

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Originally Posted by roundhead
i have no idea what they might look like.

Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

How do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?

Come on, roundhead... show us at least a little courage here...

[johnny karate]

Bump for roundhead.

[jhunter1163]

Is there anything else you dismiss for "not looking right" despite having no knowledge of how it should look?

I'd guess a naked woman...

[Travis]

I'd guess a naked woman...

Won't they be shocked when they discover not all women are blonde, with breast implants and names like Bambi or Candy.


Seriously though, dismissing something as not looking right when you don't know what it should look like is just.............well.....there must be a word that means stupid2 but if not I just might have to invent one.

I nominate "stignorterd" as a possible candidate word for this new level of obtuse, masochistic idiocy.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Bump for roundhead.

It appears that roundhead is unavailable for comment due to personal issues beyond his control.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/chicken3.jpg

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It appears that roundhead is unavailable for comment due to personal issues beyond his control.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/chicken3.jpg


In all fairness, he was suspended (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119782) about an hour before your post. (But, yes, he stop posting here long before his suspension.)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I noticed the "suspended" tag underneath roundheads nameplate is gone. Maybe now he can answer these questions?

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Answer: "i have no idea what they might look like."


Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Answer:_____________

How do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?

Answer:_____________

Anytime you're ready, roundhead.

[Dave_46]

I noticed the "suspended" tag underneath roundheads nameplate is gone. Maybe now he can answer these questions?

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Answer: "i have no idea what they might look like."


Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Answer:_____________

How do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?

Answer:_____________

Anytime you're ready, roundhead.

You'll be lucky.

I asked him a simple question on the AA77 FDR thread (see post 1687 in which I conclude he is a LIAR). He just ignores what he can't answer, and abandons the thread.

Dave

[Minadin]

Skilling calculations were based on a FULLY LOADED 707. Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the above plane similar to a no where near fully loaded(fuel) 9/11 plane.
The above gentleman seem to imply what hit the Towers wasnt above the threshold of design, nor even close.

OK.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6cf556e33.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3690)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6cf5b1ee6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3692)

These figures are from the article "Reflections on the World Trade Center" (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB) by Les Robertson, published in The Bridge Magazine in 2002. The Bridge is a publication of the National Academy of Engineering.

Following are some notable quotes by the lead structural engineer for the WTC from that article:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Here's a link to several engineering articles regarding the various WTC collapses by a number of experts in various fields, if you're actually interested - http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php Some of those links are old and broken, but since each entry lists the name of the author, title of the article, and publication, they should be trivial to find.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I noticed the "suspended" tag underneath roundheads nameplate is gone. Maybe now he can answer these questions?

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Answer: "i have no idea what they might look like."


Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Answer:_____________

How do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?

Answer:_____________

Anytime you're ready, roundhead.

Still waiting, roundhead.

[beachnut]

Skilling calculations were based on a FULLY LOADED 707. Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the above plane similar to a no where near fully loaded(fuel) 9/11 plane.
The above gentleman seem to imply what hit the Towers wasnt above the threshold of design, nor even close.
Wrong, I said the impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times more than the design was for. The WTC design was not for high speed aircraft. Although the structure could take a aircraft impact and not fall over, it could handle a hurricane, a high speed impact was not designed for, PERIOD. No high speed aircraft was expected, they were planning on an aircraft accident not a terrorist attack.

Note: a landing, slow speed, low fuel, accident is most likely; so they designed for it or checked the design for it. It looks like they were right a slow speed impact would have punched a few holes in the side, and most the plane would fall down the tower. The fire systems would survive and firemen would be able to fight the fires.

Skilling did not do a calculation, Robertson did. The aircraft was 707, the impact was slow, low fuel, trying to land. The design impact was equal to 187 pounds of TNT. Ten times more than the ESB, the WTC would handle a slow speed aircraft impact!

The impacts on 9/11 were 7 times and 11 times bigger.

The kinetic energy at impact!
Design - 187 pounds of TNT
Flt 11 - 1300 pounds of TNT
Flt173 - 2093 pounds of TNT

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I noticed the "suspended" tag underneath roundheads nameplate is gone. Maybe now he can answer these questions?

Please explain how the collapse of a 47 storey building from fires and impact damage would look.

Answer: "i have no idea what they might look like."


Please explain why it can't look anything at all like the collapse of WTC7.

Answer:_____________

How do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?

Answer:_____________

Anytime you're ready, roundhead.

I noticed roundhead is back. Maybe after 3 months he is finally ready to answer these questions?

[johnny karate]

I noticed roundhead is back. Maybe after 3 months he is finally ready to answer these questions?


In roundhead's defense, he did answer this question:
How do you account for the fact that not a single firefighter who was present at WTC7 has come forward to express the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding its collapse, and that many of them reported witnessing the extensive fires and debris damage Truthers claim was non-existent?


He thinks they are all cowards. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3968477#post3968477)