Wtc 7

[audesapre]

I am a citizen exploring claims contrary to the mainstream ones regarding the event of 9/11 - although most I find serious fault with. Today, a professor stated during a discussion on the matter that WTC 7 was "imploded" and that Silverstein had made a statement to the media compounding this fact. The conversation then turned: since it takes a "long time" to rig a building for demolishing, the "devices" had to be put in place in advance... perhaps during the time the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex...Also, the prof. said that various media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 before the collapse occurred...

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).

So, I've decided to reach out for some input, if I might.

[~enigma~]

I am a citizen exploring claims contrary to the mainstream ones regarding the event of 9/11 - although most I find serious fault with. Today, a professor stated during a discussion on the matter that WTC 7 was "imploded" and that Silverstein had made a statement to the media compounding this fact. The conversation then turned: since it takes a "long time" to rig a building for demolishing, the "devices" had to be put in place in advance... perhaps during the time the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex...Also, the prof. said that various media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 before the collapse occurred...

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).

So, I've decided to reach out for some input, if I might.First thing is you should tell your professor to get out of 2002 and come to 2008.

[Arus808]

first thing you should tell your professor is to get a refund from whatever college he attended.

[AZCat]

You had time in a summer school class to talk about the WTC 7 collapse? Man, things have changed since I was in school.

[WildCat]

This was a professor of what subject?

[T.A.M.]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74652
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74735
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75126
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75831

In the above, I know, are hundreds of resources and discussions on WTC7 and all things 9/11 CT.

When you have read through IT ALL, if you still have questions, let me know.

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

Forget the professor, go find Maryann and Ginger and get off the damn island.

[defaultdotxbe]

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).
this is not entirely true, security had been on heightened alert (12 hour shifts) for 2 weeks before 9/11 (due to phoned in threats) and had returned to normal the week before

the normal complement of bomb sniffing dogs were still on duty up to and on 9/11, in fact one died when the towers collapsed (google sirius+wtc)

[audesapre]

First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...and the 9/11 topic came up in discussion regarding "false flag terrorism." Read into that what you will.

As I said prior, I am having a hard time buying into the whole "inside job" bit...I mean, if a gov goes through the trouble of engineering a ploy to KILL 3000 of its own constituency then why would they let us uncover it? Hasn't anybody watched X Files :) ? Also, there's just so much at stake if something like an "inside job" was exposed...too much, I would think.

Just my thoughts. I didn't have time to get a word in during class.

Anyhow, back OT, has anybody watched "A Great Conspiracy"?
It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.

[audesapre]

So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Um...is "pull" code for demolishing a building? I thought it referred to the firefighters pulling out...and then there's this alternate theory about "pull" referring to the use of cables to pull down a building so that it falls in the right place...

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...

[dtugg]

What the hell is the world coming to when people that are suposdely educated can spew crap like, "Silverstein said WTC7 was a CD because he said to pull it."

OP, I don't know if you know this or not but it is completely obvious that he meant to pull fire fighters from the building. Furthmore, he wasn't even in a position to make such a decision. It mas made by FDNY Cheif Daniel Nigro (he was in charge of the entire operations that day and and came upon that position only because his boss died when the towers collapsed) because it was apparent to him that the building would collapse and he wanted to prevent any further loss of life.

He was right, and thanks to his decision, nobody died when WTC7 collapsed. Silverstein only agreed with this assement. This is apparent to anybody that has done any honest research on the subject.

Anybody that spews the Silverstein said pull it crap is either a liar or a very incompetant researcher. I have no idea which category your professor falls into. If any professor that I had brought up this BS, I would have called him on it and made him look like a fool.

What sort of course was this anyway?

[dtugg]

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...

I didn't see this before I responded before. But "pull it" is never used in the demolition buisiness as a term for using explosives to bring a building down. Sometimes a building is pulled down by attaching cables to columns and pulling it. This happend with one of the WTC buildings (I forget which one, I think 5 or 6) sometime after 9/11. But that building was much smaller than WTC7 and it is impossible to demolish a building the size of WTC7 in such a matter.

[beachnut]

... ...the guy actually is bright, in certain ...It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.
I recommend making flyers about 7 that debunk his super stupid rant, and put them in the room without getting caught. See if he ""esplodes"" in front of the class.


Who has the guts to turn in this guy who spews lies about 9/11? If he was smart, he would not be teaching lies.

[Magenta]

OP, I don't know if you know this or not but it is completely obvious that he meant to pull fire fighters from the building. Furthmore, he wasn't even in a position to make such a decision. It mas made by FDNY Cheif Daniel Nigro (he was in charge of the entire operations that day and and came upon that position only because his boss died when the towers collapsed) because it was apparent to him that the building would collapse and he wanted to prevent any further loss of life.


Actually, it wasn't Nigro who spoke to Silverstein. From another thread:

Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106581)

The answer is: No.

I asked Chief Nigro about this, and he was kind to respond very quickly. What he said was basically this:

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.
He also once reminded again, that as we all know, he would not have needed the approval of Silverstein to make the evacuation order. So, whoever Silverstein is talking about getting the call from, it is NOT Chief Nigro.

An interesting twist to the story. Wonder what the truthers are going to make of this :)

[Magenta]

So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Um...is "pull" code for demolishing a building? I thought it referred to the firefighters pulling out...and then there's this alternate theory about "pull" referring to the use of cables to pull down a building so that it falls in the right place...

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...


Audesapre, I suggest you take TAM's advice at post #6 and familiarise yourself with the information in the links he posted. It'll give you a better overall understanding of what happened. Once you've done that I'm sure people will be happy to answer any questions you have.

Also, the BBC recently screened a documentary about WTC7 and the CTs surrounding it. It is discussed in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116084).

[ref]

Also, the BBC recently screened a documentary about WTC7 and the CTs surrounding it. It is discussed in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116084).

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

Here is the BBC WTC7 show. Recommended. It will make all rational people not to believe in a demolition.

[Jonnyclueless]

yes your professor is bright. I see plenty of bright people living in cardboard boxes and talking to themselves while claiming aliens are eating their brains. Yes I know they seem crazy, but they really are well spoke when not eating their boogers.

[Reality Believer]

This thread is an excellent example of why the aural history of debunking and critical thinking must be carried on.

I find it quite distressing that a college professor is promoting these claims, but while Ward Churchill is sill fogging the mirror, I suppose anything is possible.

Audesapre, instead of looking to counter the claims with specific details, learn to ask for evidence and logical connections. It is a skill that is used in root cause failure analysis (http://www.maintenanceresources.com/referencelibrary/failureanalysis/whatisroot.htm). Look into that if you can as part of a curriculum of instruction. It is how technical and law enforcement entities examine a failure and figure out its cause.

The gist of RCFA is to ask a series of who, what, why, how questions. The beauty of this line of questioning is that is does not require any specific knowlege on the part of the questioner. Just technique and knowledge of the process. If you know RCFA techniques, you can find out who killed Kennedy or who smashed your holloween pumpkin. It is all the same technique.

Lets taken one small example. Your prof said that bomb sniffing dogs were pulled off the case.

How do you know that prof?
Who told you?
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Is there an alternative explanation?

Make him support the wild accusations. Just dont take them at face value.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...

Does he teach literature?
May I suggest lolita ?

[dtugg]

Actually, it wasn't Nigro who spoke to Silverstein. From another thread:

Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available[/URL]


Honestly, I didn't know this. But I also didn't say (nor really imply I think) that Nigro spoke to Silverstein about it. Doesn't matter too much anyway.

[Magenta]

Honestly, I didn't know this. But I also didn't say (nor really imply I think) that Nigro spoke to Silverstein about it. Doesn't matter too much anyway.


Sorry, I was a bit quick off the mark when I saw Silverstein, "pull it" and Nigro all together. The question of who Silverstein spoke to has been an issue in the past, so I wanted to clarify in case there was any misunderstanding.

[Pardalis]

So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Great idea to admit being complicit in insurance fraud and mass murder on national television isn't it?

[peteweaver]

A professor of what ?

[T.A.M.]

Woo!

[RedIbis]

So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Um...is "pull" code for demolishing a building? I thought it referred to the firefighters pulling out...and then there's this alternate theory about "pull" referring to the use of cables to pull down a building so that it falls in the right place...

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...

The verb "pull" and nearly any grammatical variation using pronouns and prepositions is indeed used in the demolition industry. In CD bldgs can be pulled away from other bldgs, they can be pulled down, and facades can be literally pulled with cables.

Here is just one example:

. "In a flurry of flashes and booms, the Kingdome... rumbled to the ground Sunday in 16.8 spectacular seconds.
More than 4,450 pounds of dynamite, unleashed over a span of tiny delays, blitzed one of the world's largest concrete domes -- one day shy of its 24th birthday. "The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.

[Alferd_Packer]

Sniff, Sniff, Sniff

All right, who stepped in it and didn't wipe their shoes off?

[Alex_V]

The verb "pull" and nearly any grammatical variation using pronouns and prepositions is indeed used in the demolition industry. In CD bldgs can be pulled away from other bldgs, they can be pulled down, and facades can be literally pulled with cables.

Here is just one example:

. "In a flurry of flashes and booms, the Kingdome... rumbled to the ground Sunday in 16.8 spectacular seconds.
More than 4,450 pounds of dynamite, unleashed over a span of tiny delays, blitzed one of the world's largest concrete domes -- one day shy of its 24th birthday. "The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.

It's not a very good example - Loizeaux uses the word 'pull' here but not as a specific demolition term. One might as well deduce the word 'the' is a demolitions term using the same example.

[Björn Toulouse]

The verb "pull" and nearly any grammatical variation using pronouns and prepositions is indeed used in the demolition industry..............



"Pull" is used everywhere, in business or at leisure - on the playground during Tug-O-War, by mechanics repairing an automobile engine, instructions with what to do with my finger, etc., etc., etc.

In the context re: the word "pull" in this thread, it was NOT an instruction to destroy a building.

[WildCat]

One might as well deduce the word 'the' is a demolitions term using the same example.
Don't bother. There's been pages spent trying to get this obvious point through Red's skull, he's too wedded to his belief to care.

[funk de fino]

The verb "pull" and nearly any grammatical variation using pronouns and prepositions is indeed used in the demolition industry. In CD bldgs can be pulled away from other bldgs, they can be pulled down, and facades can be literally pulled with cables.

Here is just one example:

. "In a flurry of flashes and booms, the Kingdome... rumbled to the ground Sunday in 16.8 spectacular seconds.
More than 4,450 pounds of dynamite, unleashed over a span of tiny delays, blitzed one of the world's largest concrete domes -- one day shy of its 24th birthday. "The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.

Pull my finger Red.

How much dynamite? How mant tiny delays? Why didnt they use thermite?

Your continued pushing (not pulling) of this argument is tripe

[funk de fino]

that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

This is a troofer lie. He did not say "we" he said "they"

Tell your professor he is mistaken

[~enigma~]

First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem commentsCould you point out the ad hom arguments?

[~enigma~]

Why is it that this supposedly organized classroom discussion is something you believe happened? What we have here is a guy asking a bunch of questions that is either a truther or a real live fencesitter (which doesn't exist in 2008) that has been tainted by a HUGE volume of idiotic truther balony.

[Miragememories]

So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Um...is "pull" code for demolishing a building? I thought it referred to the firefighters pulling out...and then there's this alternate theory about "pull" referring to the use of cables to pull down a building so that it falls in the right place...

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...

Be very wary of all the "fool's gold" that is dispensed here.

As you've already seen by the ad hominem responses, this forum is
rife with those who will not tolerate disagreement with the Official Theory.

Good luck in your quest for 9/11 Truth.

MM

[WildCat]

This was a professor of what subject?
audesapre?

[~enigma~]

As you've already seen by the ad hominem responses,
Ad homs are responses....you mean everybody that says they are arguments is wrong? Guess that means you are qualified to be the professor mentioned.

ETA - You are of course welcome to point out the ad hom arguments BEFORE audespre's post #9.

[ElMondoHummus]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74652
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74735
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75126
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75831

In the above, I know, are hundreds of resources and discussions on WTC7 and all things 9/11 CT.

When you have read through IT ALL, if you still have questions, let me know.

TAM:)

TAM, thank you. Audesapre, in addition to the above, http://911myths.com tackles the specific points you brought up. Regarding the supposed premature pulling out of the dogs:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html



The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story)


Note that the story talks of a "heightened security alert" being lifted, and "extra security" being taken away. So the security levels weren't weakened compared to usual, they were just returning to normal levels.



In regards to the Silverstein "Pull It" quote:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

Believe it or not, demolitionists will use the term pull to describe the process where they collapse a structure with cables and mechanical force. That's because it's the most obvious description of the process: A machine "pulls" on a cable to collapse a structure. And it is in fact what was done to WTC 6, I think (I'll have to go look it up again at some point), and is also where some conspiracy peddlers make the leap from "pull" being used in the most obvious sense (the machines "pulling" the cables) to it being used in a most tortured sense. I've seen fantasists point at a video of one of the workers at Ground Zero describing the need to "pull WTC 6" as an argument that pull is indeed an industry term. When you watch that video, you actually see the machinery and cable being used, which leaves me wondering how they justify using that as an argument validating their accusation against Silverstein.

It's a leap to think that "pull" is actually a specific "term" in the industry; the context of that video shows that the word is being used in its denotative sense, not as some slang-speak or insider terminology.

----

Anyway, the links T.A.M gave above, plus sites like 911 Myths, http://debunking911.com and a few others, are good resources to start learning about 9/11. I don't doubt that the professor in question is a decent guy, as you describe him, but fallacy is fallacy, and unfortunately, this prof is subscribing to fallacies. If he's at all intellectually honest, then the information out there at sites like the ones provided will help him see the truth.

[Matthew Best]

Why is it that this supposedly organized classroom discussion is something you believe happened? What we have here is a guy asking a bunch of questions that is either a truther or a real live fencesitter (which doesn't exist in 2008) that has been tainted by a HUGE volume of idiotic truther balony.

Why can't a fencesitter exist in 2008? On what date did the existence of fencesitters become impossible? And if there aren't any left any more - and presumably never will be any again from this date forth - doesn't that mean we can just close this subforum down completely? What is the point of it, if not to provide fencesitters with information they aren't getting from conspiraloons?

[~enigma~]

Why can't a fencesitter exist in 2008? After 7 years you will be either a truther moron, not a truther moron or totally apathetic. I challenge you to find me an honest to goodness fencesitter and show me some kind of evidence that they are. On what date did the existence of fencesitters become impossible?This is such a stupid question if you actually told me you were a fencesitter I wouldn't hesitate to say you would be lying. And if there aren't any left any more - and presumably never will be any again from this date forth - doesn't that mean we can just close this subforum down completely? If that's what Jref decided to do I would be fine with it. What is the point of it, if not to provide fencesitters with information they aren't getting from conspiraloons?That is the point of the 9/11 conspiracy forum here? Where does it say that?

[Cuddles]

I challenge you to find me an honest to goodness fencesitter and show me some kind of evidence that they are.

Here's one:
I am a citizen exploring claims contrary to the mainstream ones regarding the event of 9/11 - although most I find serious fault with. Today, a professor stated during a discussion on the matter that WTC 7 was "imploded" and that Silverstein had made a statement to the media compounding this fact. The conversation then turned: since it takes a "long time" to rig a building for demolishing, the "devices" had to be put in place in advance... perhaps during the time the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex...Also, the prof. said that various media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 before the collapse occurred...

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).

So, I've decided to reach out for some input, if I might.

Seriously Engima, it's entirely possible for people to have not cared about it until brought up, for example in a class like this. Not everyone is either insane or has been dedicated to researching things for years. Now, please stop with the attacks and keep on topic.

[~enigma~]

Here's one:


Seriously Engima, it's entirely possible for people to have not cared about it until brought up, for example in a class like this. Not everyone is either insane or has been dedicated to researching things for years. Now, please stop with the attacks and keep on topic.What attack? Ok, now provide evidence BESIDES his claim. Now if you think it is possible please show me a school in the USA that did it. I am aware of it happening recently at the University of Guleph but that is not in the USA and if that is where it took place we have a serious indication that as far as citizen the OP lied.

[Matthew Best]

I don't understand why Enigma is so adamant about this. What about someone who was 7 years old in 2001? Any reason why he couldn't be a fencesitter?

Enigma seems to think that everyone has been thinking about/investigoogling 9/11 for the last seven years. I will agree that anyone who has been doing so, and still claims to be a fencesitter, is either stupid or disingenuous. But not everybody has been.

[~enigma~]

I don't understand why Enigma is so adamant about this. What about someone who was 7 years old in 2001? Any reason why he couldn't be a fencesitter?

Enigma seems to think that everyone has been thinking about/investigoogling 9/11 for the last seven years. I will agree that anyone who has been doing so, and still claims to be a fencesitter, is either stupid or disingenuous. But not everybody has been.
Someone who has never looked at 9/11 since 2001 has heard enough on the news since then so I will not believe that they all of a sudden up and decided to read CT sites for their information. If they do, they aren't a fencesitter.

[Matthew Best]

Well, the problem is that if someone gets interested in the subjects of conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, whatever) then the first things that come up in any search for information on them tend to be conspiraloon sites.

I'm sure I'm not alone on this forum in having believed in a JFK conspiracy at one point in the distant past. And the reason I came to this forum in the first place was because I was interested in reading some rebuttal of the claims made in "Loose Change". I suppose at that point you could have called me a "fencesitter".

I just think that the notion that because the science is settled, then there will never be any more people who need convincing of that fact, is naive at best.

[roundhead]

First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...and the 9/11 topic came up in discussion regarding "false flag terrorism." Read into that what you will.

As I said prior, I am having a hard time buying into the whole "inside job" bit...I mean, if a gov goes through the trouble of engineering a ploy to KILL 3000 of its own constituency then why would they let us uncover it? Hasn't anybody watched X Files :) ? Also, there's just so much at stake if something like an "inside job" was exposed...too much, I would think.

Just my thoughts. I didn't have time to get a word in during class.

Anyhow, back OT, has anybody watched "A Great Conspiracy"?
It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.



I suggest you read up on the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. It is remarkably similar to the Intel that lead up to the Iraq invasion. In other words fabricated, deceitful, and in some cases outright false.
The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.

Taking poor, incomplete, or downright fabricated information, and using this to involve the US in war with no or extremely limited justification to have as its result the death of thousands of Americans didnt start on 9/11.

[~enigma~]

Well, the problem is that if someone gets interested in the subjects of conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, whatever) then the first things that come up in any search for information on them tend to be conspiraloon sites.

I'm sure I'm not alone on this forum in having believed in a JFK conspiracy at one point in the distant past. And the reason I came to this forum in the first place was because I was interested in reading some rebuttal of the claims made in "Loose Change". I suppose at that point you could have called me a "fencesitter".

I just think that the notion that because the science is settled, then there will never be any more people who need convincing of that fact, is naive at best.
JFK is not 9/11. That was Willie Rodriguez :)

[beachnut]

Be very wary of all the "fool's gold" that is dispensed here.

As you've already seen by the ad hominem responses, this forum is
rife with those who will not tolerate disagreement with the Official Theory.

Good luck in your quest for 9/11 Truth.

MM
No, People will not tolerate liars. Truth movement apologist's lack of understanding in this "pull it" issue is indicative of their major problems getting a handle on 9/11 issues. That lack of logic, and ignorance on 9/11 leads to believing pure fantasy. Truth movement apologists need to mature to understand they need evidence, and stop supporting the rant of fantasy?


To actually support "pull it" as a plank in the failed truth movement platform, is the sign of woo.

MM, it is your lack of skepticism with your own kind, those that lack knowledge on 9/11 and make up lies, that is your downfall.

[Matthew Best]

JFK is not 9/11. That was Willie Rodriguez :)

Well, thanks for the smile - at least you're not calling me stupid!

But if you think that 9/11 isn't like JFK, I think you're wrong. There'll be people believing this nonsense for years to come, just like there are with JFK. And in ten years' time, some of them will be people who weren't even alive in 2001. At some point in their lives they'll be "fencesitters" - people who don't yet know what to believe, but who are questioning the information they've been fed up to then.

When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.

[~enigma~]

But if you think that 9/11 isn't like JFK, I think you're wrong.I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used. There'll be people believing this nonsense for years to come, just like there are with JFK. And in ten years' time, some of them will be people who weren't even alive in 2001. At some point in their lives they'll be "fencesitters" - people who don't yet know what to believe, but who are questioning the information they've been fed up to then. If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.

ETA - There is a difference between being critical and being gullible.

[Björn Toulouse]

....The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.....




Gee, I would never had known that except for this post, that no Americans died in Viet Nam prior to Gulf of Tonkin, and none would have died after that had it not occurred. Amazing.

[beachnut]

Here's one:


Seriously Engima, it's entirely possible for people to have not cared about it until brought up, for example in a class like this. Not everyone is either insane or has been dedicated to researching things for years. Now, please stop with the attacks and keep on topic.
I agree, you can stumble upon the truth movement and panic, as if the world went pure stupid. Imagine discovering for the fist time, your kind professor is a fraud on 9/11!

You understood 9/11 in a general sense, then by surprise, a high school dropout, Charlie Sheen, says 77 could not have made the maneuver turning 330 degree and descending 7000 feet. You are forced to look up the facts to prove the pure stupid statement is crap!

Without specific knowledge on 77's flight path, you sit there with your mouth open, how can a guy who has spent more money in one year on drugs and girls than you will make in a lifetime, make such a insanely stupid statement (was it the drugs or the girls, or the lack of knowledge)! And to counter his claims you have to study 9/11 for a few hours, or find JREF to help you.

The quick fix, is to ask for some help. Watch out, the hounds of woo are posting to the new guy trying to warn him to avoid using evidence, and stick with the woo of the truth movement.

There are posts with data, and skills to combat pure ignorance! Good luck to the new guy combating the insane ideas of his kind professor.

I can't imagine teaching stuff from the truth movement, except to point out how it is pure anti-intellectual claptrap.

[DavidJames]

When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.Generally speaking, I agree with you. The 9/11 CT will be around, probably forever. If someone comes to a site like this with a genuine interest in learning they should be educated (or directed to where they can be) in an equally genuine way.

However, in the years I've been here, I can probably count on one hand how many of this kind of "fence sitter" there were. Personally, I have no tolerance for the arrogant and ignorant and less when they are disingenuous regarding their intentions. I've lost track of their numbers.

[roundhead]

Gee, I would never had known that except for this post, that no Americans died in Viet Nam prior to Gulf of Tonkin, and none would have died after that had it not occurred. Amazing.


Great, i am glad your aware.


My comment was directed to the OP, who perhaps isnt.

[Björn Toulouse]

That sound you just heard was the joke going over your head.

[beachnut]

Great, i am glad your aware.


My comment was directed to the OP, who perhaps isnt.

Oh yeah, your post clears up WTC7 and make perfect sense.
Good job, without your post I would be lost forever, not understanding WTC7 and how a kind professors turns into liars on 9/11 issues. Thank you, great one of a kind post!

[Matthew Best]

I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used.

I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread.

If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.

We will have to agree to disagree, then.

Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.

Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?

[Matthew Best]

I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used.

I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread.

If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.

We will have to agree to disagree, then.

Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.

Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, nothing proves one conspiracy theory like using another conspiracy theory as evidence. If you want proof of bother 9/11 and Gulf of T, then look at JFK. We can go on and on can't we?

If you don't believe me that 2+2=5 then just look at the incident of 6+6=13. Same thing.

[T.A.M.]

Audesapre:

1. This is an open forum, but it is dominated by people, such as myself, who not only do not believe the 9/11 CTs, but despise those who promote them.

2. We have a few truthers. We would have more, but for some reason they seem incapable of following the rules and regs of the JREF Forums (of which there is MUCH MORE than 9/11 CTs).

3. Some of the truthers here (a small minority) are civil and can at least be engaged with , in terms of a discussion.

4. Most truthers here spend a lot of their time antagonizing, flame baiting, trolling, etc...

5. The links I provided you will take you several days, if not weeks, to go through thoroughly. As well, my suggestion is you pick up the 9/11 commission report in paperback. Now mind you, once you do, if you mention it to a truther, they will immediately say "go read David Ray Griffin's book on the commission report". Be aware that DRG is a first rate Snake Oil Salesmen. He speculates, connects things that he shouldn't, misquotes, quote mines.

Good luck.

TAM:)

[Par]

I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread. We will have to agree to disagree, then. Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?



You might be wondering why your conversation with Enigma isn’t going as smoothly as you had hoped it would. “This guy’s being slightly unreasonable,” you initially thought, “but if I broach the matter politely and rationally, I’m sure he’ll come round. After all, he opposes conspiracy theories, so he’s bound to be reasonable enough.” Now, normally – on this forum, at least – that’s a fairly prudent rule of thumb. Enigma, however, is an irrationalist: dogmatic, intellectually dishonest and abusive. Countless such people just so happen to oppose trutherism, and Enigma just so happens to be one of them. In short, he – like the conspiracy theorist – has rejected reason. That is why you cannot reason with him.

[doobiedoright]

I suggest you read up on the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. It is remarkably similar to the Intel that lead up to the Iraq invasion. In other words fabricated, deceitful, and in some cases outright false.
The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.

Taking poor, incomplete, or downright fabricated information, and using this to involve the US in war with no or extremely limited justification to have as its result the death of thousands of Americans didnt start on 9/11.




Reading can be fun! You should try it as your wrong on both counts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident


Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pair of attacks initiated by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the Communist government of North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1] The incident prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam.

[Mince]

Is your professor Dylan Avery? Though counterintuitive, professors can be idiots too.

[Mince]

First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...


No one who speaks upon such a topic with such obvious ignorance is bright or learned.

[~enigma~]

Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?Oh...sorry....on second thought, I don't apologize cause here is your post.

When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.

[Matthew Best]

So you read it and you still think I've accused you (or someone else) of having already done something that (in my hypothetical example) takes place up to ten years in the future?

Par - thanks for the information.

[Turbofan]

Your Prof is a smart man, you should listen to him.

Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building
Image of pyroclastic flow
http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/1001/Summer_Session/img011.JPG

Image of dust flow
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/1DustCloudAP_468x312.jpg

Also think about the amount of force it took for those heavy steel beams
to shoot across 350 feet and cut through the core columns of WTC7.

Is that gravity induced?

When the Penthouse fell, why did the building pause for a few seconds
before falling?

The beams supporting the Penthouse obviously broke loose from the
remainder of the building, otherwise it all would have move at once, correct?

So how did the other columns fail simultaneously?

Stop frame analysis:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.4.jpg

[Hokulele]

Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building

...

Is that gravity induced?

...


Heh, considering the average pyroclastic flow is a gravity induced flow, this is funny.

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by Turbofan
Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building

...

Is that gravity induced?

...

Heh, considering the average pyroclastic flow is a gravity induced flow, this is funny.



What's even funnier is you twisted my reply and misquoted the content.

The reference to gravity induced was about the steel beams :

Also think about the amount of force it took for those heavy steel beams
to shoot across 350 feet and cut through the core columns of WTC7.

Pyroclastic flow needs what main criteria to occur? The flow may be
gravity driven, but what produces the 'cauliflower' appeal as compared to
a normal dust cloud (see photo references above)?

[Hokulele]

What's even funnier is you twisted my reply and misquoted the content.


Heh. Pot, kettle, etc.

The reference to gravity induced was about the steel beams :


Lovely. The juxtaposition was too funny to pass up, especially as it basically answered your question for you.

Pyroclastic flow needs what main criteria to occur?


Gravity. Look it up.

The flow may be gravity driven, but what produces the 'cauliflower' appeal as compared to a normal dust cloud (see photo references above)?


A pyroclastic flow is basically dust, ash, and super-heated gas. A "normal" dust cloud is perfectly capable of billowing in a similar manner. So the short answer is typical fluid dynamics create the appearance you note in your photo. There are videos of buildings collapsing in earthquakes that demonstrate identical dust clouds.

Those are gravity driven as well.

[Matthew Best]

Surely truthers have managed to figure out by now that "pyroclastic" doesn't mean what they think it means, haven't they?

Even the stupid ones, I mean.

[Hokulele]

Surely truthers have managed to figure out by now that "pyroclastic" doesn't mean what they think it means, haven't they?

Even the stupid ones, I mean.


Sadly, no.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3530735#post3530735

See the goofiness posted by tanabear.

[~enigma~]

Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building
And apparently either your a dumb man or a dishonest parrot of trutherisms. Do you care to tell us what the pyroclasts in the "pyroclastic" flow were?

[Turbofan]

A pyroclastic flow is basically dust, ash, and super-heated gas. A "normal" dust cloud is perfectly capable of billowing in a similar manner. So the short answer is typical fluid dynamics create the appearance you note in your photo. There are videos of buildings collapsing in earthquakes that demonstrate identical dust clouds.

Those are gravity driven as well.

Typical. Nobody answered the questions, but rather asked questions...about
the questions....:boggled:

So you have proof of pyroclastic flow of buildings which fell from earthquakes?

Link them up. I 'd like to see your proof of this.

We can also watch the building(s) fall from side to side in your videos and
not straight down.

[T.A.M.]

for those idiots who do not think you can get "Cauliflower" clouds from a falling building...

and no, before you mention it, the clouds are not the results of the explosives (for the love of god)...

go to the 52-58 second mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Typical. Nobody answered the questions, but rather asked questions...about
the questions....:boggled:

So you have proof of pyroclastic flow of buildings which fell from earthquakes?

Link them up. I 'd like to see your proof of this.

We can also watch the building(s) fall from side to side in your videos and
not straight down.
What were the pyroclasts in this alleged pyroclastic flow?

[Turbofan]

What were the pyroclasts in this alleged pyroclastic flow?

Answer my questions first.

Show me the video of earthquake buildings creating this pyroclastic flow.

Stop dodging. Start thinking.

[~enigma~]

Answer my questions first.

Show me the video of earthquake buildings creating this pyroclastic flow.

Stop dodging. Start thinking.
Excuse me? Did I say anything about pyroclastic flows being caused by anything? Pyroclastic flows are a volcanic phenomenon. Read the damn thread to find out who said what. Now answer my question which was asked to you well before anybody brought up earthquakes.

[damien pastaume]

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...

Why not call Controlled Demolitions Inc and ask them? Not that you'd be the first. Pumpitout.com's 'Jeff' did exactly that - and here is the result of his enquiry:

Receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
Receptionist: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok - I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
Receptionist: Well, what kind of question?
Jeff: Well, I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
Receptionist: Ok - what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
Receptionist: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
Receptionist: Hmm......... Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
(Pause while receptionist consults CDI colleagues)
Receptionist: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
Receptionist: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh. Well, thank you very much for your time.
Receptionist: Okay!
Jeff: Bye.
Receptionist: Bye.
http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3

As to it referring to 'pulling' the firefighters out, we would need to examine when any such firefighting took place. According to NIST's Shyam Sunder:
"There was no firefighting in WTC 7".
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:
"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building."Steve Carey, SS special agent

I hope you find this information helpful.

[T.A.M.]

There was, I believe, some initial firefighting, but not sustained. I also recall that they still had a contingent of firefighters holding a perimeter around the building.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:
"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building."Steve Carey, SS special agent

How does he died while attempting to rescue others from the WTC site morph into he died in WTC 7? Is it because there was a secret service office there that such a wild accusation is being made? Are you accusing Larry Silverstein of murder?

[~enigma~]

Wonder why the most ville, bottom of the barrel truthers are coming out of the woodwork today?

[damien pastaume]

How does he died while attempting to rescue others from the WTC site morph into he died in WTC 7? Is it because there was a secret service office there that such a wild accusation is being made? Are you accusing Larry Silverstein of murder?

"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

[Turbofan]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation? :rolleyes:

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

[~enigma~]

"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497
Yes...and he was part of the rescue effort outside the building according to the secret service. Why do you think he died in building 7?

[~enigma~]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation? :rolleyes:

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."
What part of the quote are you butchering to claim that anybody asked Silverstein for permission?

[Wolrab]

the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled
Gross! Why would anyone want to blow up dogs?

[damien pastaume]

Yes...and he was part of the rescue effort outside the building according to the secret service. Why do you think he died in building 7?

Here's exactly what I said:

"As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:"

As per my House of Representatives quote:
"tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."

Neither I nor the House statement says he was in the building - only that he died as a result of its collapse.

[~enigma~]

Here's exactly what I said:

"As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:"So in didn't mean in?

As per my House of Representatives quote:
"tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."

Neither I nor the House statement says he was in the building - only that he died as a result of its collapse.[/quote]
They didn't but you most certainly said "in."

[Stellafane]

I long ago stopped trying to actually reason with Truthers, because basically it seemed I had said everything I had to say, and it appeared to make zero impact anyway. So instead I eventually adopted my present persona of semi-articulate doofus. But for some reason, the OP has called me back. So what the hey, let's give logic at least one more whirl.

Let' look at this thing one step at a time. Silverstein said "pull it," which some Truthers take as an industry term for demolishing a building. But even the most die-hard Truther would likely admit (however begrudgingly) that the word "pull" has other meanings beyond demolition, which could be applicable in this context -- "pull out" or "pull back" just to name a couple off the top of my head. Had Silverstein said something more specific like "bring it down" or "blow it up" or "set off the charges now," there would be a lot stronger case here. But he didn't. So at best, Silverstein's words are ambiguous, and open for interpretation -- and thus prove nothing.

But let's say you're one of those people convinced that "pull it" in this instance can mean nothing other than "demolish the building." OK, fine. You now have to explain why Silverstein would openly admit such a thing on television. A momentary lapse in judgement? A slip of the tongue? What, exactly would have possibly possessed Silverstein -- on this one occasion and one occasion only -- to admit complicity in mass murder? So now Truthers have two things to explain: why "pull it" can only mean "demolish it" despite all the other possible meanings, and why Silverstein would actually publically confess this one time.

But let's say you somehow get past those two things. Now you have to explain whether or not WTC7 was in fact a controlled demolision. After all, video evidence and eyewitness testimony abundantly indicate that the building was badly damaged by falling debris, and burned out of control for hours. The vast majority of experts find nothing at all unexpected about the collapse. They are comfortable with the fact the building fell solely because the structural and fire damage it sustained, with no need to invoke a CD to bring it down. So how do you explain why there's no evidence at all that WTC7 was a CD, irrespective of what Silverstein may or may not have meant in his one unguarded moment?

Ah, but it doesn't stop there. If indeed the building was wired for demolition, how the devil did the explosives not go off prematurely, while an uncontrolled conflagration raged away all around them for hours?

But wait, there's more. Now you have to explain why anyone would demolish WTC7. After all, its two vastly more high-profile neighbors had already been destroyed, with spectacular effect. Why, just for good measure, bring down a building that no one had ever heard about? Some have suggested it was to destroy sensitive records, in which case you have to explan why they didn't simply use paper shredders, which not only would have been a lot easier but would also have been far more effective.

So let's sum this up: To believe that Silverstein's comments in any way support the Truther movement, you have to explain why a couple of highly ambiguous words can in this case have only one very uncommon meaning, why the person uttering them is publically confessing to mass murder, why there's no other evidence at all a CD actually took place, how the explosives waited patiently for hours within the inferno until Silverstein gave the magic order, and why anyone would even bother to blow up the building in the first place.

That a college professor could possibly have navigated through those questions and still somehow concluded Silverstein is stating WTC7 was a CD speaks very, very badly of that professor's judgement and reason. And I don't think there's anything at all ad hominem about that last statement.

[~enigma~]

That a college professor could possibly have navigated through those questions and still somehow concluded Silverstein is stating WTC7 was a CD speaks very, very badly of that professor's judgement and reason. And I don't think there's anything at all ad hominem about that last statement.
Considering that you are not dismissing his argument because he is a college professor with bad judgement, no it isn't an ad hom and there really were none before the OP's accusation of some.

[damien pastaume]

They didn't but you most certainly said "in."

Yes.

In the collapse.

[Stellafane]

Considering that you are not dismissing his argument because he is a college professor with bad judgement, no it isn't an ad hom and there really were none before the OP's accusation of some.

I think some people think "ad hominem" means "you said I was wrong and I didn't like it."

[~enigma~]

Yes.

In the collapse.
Yes....you said in the collapse of building 7 which is certainly different from during the collapse so.... SPIN UBU SPIN.

[damien pastaume]

Had Silverstein said something more specific like "bring it down" or "blow it up" or "set off the charges now," there would be a lot stronger case here. But he didn't. So at best, Silverstein's words are ambiguous, and open for interpretation -- and thus prove nothing.

Agreed. Even with the definition supplied by the Controlled Demolition Inc's spokesperson. Even though little or no firefighting was apparent. Nothing short of a subpoena would help remove the ambiguity.

So how do you explain why there's no evidence at all that WTC7 was a CD, irrespective of what Silverstein may or may not have meant in his one unguarded moment?

Putting Silverstein aside for a moment, what bothers many people is not the fact that WTC7 collapsed - it is the manner of its collapse. In the 100 year history of steel-framed high-rises there have been thousands of such collapses (straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile). Every single one, without exception, has been the result of deliberate demolition.

From a purely statistical point of view this leaves us to ponder the following:

Statistical support for deliberate demolition: 100%
Statistical support for damage/fire demolition: 0%

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?

[damien pastaume]

Yes....you said in the collapse of building 7 which is certainly different from during the collapse so.... SPIN UBU SPIN.

I think I'll leave our fellow posters to make their own minds up about this one.

[~enigma~]

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?
Many? You mean insignificant few that by and large live in their parents basement until they get real jobs and move out while forgetting about the truther balony. If that is how you define many, I agee...

[~enigma~]

I think I'll leave our fellow posters to make their own minds up about this one.
Ok but I hope you understand that it isn't in your favor.

[Hokulele]

Answer my questions first.

Show me the video of earthquake buildings creating this pyroclastic flow.

Stop dodging. Start thinking.


Earthquakes do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Building collapses do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Only a volcano can cause a pyroclastic flow. It's kinda part of the definition (Hint, what does the word "pyro" mean?).

Show me where anyone claimed otherwise.

[audesapre]

Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.

[~enigma~]

Earthquakes do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Building collapses do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Only a volcano can cause a pyroclastic flow. It's kinda part of the definition (Hint, what does the word "pyro" mean?).

Show me where anyone claimed otherwise.
Better I think is to have them explain what in the "pyroclastic flow" were the pyroclasts. That seems to have stopped TF dead in his tracks.

[Stellafane]

Agreed. Even with the definition supplied by the Controlled Demolition Inc's spokesperson. Even though little or no firefighting was apparent. Nothing short of a subpoena would help remove the ambiguity.

Even though you say you agreed with me, your additional comments (and what they appear to imply) border on silly. What's the chances that Silverstein would have used a little-known, insider term that mean demolition, when far more common meanings (pull out, pull back) would make perfect sense, especially when uttered by a "civilian"? And it leaves utterly unanswered my obvious followup question: Why the hell would Silverstein have publically confessed to mass murder? You see, that's the whole point of my post. You can't just raise a bit of gray area about one specific question and then declare you've accomplished anything. You have to address all the other followup questions that must also be true. So even if Silverstein meant "demolish," explain to me why he confessed publically that one time -- and no other.


Putting Silverstein aside for a moment, what bothers many people is not the fact that WTC7 collapsed - it is the manner of its collapse. In the 100 year history of steel-framed high-rises there have been thousands of such collapses (straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile). Every single one, without exception, has been the result of deliberate demolition.

From a purely statistical point of view this leaves us to ponder the following:

Statistical support for deliberate demolition: 100%
Statistical support for damage/fire demolition: 0%

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?

Yes, it is a surprise that any reasonable, informed, and sane person has any question at all about WTC. How many other buildings in history have been struck by flaming debris falling from an adjacent 1000+ foot tower, and then burned uncontrollably for hours? And if you somehow get past that one, there's all those other pesky questions I mentioned. Why do the vast majority of structural engineers accept that the WTC7 fell due to damage and fire, and not a CD? Are they all in on it too? And if it were a CD, why didn't the explosives go off by themselves while being engulfed in flames for hours? And then the biggest question of all, why do this in the first place?

Truthers are fond of claiming they're "just asking questions." But sometimes I think in fact Truthers hate questions, because they always seem to ignore all the followup ones that arise whenever they make a single claim. It's like they see the world in a complete vacuum, where something can be true with no connections or consequences. But the world doesn't work that way. It's like Truthers are more interested in playing "gotcha!" than actually discussing the truth.

So long as my questions remain unanswered (and thus far, every single one of them does), Truthers have contributed nothing to our understanding of how WTC7 collapsed.

[Hokulele]

Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.


Good luck!

Better I think is to have them explain what in the "pyroclastic flow" were the pyroclasts. That seems to have stopped TF dead in his tracks.


Nah, too many syllables. Start them off with "pyro" and work from there. ;)

[~enigma~]

Nah, too many syllables. Start them off with "pyro" and work from there. ;)
Yeah but unlike every other attempt, it seems mine stopped a truther dead in his tracks and left him (or it) with nothing whatsoever to say.

[MarkyX]

(straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile)


That's not what happened to WTC7.

[damien pastaume]

Even though you say you agreed with me, your additional comments (and what they appear to imply) border on silly. What's the chances that Silverstein would have used a little-known, insider term that mean demolition, when far more common meanings (pull out, pull back) would make perfect sense, especially when uttered by a "civilian"? And it leaves utterly unanswered my obvious followup question: Why the hell would Silverstein have publically confessed to mass murder? You see, that's the whole point of my post. You can't just raise a bit of gray area about one specific question and then declare you've accomplished anything. You have to address all the other followup questions that must also be true. So even if Silverstein meant "demolish," explain to me why he confessed publically that one time -- and no other.

Beats me. Like I said, short of any new revelations the Silverstein angle is exhausted and remains ambiguous. Time to move on.

Yes, it is a surprise that any reasonable, informed, and sane person has any question at all about WTC. How many other buildings in history have been struck by flaming debris falling from an adjacent 1000+ foot tower, and then burned uncontrollably for hours?

WTC6 to name just one. It was massively more damaged than WTC7 and did not collapse.

Why do the vast majority of structural engineers accept that the WTC7 fell due to damage and fire, and not a CD?

Since when were majorities proof of anything? History is replete with majority opinion being overturned.

And if it were a CD, why didn't the explosives go off by themselves while being engulfed in flames for hours? And then the biggest question of all, why do this in the first place?

We first establish beyond doubt what happened. The hows and whys can then be vigorously pursued. To do so prior to removing doubt is potentially a huge waste of time.

So long as my questions remain unanswered (and thus far, every single one of them does), Truthers have contributed nothing to our understanding of how WTC7 collapsed.

As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

Fundamentals first.

[damien pastaume]

That's not what happened to WTC7.

Oh?

[Par]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation? :rolleyes:

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."


He’s right! Fire chiefs don’t ask building owners for permission! But fire chiefs do blow up buildings! Of course they do! Asking permission would be unusual. But blowing up the building would be perfectly normal. Why can’t you people understand!?

Look!: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Now look at these: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What's wrong with you people?!

[~enigma~]

Oh?
How does a symmetric collapse have the north wall lying atop the pile with the south wall (the damaged one) on the bottom?

[ElMondoHummus]

Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.

You're welcome.

Yes, I don't imagine that the professor comes off as stupid. In fact, many of the canards conspiracy fantasists use do indeed sound eminently sensible. For example, it's true that jet fuel/kerosene burning in open air without the benefit of being in an insulative system doesn't reach the temperatures sufficient to melt steel; the problem is that 1. Jet fuel burning in open air was not what happened a the Twin Towers, and 2. Steel melting was not the cause of the collapse. The "fact" by itself, however, makes sense.

That's how so much of this mythology called 9/11 Truth gets across to people. When someone says "The jets flew around the US for 20/30/40 minutes without the Air Force responding", that sounds like a reasonable statement. But when you really dig into the details of the US's response - found in study of the timeline (summed up by Gumboot here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1)), as well as in the basics of NORAD's procedures (also summed up by Gumboot here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300)) and in the confusion every one involved experienced that day (written up by Vanity Fair here (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608)) - you realize how it's unfair to characterize things that way. The military had, what, only single digit minutes between the time they were notified of the hijackings and the time the aircraft crashed (and in the case of Flight 93, were only told about the hijacking after it had already crashed). The devil is in the details, and conspiracy peddlers just wave past that in order to state their premises in ways that sound suspicious. Because of that, I have no doubt that an otherwise intelligent person like your professor would buy into such things. It takes time and desire to chase all that information down, and the tretcherous thing is that the pseudoscientific presentation of the evidence makes things deceptively easy to gather and very deceptively easy to think you understand the situation. Just read through some of the other threads here for how many fantasy believers think they know the details of the events that day, and see how so many of them are terribly misled.

Anyway, if I may give some advice, the "Gravysite" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com, named for forum poster Gravy (aka Mark Roberts), the 911 Myths site (http://911myths.com) and others are great resources for discovering the truth behind the claims that are fooling your otherwise fine professor.

Anyway, good luck. Post questions if you have them, but it would also be a good idea to see if they haven't already been answered by doing a search of the forum. If you can't find them, ask anyway; one of us here can point to relevant threads or other resources if necessary.

[Jonnyclueless]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation? :rolleyes:

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

:dl: :dl: :dl:

Yeah I guess I would be confused too turbo if I lik you hadn't bothered to read the actual conversation between the two guys. But the PFT cult can't sell as many DVDs to idiots if they include that stuff.

I still laugh every time idiots make these kind of claims. The irony being that these people generally think that they have done some kind of research. Too funny!

[Turbofan]

What part of the quote are you butchering to claim that anybody asked Silverstein for permission?

I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?

[Bananaman]

Oh God, Turbo, you can't be serious.

Tell me you're pulling our legs because this is just on another level of ill-informed rubbish now.

Do some proper research and for God's sake grow up.

Bananaman (who will give Turbo a small clue. Try researching what Silverstein actually meant, and try not to go too red if reality seeps through).

[johnny karate]

I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?

Here's the quote in it's entirety:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Note the word I bolded.

[R.Mackey]

WTC6 to name just one. It was massively more damaged than WTC7 and did not collapse.

WTC 6, unlike WTC 7, was a traditional post-and-beam structure. It was only a few stories high, and wasn't cantilevered over an electrical substation. Because of its small height, it cannot follow the progressive collapse mechanism of the WTC Towers, and because it was not a perimeter-and-core structure, it was less susceptible to a single internal failure resulting in global collapse than either WTC 1, 2, or 7.

Nonetheless, it experienced significant internal collapses. FDNY was concerned that it could totally collapse, and it came pretty close to doing so as it was, requiring a delicate demolition of the remains.


As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

The collapses were not symmetrical. All three collapses experienced significant tilting. They were partly symmetrical, but this is as expected given the mostly symmetrical distribution of material at the start of collapse. It's all momentum, and gravity pulls straight down. As more of the structure is involved, the vertical momentum gained from gravity naturally dominates the collapse behavior, damping out asymmetries at the start.

Very simple.

[damien pastaume]

WTC 6, unlike WTC 7, was a traditional post-and-beam structure.

Well - he did ask.



The collapses were not symmetrical. All three collapses experienced significant tilting. They were partly symmetrical, but this is as expected given the mostly symmetrical distribution of material at the start of collapse. It's all momentum, and gravity pulls straight down. As more of the structure is involved, the vertical momentum gained from gravity naturally dominates the collapse behavior, damping out asymmetries at the start.

Very simple.

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

[WildCat]

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises
And did you hear demolition charges? Wonder why you heard none on any video of any of the WTC collapses?

[Grizzly Bear]

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

You might want to tell that to the owners of 30 west broadway and the verizon building. 30 west broadway is still being deconstructed last I heard...

[R.Mackey]

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

Don't confuse yourself.

Professional demolitions deliberately create asymmetric implosions in most cases. They're trying to keep the debris field inside the original footprint. The best way to do that is to separate the four (or more) walls and have them topple against each other.

Demolitions of core-and-perimeter structures are unusual, since that is a relatively new innovation and the few examples that exist are newer, not needing demolition. It's not clear how they would demo one of these structures, or if they would have to take it apart piece by piece instead.

The point is, you cannot compare the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses to professional demolitions in the past. The phenomenology is totally different. The phenomenology is, however, totally consistent with an initiating failure on the fire-affected floors.

It also wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, "cleaner." If a professional demo company did half as much collateral damage as either Tower, they'd be looking at jail terms.

[bio]

And did you hear demolition charges? Wonder why you heard none on any video of any of the WTC collapses?

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges.";)

[bio]

Don't confuse yourself.

Professional demolitions deliberately create asymmetric implosions in most cases. They're trying to keep the debris field inside the original footprint. The best way to do that is to separate the four (or more) walls and have them topple against each other.

Demolitions of core-and-perimeter structures are unusual, since that is a relatively new innovation and the few examples that exist are newer, not needing demolition. It's not clear how they would demo one of these structures, or if they would have to take it apart piece by piece instead.
(...)


thank you for the argument, that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

[R.Mackey]

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges.";)

We accept them just fine. However, what you fail to accept is that these accounts are actually consistent with our theory.

Very, very few witnesses actually think, or thought, that there were bombs. None of which -- Zero -- are referring to events at the moment of collapse.

thank you for the argument, that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

I trust you are aware that you must have misunderstood me to make such a ridiculous statement.

[damien pastaume]

The point is, you cannot compare the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses to professional demolitions in the past.

Where did I do any such thing? I did not even mention the towers. I was speaking specifically about WTC7 - as was the OP.

And you advise me not to confuse myself?!

It also wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, "cleaner." If a professional demo company did half as much collateral damage as either Tower, they'd be looking at jail terms.

Can the same be said regarding WTC7? This is, after all, the topic of this thread.

[~enigma~]

I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?
Do you know how to read the question I asked? Transcribe the post please and point out the exact part where he gave permission. BTW...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13257487251f6b2e18.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12898)

[beachnut]

Firemen were putting water on some of the WTC buildings, not 7! There are clear examples in 5 and 6 of failure of steel in fire! Those who fail to research are doomed to ignorance and prone to believe the liars from the truth movement. Ignorance is personified by lazy researchers, exposing themselves with thoughtless posts of pure ignorance. Glad that does not happen here at JREF. JREF posters are of skeptical thought, the personification of knowledge using sound judgment to combat wild claims made by others. (albeit the goal)

The critical skill; recognizing wild claims! If you fail to recognize wild claims, and those people spewing wild claims as liars, you are doomed to gargantuan faulty analogies. Doomed to support ignorant ideas. This is the trait of the truth movement, parroting failed conclusions like they were facts and evidence. Substantial logical errors, massive failure to exercise sound judgment using knowledge gained by thorough research. Such is the fate of the truth movement, gigantic global breakdown of logical, knowledge based thinking! It is scary to see the truth movement in action. How did education systems fail, and leave these people in the truth movement in the darkness of hopeless ignorance.

We have a student experiencing a professor who is spewing the lies of 9/11 truth. He is picking a few pointers to counter the lies of 9/11 truth. He is smart, he is using the posters presenting usable facts. Wish I had been a supply of useful information he can use, but my smart remarks only contain limited value, meant to support his effort to exercise sound judgment based on knowledge! I apologize for not being as concise as those who post the best information you can use. I envy you for being able to weed out the ignorant posts from those who think they are pure logic, but are spewing the very ignorance you are combating. Good luck. Have fun, do not get discouraged if you discover some will not yield to logic and knowledge, they enjoy knowing they are right, and ignorant of their plight.

No reason to argue, the ignorant on 9/11 will bring up topics out of the blue to defeat you. They spew lies faster than you can counter and look them up in a 1 minutes debate, as they spew more stupid ideas than you can summarize in days; beware, the ignorant are just that, not be debated, but in need of education they don't want or think is needed. Beware, the skill to be diplomatic is needed, not as ignored by me. Be patient, you can earn much respect by just knowing and trying to help, the same as you still feel for your professor; who hopefully has few flaws past his temporary insanity on 9/11.

I hated teachers who would not own up to mistakes. When I teach and kids tell me I am suppose to know everything, I tell them the truth. I am there to help them learn; that is all. My existence as a teacher, to adapt to their needs and help them learn. Hope your professor shares your need to learn, and can adapt and gain knowledge on an event that takes years to understand when so many stupid questions and lies are generated from people with dumb ideas on the topic.


good luck new guy

[R.Mackey]

Where did I do any such thing? I did not even mention the towers. I was speaking specifically about WTC7 - as was the OP.

And you advise me not to confuse myself?!

I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.


Can the same be said regarding WTC7? This is, after all, the topic of this thread.

Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.

[roundhead]

I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.



Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.



Professional means you do it for a living, itS how you earn a pay check. A guy who squirts mustard on burgers at McDonalds is a professional mustard squirter. There are obviously some better than others, i have had mustard only be in one corner.

Whoever did 7 did a great job as they cant have had any experience taking down a 47 story building, i give tham at worst an A-.


So is your implication that whoever imploded 7 did it for free:D

[R.Mackey]

So is your implication that whoever imploded 7 did it for free:D

Ignoring the leading nature of your semantic argument, I agree. The terrorists on board UA 11, who were ultimately to blame, were not compensated for their effort. As to whether or not they were professionals, is terrorism a profession? Does it matter?

[roundhead]

Ignoring the leading nature of your semantic argument, I agree. The terrorists on board UA 11, who were ultimately to blame, were not compensated for their effort. As to whether or not they were professionals, is terrorism a profession? Does it matter?



People, pay attention, news alert.


Mackey is now stating the terrorists on flight 11 took down wtc7. What information to you have to make such a wild claim?

[R.Mackey]

People, pay attention, news alert.


Mackey is now stating the terrorists on flight 11 took down wtc7. What information to you have to make such a wild claim?

UA 11 hit the North Tower. WTC 1 eventually collapsed as a result. Its collapse did three important things:

Heavily damaged WTC 7,
Started large fires in WTC 7, and
Destroyed infrastructure that prevented effective firefighting.

And these three factors ultimately led to WTC 7's collapse.

I thought everyone knew that.

[damien pastaume]

I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.

Your good grace is appreciated. Re-watching the footage of WTC7s collapse still leaves me convinced I'm witnessing a high degree of symmetry. It feels a little like being told that Godzilla is actually not all that big, or that the ocean is not actually all that wet.

Symmetry or no, what I'm seeing is the near-simultaneous destruction of the entire infrastructure.



Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.

I'll look into that aspect of the FEMA report.

As for being nothing like a professional job, I'll leave you with a quote from CDI's own Mr Loizeaux:
"When you take a building, break it up into millions of pieces and put it into its basement"

Nothing at all?

[T.A.M.]

If an arsonist lights one house a blaze, and the fire spreads to another house, HE IS INDEED guilty of destroying the second house as well.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

It feels a little like being told that Godzilla is actually not all that big
Well...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

Ok, I'm not going to dispute the former part of the above sentence. Claiming to have witnessed an explosive demolition is not that extraordinary of a claim. But there is an apperant implication in latter portion of this sentence that is just not true.

You did not witness the collapse of WTC7.

Let me say that again...

You did not witness the collapse of WTC7. You were not there in New York on 9/11. You neither saw nor heard even the minutest portion of that days events. All you have seen is archival footage on TV and grainy youtube videos.

I read a study once that suggested that the number of people who claimed to have been at Woodstock outnumber the people who really were there by 10-to-1. 9/11 is rapidly becoming the Woodstock of the 9/11 twoofers. If the number of twoofers who act and talk like there were there that day really were there, the casualty count would have doubled and the most common article removed from the debris pile would have been crushed tinfoil hats.

This goes for all twoofers, none of you were there. You all don't know @#$%!

[johnny karate]

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges.";)

That's because no one did. The detonation charges of a controlled demolition are very loud and very distinctive. They can be heard for miles around and occur in rapid succession prior to the collapse. Had this taken place on 9/11, there wouldn't be these scattered and vague reports of "explosions". Every single person in lower Manhattan would have heard them.

To claim otherwise makes one either dishonest or stupid.

[R.Mackey]

Your good grace is appreciated. Re-watching the footage of WTC7s collapse still leaves me convinced I'm witnessing a high degree of symmetry. It feels a little like being told that Godzilla is actually not all that big, or that the ocean is not actually all that wet.

Apparently you're only looking at it from one angle. Your next statement is another clue to that effect:

Symmetry or no, what I'm seeing is the near-simultaneous destruction of the entire infrastructure.

No, you are not. The core failed first. I'm sure you know, since no doubt hundreds have already pointed this out to you, but the penthouse failures many seconds before the perimeter moved proves that the interior failed first. And, of course, a good portion of the structure was destroyed by debris, hours before the rest collapsed. Not "near-simultaneous" at all.

As for being nothing like a professional job, I'll leave you with a quote from CDI's own Mr Loizeaux:
"When you take a building, break it up into millions of pieces and put it into its basement"

Nothing at all?

Nothing at all. Some portions of WTC 7 that remained were several stories high, and spread well beyond its original footprint.

I guess one could argue that in a collapse, and in a professional demolition, both cases destroy the building. But beyond that, there are few similarities.

[Stellafane]

...As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

Fundamentals first.

Ah, here we have it, the crystalized moment that may neatly symbolize the difference between the way Truthers think and how the rest of us do. It's rare that it presents itself so obviously and unambiguously, so I feel an obligation to discuss it for a minute, even though that discussion may not be received in the way I might hope.

You say my questions may or may not be relevant. But you see, they cannot not be relevant. Yes, that's a double negative, but there's no better way to express it. Every claim ever made by anyone anywhere carries with it a whole slew of connections and consequences that also must be true for that claim to be valid. For instance, suppose I were to suddenly announce "I am president of the U.S.!" For that claim to be true, a number of questions must be answered. What has become of George W? How did a complete nobody like me get elected (especially since it isn't even November)? How come no one has reported this amazing and unprecedented event? And so on. I can't just wave away those questions and say "Fundamentals first." If I want my claim to be taken seriously, I have to explain how that whole chain of questions can be answered. And here's the important part: If I can't answer a single one of those questions, then my whole claim collapses like a house of cards. I can't just pick and choose what I feel like answering and what I don't. If just one of those followup questions cannot be answered, boom! there goes my claim.

Now back to Silverstein. OK, maybe "pull it" to some people in some very specific context means "demolish." But it can mean a whole lot of other things, most of which are far more likely in the situation Silverstein spoke the phrase. So at best, you have a tiny spot of gray on an otherwise black-and-white situation. But this immediately raises all sorts of followup questions -- each one of which must be answered, or all go out the window. You can't simply ignore it. And as I pointed out, those questions cannot be navigated by a reasonable mind and still at the end of the day conclude "pull it" has anything at all to do with demolition.

Since this responds to the original claim by the professor mentioned in the OP, I suppose I could end here. But since you've gone beyond this, I'll address what you feel is another anomaly, the fact that WTC7 collapsed at all. You dismiss the fact that virtually all the experts in the world accept the reason for collapse as structural damage and fire, stating that the majority is often wrong. But far more often, the majority is right! Simply being considered wrong by the majority gives you no special standing at all, since for every Galileo that turns out in the end to be right, there's 1000 Bozos that were wrong all along, like everyone thought. And when it comes to an expert majority, you're facing an uphill battle -- especially when you have zero evidence on your side, other than the fact that a large building collapsing is unusual. Well, guess what? September 11, 2001 was a highly unusual day. And implying that something has never happened before, so it couldn't possibly ever happen, is to say that nothing ever happens for the first time. Sure, first times can be surprising to some people -- but when there's a very rational explanation for the event, you don't have to invoke some unseen forces. And in the end, you still have all those other questions to answer.

So you see, building a case on what Silverstein may have meant when he said "pull it," or pointing out the obvious fact that large buildings don't collapse very often, is attempting to build something out of nothing. You have to answer all the questions -- every one of them -- because if even a single one of them is impossible to explain in Truther terms, the whole thing vanishes into thin air. It's all or nothing -- that's the way reality works.

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg
No fires in WTC7?

I walked right by WTC7 on 9/11 at around 2pm. Just looking at it, seeing all of the debris piled up against it, and the inferno it was, was more than enough to tell me and those with me that it was going to collapse.

It was also bulging/buckling at the corners.

I seem to remember a firefighter quote saying they put a transit on a point and it was moving over a small period of time.

...
That alone is MORE than enough to "know" the building was going to collapse.

Witness confirms the photo. Witness confirms WTC7 was on fire, out of control, as does the FDNY. Lack of knowledge, is personified in 9/11 truth.
… I was at the WTC on 9/11.
I witnessed the entire chain of events.
…
I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER!!! I had a PERFECT vantage point. Even then, I couldn’t actually process what I had seen. I kept thinking it couldn’t have been an American Airlines plane, sure that’s what I saw, but it just couldn’t have been. It had to be something else.

I didn't know what to do. Should I get back on the ferry and go home or should I go to my office? I went to my office. I found a group of co-workers standing behind our building on Greenwich and Rector street looking at the burning building, and we started talking about what happened. Some saw the crash, and some just saw the fire. The ones that didn't see the crash didn't believe me and those of us that did see it that it was a jetliner. They assumed, as I did before I saw the plane, that it was a private or military plane. They couldn't imagine it was a jetliner. Of course, they didn't actually see what I and the others did.

We all thought it had to be an accident. I was talking about how the buildings are designed to survive a hit like this and how it would be OK.

Smoke was pouring out, debris was flying everywhere, we were joking around saying its like Godzilla has attacked. We were all looking up at the towers. From our vantage point we had a perfect view of both towers (google map 45 Broadway and you'll see where I was).

It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. The force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.

That’s when we all realized we were under attack.

My coworker looked at me and said "was that another airliner?" I said yeah, I thought it was a US Airways plane, but another coworker said it was a United plane.

… . Sure enough an F-16 flew by.
… The flames were intense coming out of the south tower (2wtc) and even being blocks away and much lower, I could feel the heat on my face and it was hot. It was like being in front of a roaring fireplace. I remember thinking “how the hell are they going to repair this?” It was then when I commented to another coworker about all of the debris still falling out (it had been a while now, almost an hour) and he said “Mike, those are people!” I said “No way!” He said, “Look that one has arms and legs!” And then I saw that the debris I was looking at was actually people falling or jumping out of the building.

That’s when I needed to go inside.

About 15 minutes later, we felt the earth shake. …

After a while I decided to go back upstairs to our office. Power in our building was fine, and there was no damage to our building. The lobby was like a refugee center. …

A little while later the second building came down, and the dust hit and made all of the windows black again. This time it wasn’t so bad since we knew what was happening.

I don’t really remember much of what we did between the time the second tower came down and when a cop finally came in to our office and said we had to evacuate the building since all of downtown was being shutdown, and cleared out. That was around 2:30 IIRC.

All I knew was that I had to somehow get to my wife in Brooklyn. So we started walking up Broadway when a cop told us it was closed and we had to go east. So we went over to Nassau St. When I hit the area near Cedar St, I could start to see the devastation. There was giant beams and junk everywhere. When I hit Fulton St. (I think) I could finally get over to Broadway to see the damage. There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it. And these were piled up against the building and sticking out of it at some levels. I can’t stress enough how enormous these beams and debris were. All of the pictures show the pile, but without actually seeing it, it is truly indescribable. WTC7 had granite of marble façade and there were HUGE cracks going up and down the façade too.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did.

… Then I saw it was an F-15 and all of a sudden, all was well. I truly felt like I had been given a new life.
… 9/11 truth lies, old irony. They know not why! They know not!

[Turbofan]

Do you know how to read the question I asked? Transcribe the post please and point out the exact part where he gave permission. BTW...

Permission? Why does the fire commander need to call Silverstein to ask
him, tell him, whatever...they he's going to "pull it" (his human crew) out
of a building?

You think the fire commnader would have more on his mind than to track
down Larry in the middle of a crisis and "shoot the breeze".

Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building
them completely.

[beachnut]

...
Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building them completely. You understand fire as well as you do FDRs, and physics.

Outstanding post.

[bio]

I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.

Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.

Was the "collapse" of WTC 7 not symmetric for you or just a little symmetric or mainly symmetric? How can you say,the collapse was "actually not all that symmetric".

[R.Mackey]

Was the "collapse" of WTC 7 not symmetric for you or just a little symmetric or mainly symmetric? How can you say,the collapse was "actually not all that symmetric".

Are you familiar with the sequence of collapse? The final spread of debris? The wall sections lying on top of the pile afterward?

If you were, you probably wouldn't ask such a question.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building
them completely.

Are you Zennsmack, P'doh or just mentally retarded?

[~enigma~]

Permission? Why does the fire commander need to call Silverstein to ask
him, tell him, whatever...they he's going to "pull it" (his human crew) out
of a building?He didn't need to but he did it out of something you and your truther buddies have never seen nor neard of. Common courtesy.

[Turbofan]

He didn't need to but he did it out of something you and your truther buddies have never seen nor neard of. Common courtesy.

Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters. :rolleyes:

Fire Fighter - "Commander, can we come out now, it's really bad in here!"

Commander - "Hang on guys, I'm trying to get a hold of Larry. Hang in there, I'll let
you know when to come out after talking it over with Larry."

[~enigma~]

Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters. :rolleyes:

Fire Fighter - "Commander, can we come out now, it's really bad in here!"

Commander - "Hang on guys, I'm trying to get a hold of Larry. Hang in there, I'll let
you know when to come out after talking it over with Larry."
You have a problem with it...tell someone who cares cause your hangups are not anybodies problems but your own.

[Mr.Herbert]

Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building
them completely.

Wow look at the imbecile.

Oh, and hey...if you see a steel building on fire, I encourage you to run right in.

[Alt+F4]

Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters. :rolleyes:

Fire Fighter - "Commander, can we come out now, it's really bad in here!"

Commander - "Hang on guys, I'm trying to get a hold of Larry. Hang in there, I'll let
you know when to come out after talking it over with Larry."

So what are you saying? That the FDNY is in Silverstein's pocket, willing to do his bidding?

[R.Mackey]

Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters. :rolleyes:

There is no evidence that the conversation happened before or after the actual decision on the ground, or that the two were in any way correlated. It appeared to be a courtesy call. It's also not at all unusual for the IC to keep in contact with building owners, particularly if there are questions about tenants and occupancy, or potential hazardous materials.

Furthermore, the operation that was "pulled" wasn't fighting the building fire anyway. Most of it was a rescue effort, as firefighters searched for victims caught in the debris field outside WTC 7. Those firefighters knew of the danger of collapse, yet were reluctant to leave, and went right back to it the instant WTC 7 finally came down. Nobody was working against their will until Uncle Larry decided to give them a pass.

This is all clear from the firefighter testimonies. You should also take a look at Mr. Scheuerman's book on the subject.

[WildCat]

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges.";)
bio, actual demo charges wouldn't have just been heard by a few people very close to them. They would have been heard from miles away, and every video camera recording the scene would have recorded the sounds of the explosions.

They would have been an order of magnitude louder than the "explosions" heard by witnesses, most of which happened long before the towers collapsed.

[Turbofan]

There is no evidence that the conversation happened before or after the actual decision on the ground, or that the two were in any way correlated.

So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with? :rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with? :rolleyes:

The call had nothing to do with the decision to "pull" the firemen. The decision would have been made, the same way, regardless of what Mr. Silverstein said. Chief Nigro, who made the decision, has confirmed this.

There is nothing about that statement that says "pull"ing was dependent on Mr. Silverstein's acquiescence. All he says is that he agreed with them, a decision was made, and hours later the decision turned out to be fully justified as the structure did indeed collapse as expected.

There are no different versions of the story. The distinctions you claim to have are your own misunderstanding, caused by obsession over "anomalies."

[uk_dave]

they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs,

Saw?

Spin much?

[WildCat]

So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with? :rolleyes:
You claim Silverstein ordered the Fire Department to blow up WTC 7 in this call, and at this point firemen ran into the burning building and planted demo charges, correct?

Of course, you'll run from this question just like the Pentagon narrative you avoid like it was herpes. Truther "theories" sound mind-boggling stupid when you flesh them out a bit, don't they?

[Magenta]

Turbofan and his ilk are too wilfully obtuse to take in any information that might conflict with their beliefs. However, if the OP is still following this thread then they might want to took at Arthur Scheuerman's interview on Hardfire. He gruffly dismissed any suggestion that a fire chief would be asking the building owner for permission to withdraw firefighters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516&hl=en

Also, in the BBC documentary linked on the first page of this thread, Chief Nigro made it abundantly clear that the firefighters were pulled away from search and rescue work because of the imminent collapse of WTC7. He has also confirmed (again, this was on page 1 of this thread) that he had no recollection of a conversation with Silverstein and would not have consulted with him about such an evacuation in any case.

At this point in the thread, Turbofan is just playing silly buggers and it's pathetic.

[TexasJack]

So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with? :rolleyes:

You can't even get the quote right, Silverstein said "they made the decision". How many different versions of the quote are you guys going with? :rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

from your link

On September 11, like any other morning, most of the Secret Service employees were either settling into their offices or still making their way to work. Others were about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. At 8:48 a.m. their offices in Building 7 shook and the lights flickered. Most of them stopped for a quick moment but quickly returned to their work.

However, after realizing that a plane had hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, they very quickly went into an alert mode. Although most other tenants started to evacuate the building, the men and women of the Secret Service instinctively grabbed first aid trauma kits and other emergency equipment.
Special Agent in Charge, Steve Carey, and other managers ran from one floor to another, and room to room, to ensure that everyone was moving to safety. Once outside, they saw the sky engulfed by flames and smoke. Some of the agents ran into the north tower to assist in the evacuation process. Others began to execute the emergency medical skills that they had been trained to perform and set up small triage units on West Street to assist the injured.
Tragically, as the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has said, the Secret Service lost an employee, Master Special Officer Craig Miller. Officer Miller was on a temporary assignment in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and was nearby at the Marriott Hotel when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Although the hotel was evacuated, it appears that Officer Miller stayed behind to help. Because of his military background and extensive emergency medical training, those who knew Officer Miller believe his life was taken while trying to assist the wounded. In fact, some of the medical equipment was later found in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel that that particular officer had in his possession.

[Jonnyclueless]

You guys have to remember that little old Turbofan here is getting his info from the cult tabloid PFT. So he isn't going to have the full quotes or understand what happened. he is only going to know what the PFT cult says, which is about as wrong as it gets. How is he supposed to know that Silverstein wasn't commanding or making decisions? Of course PFT is not going to include that part. Of course he's going to think the dust was moving upwards because that's what the idiots at the PFT tabloid are saying.

Now if you were discussing this with someone who actually researched the issue, it would be understandable. But then again, if someone had researched the matter, they wouldn't be bringing up the laughable arguments that Turbo is bringing up.

[A W Smith]

Well - he did ask.





I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

And if you knew even the very basics of building demolition. You would know there is a very good reason for asymmetric demolition. There may be underground utilities adjacent to the footprint of the structure on which hundreds of tons of debris can do great damage if dropped on it. Or there may be adjacent high rises only 8 feet away that must of course not be damaged. This would mean charges on that side of the building would be set to blast last. causing the building to cascade away from adjacent structures and utilities.

[A W Smith]

So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with? :rolleyes:


this one

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[Bananaman]

I hated teachers who would not own up to mistakes. When I teach and kids tell me I am supposed to know everything, I tell them the truth. I am there to help them learn; that is all. My existence as a teacher, to adapt to their needs and help them learn.

Just wanted to say I liked that quote from Beachnut. It made me feel good.

OK, emotional moment over. Back to the thread.

Bananaman.

[Corsair 115]

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions.Perhaps you can explain why NONE of the numerous videos of the collapses recorded the very loud and distinctive sound of demolition charges going off. The sounds were supposedly heard by people but not picked up by microphones?

[papasmurf]

You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?

I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.

How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.

[WildCat]

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.
Shouldn't you be making the case of how it was demolished? You, after all, are trying to challenge the accepted sequence of events.

eta: are you really using your email addy as your user name?

[SDC]

If he/ she is really from Stevens Institute of Tech, which last I heard was reputable... Are they now training their students to rely on videos only? The world is in worse shape than I had thought.

[~enigma~]

any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.
Can you please direct me to the psychological tests that show beyond any doubt that there are any rational people that think WTC 7 was a CD cause I never saw one. IOW, anecdotal evidence makes me think your claim is a bunch of baloney.

[phunk]

Pete, you're giving my alma mater a bad name, please stop. I hope you're not earning any sort of engineering degree.

[RedIbis]

Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?



Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.

[lapman]

You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?You're here because?

I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.
Except that only those with rational minds do buy into the "Truth Movements" lies and deceptions like the completely unsupported claim that WTC 7 was demolished purposely and silently for no reason what-so-ever.

How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?
Because we think rationally and look at the entire body of evidence and not just a 6 second clip that doesn't show the entire collapse.

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.Here's a challenge for you. Provide just one controlled demolition done before or since 9/11 that:

Has no sound of the explosive sequence recorded.
Has the roof structures collapse into the building seconds prior to the rest of the building
Carried out by the fire department
Had the explosives installed in a short period of time while the building was on fire.

[WildCat]

Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.
Will any of these people slapping their knees happen to be experts in structures, or just the uneducated kids in the truth movement along with the hucksters selling them the snake oil?

[SDC]

Red I., that isn't what it says in the Dec 06 summary. Could you provide a source for your comment?

ETA: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

[funk de fino]

Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.

That is not the current working hypothesis Red.

[papasmurf]

I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

[SDC]

Papasmurf, have you done anything except looked at video? Have you read anything? (Has Stevens sunk so low?)

ETA: check the NIST link I posted.

[~enigma~]

I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.You were asked this direct question...
Can you please direct me to the psychological tests that show beyond any doubt that there are any rational people that think WTC 7 was a CD cause I never saw one. IOW, anecdotal evidence makes me think your claim is a bunch of baloney.
Until you provide an answer there are NO rational people that question the collapse of WTC and think it was a CD (or a death ray ala wood's idiocy). Just because you go to a good school does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that you are rational.

[WildCat]

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...
Yes, your "theory" (whatever it is) will require some actual evidence. Got any?


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.
Because you're the one trying to overturn the dominant paradigm. And no, you can't use your lack of evidence as proof there is a coverup of said evidence.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.
Because fires and damage fit all the evidence. There is no evidence at all of bombs, space beam weapons, thermite, thermate, or whatever it is you think happened.

[~enigma~]

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...
You really are getting two engineering degrees yet you have the sheer audacity to say your questioning the official story yet you have a theory? When was your theory scientifically tested you fraud?

[papasmurf]

You really are getting two engineering degrees yet you have the sheer audacity to say your questioning the official story yet you have a theory? When was your theory scientifically tested you fraud?

I don't have my own theory, . That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your [edit=prewitt81]Indecent remark removed. of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.

Name calling is not civil. Civility is in your Membership Agreement. Thank you.

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.


Would it be fine if I asked you on what basis you have made your assertion that fire could not have brought down WTC 7 as well as examples you refer to to substantiate your claims? It'll help me determine how to respond to your criticisms of the 'official', as you and others have coined it, conclusion...

[~enigma~]

I don't have my own theory, [edited]. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.First off. did you read the MA when you signed up? I highly doubt that you did and your incivility has been reported as such and since you are being a liar (since you claimed to have a theory) and you are an uncivil piece of trash....you just got yourself the award for fastest member to join and find itself on my ignore list. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

[SDC]

I don't have my own theory, ass. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.

Papasmurf, you seem to be new here. Please read the rules. Also, name-calling is a poor idea. This site is not populated by 20 year olds.

[prewitt81]

A general warning has been given to all participants in post #177.

ETA: Apparently, I've cross-modded with LibraryLady. The warning to avoid name-calling is for all participants.

[beachnut]

I don't have my own theory, ass. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.
WE can't attack your posts, you have nothing to attack, you are ignorant on physics, fire, firefighting, the art of observation, logical thinking, and many other fields. You have no idea about WTC since you failed to use the past 6 years to gain knowledge. It takes hours or days to read the material and understand it, but you come and attack others who have done the work and can see clearly WTC7 failed due to damage from the towers and FIRE!

You failed to read posts with fact and testimony. In a few posts you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt what pure ignorance on WTC7 IS.

Do you lack the time to correct your vast ignorance on this topic? Did you miss the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 seconds before the FAÇADE fell? Can you explain how many columns supported the overall structure of WTC7?

Do you know who built WTC7?

If you can't answer the simple questions, why are you even here?

Welcome to the sub forum, too bad you failed to bring facts and evidence to prove your theory, which you do not have! Great!

Welcome, great posts, you revealed all your know about WTC7 concisely and without hesitation.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction) Start here, this is common knowledge here, too bad you can't debunk the truth. Try to take time to learn why the level of abstraction here is too high for you and I to understand.
I don't ask you to believe, I ask you to think! Stop being a follower, and think for yourself, I do not believe the stuff I read, I research WTC7 and learn how to understand it. Trust no one, they have to earn your trust; you have blindly trusted your ideas, and it appears lots of hearsay on WTC7, and failed to gather the knowledge to make a rational conclusion.

[papasmurf]

Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.

Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd. We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint, with minimal collateral damage to other buildings. Now, wouldn't the fact that only a single collumn needed to be taken out for this to occur be of concern to demolition companies, who spend thousands of dollars and hours planning a demolition that requires a certain amount and configuration of explosives to do the job?

This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!

Is that enough for you to see where i am coming from? Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?

[papasmurf]

Papasmurf, you seem to be new here. Please read the rules. Also, name-calling is a poor idea. This site is not populated by 20 year olds.

I was undeservedly called a fraud, and i countered by calling him an ass. Excuse me for defending myself.

[A W Smith]

Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.

Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd. We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint, with minimal collateral damage to other buildings. Now, wouldn't the fact that only a single collumn needed to be taken out for this to occur be of concern to demolition companies, who spend thousands of dollars and hours planning a demolition that requires a certain amount and configuration of explosives to do the job?

This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!

Is that enough for you to see where i am coming from? Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?

Yes I see where you are coming from. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Highligted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

[papasmurf]

[QUOTE=beachnut;3897459]WE can't attack your posts, you have nothing to attack, you are ignorant on physics, fire, firefighting, the art of observation, logical thinking, and many other fields. You have no idea about WTC since you failed to use the past 6 years to gain knowledge. It takes hours or days to read the material and understand it, but you come and attack others who have done the work and can see clearly WTC7 failed due to damage from the towers and FIRE!

You failed to read posts with fact and testimony. In a few posts you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt what pure ignorance on WTC7 IS.

Do you lack the time to correct your vast ignorance on this topic? Did you miss the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 seconds before the FAÇADE fell? Can you explain how many columns supported the overall structure of WTC7?

Do you know who built WTC7?

If you can't answer the simple questions, why are you even here?

Welcome to the sub forum, too bad you failed to bring facts and evidence to prove your theory, which you do not have! Great!

Welcome, great posts, you revealed all your know about WTC7 concisely and without hesitation. "

Please spare me the insults, unlike you, i didn't come on here to reaffirm my own abilities or intelligence.

Those are very cheap shots you took and do nothing to prove a point. You have no idea of what i know on physics, nor how much research i have done. I assure you that you are wrong on every accusation you made about me.

Please don't waste your time on personal attacks, i promise you they don't have any effect on me whatsoever.

[~enigma~]

We do know what the blue guy due know about english though...Anybody remember our old english major old school?

[johnny karate]

papasmurf, allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your dazzling display of intellect and the calm, reasonable way in which you present your arguments. It's so very refreshing.

A couple of points that may have escaped your attention while you were busy a Super Genius School getting your degrees in I'm Smarter Than All of You:

1) WTC7 did not collapse due to fire alone. WTC7 was struck by falling debris from a 110-story skyscraper. The structural damage caused by this phenomenon and the subsequent fires combined to cause its collapse.

2) The people whom you would describe as not having "a single shred of intelligence" include the following:

The FDNY - including firefighters that were on the scene and witnessed the debris damage, fires, and subsequent collapse with their own eyes.

The overwhelming majority of the worldwide structural engineering community.

Every MSM outlet on the planet.

Every law enforcement agency on the planet.

Every type of official investigative body on the planet.

None of these people have questioned the official version of events. THe FDNY in particular is on record rejecting a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Can you please explain to me why I should believe the baseless rantings of an anonymous Internet poster over all of them?

[papasmurf]

Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it. Providing a link to a wikipedia article is cheap and lazy.

Do you realize how pathetic you people are? Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth? Do you not have your own lack of imagination?

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?

[SDC]

You are not speaking as someone with any knowledge of engineering. You are speaking in the same fashion as someone who thinks video viewing is serious research.

Please try. Make a serious effort and you may be taken seriously.

And with regard to your post#184, I am the parent of a teenager. I recognize the style of response completely: "Nyah nyah he hit me first." It's no more justified now, in this envirnoment, than when it is said by a 6 year old on the playground.

[papasmurf]

We do know what the blue guy due know about english though...Anybody remember our old english major old school?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA

Good one!

Touchdown Enigma!

[A W Smith]

Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it. Providing a link to a wikipedia article is cheap and lazy. The highliged text of your post i quoted proves it, deal with it

Do you realize how pathetic you people are? Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth? Do you not have your own lack of imagination?
another logical fallacy. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?

Are you studying theater or engineering? Lets see some math kid.

[papasmurf]

OHHHHH MANNNNNNNNNN.....

Mr. Smith,
I asked you for some math, DUDE. FIRST.

Stop the ********. I explained my views and all you can do is plug your ears and cry like a baby. Content in violation of above moderator warning removed. answer my concerns about the fire.

You can't. All you can do is attack my argument by putting up links to wikipedia. I feel very sorry for you.


Btw you think some damage to the exterior of the building from debris adds anything to your argument, prove it.

PROVE IT.

papasmurf, this is the second time you have been warned for name-calling. Continuing to ignore moderator warnings will result in suspension.

[papasmurf]

Let's see if we can get to 200 posts on this thread without a single post explaining a single rational thought as to how wtc 7 collapsed from fire.

[WildCat]

Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it.
Explain the relationship between WTC 7 and a Con Ed substation, and how this affected the construction of WTC 7.

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
Yes, it is unimagineable how demo charges cause a kink in the building hours before collapse. Likewise, how the penthouse collapsed into the building before the rest of the building came down. It's unimagineable that the FDNY decided to plant demo charges in a building that was on fire. It's unimagineable that the FDNY was wrong when they described the extent of the fires, and the damage to the building. It's unimagineable that there were explosive charges strong enough to bring down the building but couldn't be heard or recorded by the many video cameras recording the event.

And finally, it's unimagineable that you, who claims to be an engineering student, is basing his opinion on a few seconds of video footage.

[SDC]

Papasmurf, this site is for discussion, not for obscenity and abuse. You can find that elsewhere, I expect.

From the level of your comments I find it very hard to believe you actually have any engineering qualifications. The burden is on you to prove that the "official explanation" is incorrect or inadequate. Please proceed to deal with that burden.

[HyJinX]

Let's see if we can get to 200 posts on this thread without a single post explaining a single rational thought as to how wtc 7 collapsed from fire.

Let's see if we can get one post from papasmurf that contains evidence to the contrary. You know...proof and stuff.

[papasmurf]

Explain the relationship between WTC 7 and a Con Ed substation, and how this affected the construction of WTC 7.


Yes, it is unimagineable how demo charges cause a kink in the building hours before collapse. Likewise, how the penthouse collapsed into the building before the rest of the building came down. It's unimagineable that the FDNY decided to plant demo charges in a building that was on fire. It's unimagineable that the FDNY was wrong when they described the extent of the fires, and the damage to the building. It's unimagineable that there were explosive charges strong enough to bring down the building but couldn't be heard or recorded by the many video cameras recording the event.

And finally, it's unimagineable that you, who claims to be an engineering student, is basing his opinion on a few seconds of video footage.


Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.

[SDC]

You show no signs of having done any preparation whatsoever. It is easy to find information. Go to the NIST site. Go to the Pop Mechanics volume for easy explanations. Use the search function on this site for prior discussions.

[papasmurf]

Still can't answer my questions? Anyone?

Please, at least ...try...

Pretty please?

[A W Smith]

demolition charges and det cord wont survive a building fully involved in fire (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

[CurtC]

Btw you think some damage to the exterior of the building from debris adds anything to your argument, prove it.

PROVE IT.

You've misplaced the burden of proof. As it stands now, the entire world, with the exception of a handful of what are apparently punks on the intertubes, has the impression that fires and damage caused WTC7 to collapse.

We don't need to prove anything - with no further action, our side prevails!

On the other hand, if you want to show how WTC7 could not have fallen due to fires and damage from WTC1, then that task is up to you.

[SDC]

This is hopeless. He/ she won't even do any research or reading. Oh, Stevens Tech, how sad.

[WildCat]

Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?
So we won't hear anything about Silverstein and "pull it" from you, yes?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.
What about the Con Ed substation papasmurf? You know all about it, don't you?

[papasmurf]

You show no signs of having done any preparation whatsoever. It is easy to find information. Go to the NIST site. Go to the Pop Mechanics volume for easy explanations. Use the search function on this site for prior discussions.

Wait a minute...

Let me get this straight...

You just tried to attack my qualifications personally on my engineering studies and my level of preparation... but... you just posted Popular mechanics as a source of information...

Okay, we're just going to pretend you didn't say that. I know you like your "easy explanations" so that you can get on with your life...

But that doesn't fly in the real world of science.

[beachnut]

Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.

You read that wrong, you failed to grasp the meaning and have made up a lie. The part did not say collapse was highly improbable, try again. Try quoting things right! You may learn how to understand what the quote really means is not what you think it is.

Changing meaning is not good.

Fire it destroys steel strength, see, and this fire was fought, WTC7 WAS NOT FOUGHT.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
Fire makes steel fail, quickly. This fire was fought! But…



Firefighting Operations Suspended
All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730. After evacuating the building, portable master streams directed at the fire building from several exposures, including the Girard Building #l and One Centre Plaza, across the street to the west were the only firefighting efforts left in place.
Page 17

What was different in WTC7.


Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Lack of knowledge, false information, and lies are the standard characteristics of 9/11 truth. I expect people would study 9/11 before picking the losing side.

[A W Smith]

witnesses testimony of damage to building seven
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

[papasmurf]

So we won't hear anything about Silverstein and "pull it" from you, yes?


What about the Con Ed substation papasmurf? You know all about it, don't you?

Quit trying to shift the focus to me, i came here to see what you know, which is turning out to be nothing.

Answer my questions. I told you my views on the matter, now attempt to address them.

[SDC]

Wait a minute...

Let me get this straight...

You just tried to attack my qualifications personally on my engineering studies and my level of preparation... but... you just posted Popular mechanics as a source of information...

Okay, we're just going to pretend you didn't say that. I know you like your "easy explanations" so that you can get on with your life...

But that doesn't fly in the real world of science.

I'm trying to be polite but it doesn't look like you plan to reciprocate.

You have shown no signs of having an engineering education. Popular Mechanics is just what it claims to be, on the other hand. I regard it as an entirely respectable publication. I wish you would show some signs of being able to function at a similar respectable level.

[A W Smith]

3HLDgjYuRHk

[WildCat]

This is hopeless. He/ she won't even do any research or reading. Oh, Stevens Tech, how sad.
Hey, until one of these guys (http://www.stevens.edu/ses/ceoe/People/ceoe_faculty.php) supports this nonsense Stevens is OK. Don't judge a school by it's most ignorant student.

None of those guys supports the OMGINSIDEJOB!!!1!!!1 theory, do they papasmurf? Are they stupid, or in on it?

[HyJinX]

Quit trying to shift the focus to me, i came here to see what you know, which is turning out to be nothing.

Answer my questions. I told you my views on the matter, now attempt to address them.

Your views are no different than the 100s of other trolls that have received continuous mental smackdowns on this forum. Use the search engine and remove the silly, uneducated chip that resides on your foul-mouthed shoulder if you have a nanoseconds chance of being dealt with respect here.

[SDC]

Hey, until one of these guys (http://www.stevens.edu/ses/ceoe/People/ceoe_faculty.php) supports this nonsense Stevens is OK. Don't judge a school by it's most ignorant student.



OK, OK. How did they do in football against Michigan this year?

[Jonnyclueless]

Still can't answer my questions? Anyone?

Please, at least ...try...

Pretty please?

Oh look! Anther cute little twoofer who keeps pretending that no one is answering his little questions. I think these twoofers must wear some special goggles that prevents them from seeing answers to their questions. Idiot glasses.

BTW kid, still waiting from anyone from your little cult to show a single piece of evidence of a controlled demolition. Heck, I would settle for a demolition company that agrees to WTC 7 being a CD.

As previously directed, stop the name-calling.

[WildCat]

Quit trying to shift the focus to me, i came here to see what you know, which is turning out to be nothing.
Look kiddo, you said:

Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

And you don't even know about the Con Ed substation and how this affected the construction of WTC 7?

And you don't think you should even be asked about it? :boggled:

[papasmurf]

Ahhhh.... Geeze. You think i'm here to get your respect? I don't want your respect. Here is what i gathered from your remarks so far.

1. The burden of proof is on me. The official story doesn't need proof because as long as most people believe it, that is good enough.

2. Popular mechanics is a respectable article. I can't believe this idea is held by anyone here. Even when i did believe the official theory a few months ago, i despised this article for its ad hominem attacks and misinformation. It even goes as far as to use the proven-wrong pancake theory of collapse among other fallacies.

3. Somehow, subjective accounts of damage are enough to convince you people of reason to believe a building collapsed by fire and debris.

4. You are unable to address my concerns as to how fire damage explained by NIST resulted in the simultaneous and uniform failure of the entire structure.

5. You think there are no scholars or experts against the official theory and anyone who disagrees is an uneducated moron.


6. Sigh...

[papasmurf]

OK, OK. How did they do in football against Michigan this year?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

SDC made another funny!

[Jwheelz]

Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth?

Pot - Kettle - Black

Do you not have your own lack of imagination?

That is the problem with truthers. You are so busy *imagining* what might have happened that you clearly can't see what *did* happen.

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?

I would think that a person in your position would understand why they use fire protection on steel framed buildings in the first place.

I also seriously question any engineer who thinks a video of a collapse explains everything. You would think that an engineer would be interested in what was going on *inside* the building...

Have you researched the damage to the building?

Have you researched the fires in building 7?

Do you even care that real engineers have researched those things with many more resources than the truth movement could ever come up with, and found that the building could have collapsed from the damage and fires?

[WildCat]

Hey, until one of these guys (http://www.stevens.edu/ses/ceoe/People/ceoe_faculty.php) supports this nonsense Stevens is OK. Don't judge a school by it's most ignorant student.

None of those guys supports the OMGINSIDEJOB!!!1!!!1 theory, do they papasmurf? Are they stupid, or in on it?
papasmurf, are the entire faculty of the engineering department in your school too stupid to see that WTC 7 was a CD? Or are they in on it?

eta: and about that Con Ed substation, do you know anything about it?

[SDC]

It's seems most probable that he/ she isn't an engineering student, faculty member, or research staff. Just a troll, masquerading under the name of a reputable institution. And certainly adding nothing to the discussion here.

How pointless. How silly. What a waste.

[ElMondoHummus]

There is no evidence that explosives demolitions were used in at 7 World Trade. Recovered steel shows no signs of such use. No sounds of demolitions were recorded. Fire personnel agree that the building showed signs of collapse.

The following links contain information central to understanding what is currently known about that collapse:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtc7engineeringpapers%2Ccollapsehypotheses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Now, regarding the "single column failure" theory: As best as I understand things, that was proposed by NIST in 2004, and explained by Gilsanz and Ng in 2007.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf


The video, photographic, and first-person account evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 suggests that the impact of debris and resulting fire contributed to the collapse through the weakening of key structural components. The sequence of collapse, most notably the observed behavior of the penthouses, points to several key columns as the first to fail. The failure of column 79 was pivotal in the subsequent global collapse. As shown in the computerized non-linear structural model, its failure initiated the vertical collapse progression. WTC 7's properties of load transfer at floors 5 and 7, when combined with the failure of column 79, led to a horizontal collapse progression, which in turn ultimately resulted in global collapse.


So in response to the post challenging this hypothesis:
Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.


It's a bit more complicated than simply a "critical beam failing". Again:


WTC 7's properties of load transfer at floors 5 and 7, when combined with the failure of column 79, led to a horizontal collapse progression, which in turn ultimately resulted in global collapse.


The way the building handled the load distribution imposed by the discontinuous columns played a part. Plus, if you read the article, the hypothesis is that multiple columns on the east side failed; the significance of column 79 is because the modeling shows that it's the point where global collapse became inevitable; failures beforehand apparently shouldn't have been any more than local.


If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.


First of all, the hypothesis is not that only one piece failed. It says that 6 columns failed; it just so happens that one of them was the failure that doomed the rest of the building.

Also: The forces were indeed distributed unevenly. Columns on one side of the building failed; ergo, forces are no longer balanced or "even". I'll let one of the engineers or architects here expound further on that, but simple common sense tells you that when failures to some supports occur, others are stressed relative to their position to the failures.

The distribution of stress is evidenced by the kink in the east penthouse roof, followed by the sinking of the other penthouse, and then the development of a kink in the facade of the building. These stresses progressed from one side of the building to another.

And: It was a non-uniform collapse. The progression of failure went from lower floors up the east side, through to the west, and only then became global. The fact that the debris pile was more or less contained doesn't mean that the collapse was symmetric or uniform at all.


Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.


To the first question: Who knows? The point of the single column failure hypothesis is that unique features of the building led to a collapse. As to the second question: Doubt is fine, but it's not an answer. The engineers who've elucidated the single column hypothesis have in fact studied the original design to identify why the collapse progressed as it did. Whether the designers of the building agree or disagree is irrelevant to the discussion. The important part is whether the hypothesis properly explains observations and makes predictions that can be studied. So far, the hypothesis explains the collapse sequence.

If you have any more doubts about the single column theory, then by all means, post them. It may be that the hypothesis is indeed flawed; after all, it's only a proposed model of the collapse, not the final word. I don't know what NIST's ultimate findings will be, and they may depart radically from this thesis. But if you do posts these doubts, I would ask that you actually study the basics of that hypothesis first; your post betrays the fact that you haven't looked into the details of the model you seek to falsify.

[Grizzly Bear]

Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred.

The building was constructed on top of a substation located in the lower floors. The upper 40 stories were supported by three vertical trusses that extended in the core up to the 7th floor. The remainder was cantilevered and transferred loads to the main truss system from the upper floors. Columns inside the tower held unusually large spans, often in the range of 2000 sq ft of floor space per column

Please keep in mind that this was not the traditional post and beam design used in WTC 5, & 6....


We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse
Very fast? The entire collapse from start to finish; the collapse of the east penthouse to the completion of the global collapse, took 18 seconds. This is a common misconception that people assert about the collapse time.

As for symmetrical... it collapsed to the south and east, leaned debris against the verizon building, and severely damaged 30 west broadway. What is your definition of symmetrical here? Lest not forget the failure was interior.

that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.
Progressive collapses do not necessitate multiple simultaneous failure. It's a domino effect of individual failures that collectively lead to global collapse.


If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

(Bolded): Dependent on where the failure takes place. A critical failure inside the building may not lead to uneven tilting. You also need to study the construction. As for the red, the building did provide resistance, 6 hours worth after being ignited and stuck by a nearby collapsing tower. It provided 8 seconds worth of resistance following an internal structural failure of the east penthouse. To make such a claim based on the last 6 seconds of the collapse is disengenuous.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed?
Is there another building constructed quite like WTC 7, clearly not. If you want to convince somone otherwise, it needs to be an apples and apples comparison.


Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion?

As long as they know the design. We know several things about WTC 7 that were unique to it:

Columns supported unusually large floor spans (2,000 sq ft)

Three vertical trusses supported the upper 40 floors above floor 7, all structural members from above that point were cantilevered, and transferred floor and service loads to the trusses.


Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd.
ALL is aan overtatement unfortunately. To determine the method of collapse based entirely on appearance isn't by any standard a way to validate a controlled demo theory.

We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint,
Remember the difference between WTC 7 and the collapse of the other two towers? The twin towers were top down, and resulted in massive amounts of debris impact damage to multiple structures. WTC 7's collapse initiation occured nearer to the bottom resulting in a vastly different debris distribution. Collateral damage would not be nearly as wide spread.


with minimal collateral damage to other buildings.
In part for the verizon building this can be accredited to it's post and beam design, which more efficiently redistributed loads from members which were compromised. It also did not catch fire. 30 west broadway (Fitterman hall) on the other hand is a different story, the collapse of WTC 7 rendered the structure uninhabitable, and to this date is still being deconstructed.

Please explain the lack of loud explosions that are distinctive of controlled demolition, also while you're at it, explain why seismic readings never picked up such explosions...



This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!
Study the construction of WTC 7 and you will realize that the principals you are applying do not accurately paint the picture for it.


Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?

As has been stated before, it was a combination of structural damage and fire that lead to connection failures throughout the towers' interior. Although such buildings are fireproofed, such protection is given a range of on average 3 hours resistance to thermal heating. The fires in WTC 7 burned for much longer than that unfought, with damage to infrastructure that disable other fire suppression systems inside the building.

If you seriously do not believe in that explanation then do some studies for WTC 5, as it suffered similar fire damage to structural steel connections on the interior. In fact, such failure lead to a significant internal structural failure. And it was a protected steel frame.

Since you seem to have not taken such factor into account for WTC 7, I'll emphasize that WTC 5 had a much different construction than WTC 7, and it was much shorter. Such factors affect collapse vulnerability

[papasmurf]

THANK YOU ELMONDOHUMMUS FOR BEING THE ONLY PERSON HERE TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

All of you take notes on his post. It is the way a debate SHOULD be. He took my concerns, and addressed them. Now i have something to look into, rather than arguing with SDC about whether or not i am really an engineering student or not...

[A W Smith]

THANK YOU ELMONDOHUMMUS FOR BEING THE ONLY PERSON HERE TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

All of you take notes on his post. It is the way a debate SHOULD be. He took my concerns, and addressed them. Now i have something to look into, rather than arguing with SDC about whether or not i am really an engineering student or not...

I had linked to some of that in several posts but you did not bother to follow the links. the resource is in my sig. another point to consider is that the building had 360 degrees of X bracing on the exterior columns on some levels which caused the collapse to appear uniform

[ElMondoHummus]

THANK YOU ELMONDOHUMMUS FOR BEING THE ONLY PERSON HERE TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

All of you take notes on his post. It is the way a debate SHOULD be. He took my concerns, and addressed them. Now i have something to look into, rather than arguing with SDC about whether or not i am really an engineering student or not...

Papasmurf, to be blunt, you brought the reaction you received upon yourself. Next time, do not come new into a forum and fire insults without expecting some to be fired back. What you got was what you dished out first, and it was no more than simple balance.

If you wish to debate rationally, then post rationally. This:
You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?

I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.

How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.

... this
Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

... and this:

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your Indecent remark removed. of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.


... are NOT examples of civilized behavior. You are the one who needs to take notes from my example. I will ask that you proceed in a civil fashion from here on out and argue rationally, refrain from insults, and try providing examples for your arguments, rather than just argue from incredulity. If you do not do that, then I will request that the mods consign your posts to AAH and put you on ignore.

[papasmurf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k

here you can hear a huge explosion in wtc 7 (this is after the first 2 collapsed). It could be possible that they gradually crippled the building until the final global collapse of the building. By the way you talk about the building collapse taking 13 seconds or whatever, but if you actually start timing the global collapse- when the entire structure from top to bottom begins to fall, it does so in a period of 6 to 7 seconds. This is indisputable. It doesn't matter if the initial collapse involved a creeping of the penthouse; for a period of time, the building fell at near free fall speed.

[papasmurf]

I don't need to have my manners corrected by anyone here. I care less if you guys shut me out, it would just prove what cowards you were. If you read through this thread from beginning to end, you will see it is just a massive Indecent remark removed. of mockery. There is no discussion about why wtc 7 fell. If this is your idea of a debate, i have no interest being here. You people are delusional if you think you can just attack someone's rational concerns without even backing up your own beliefs.

Now, i complimented you on your post that addresses my questions... is there any real need to point out my non-polite responses that were merely defenses to an onslaught of personal attacks?

papasmurf, your actions are under admin review. Stick to the issue and leave the indecency out of it.

[volatile]

Who are "they"?

[Grizzly Bear]

[url]It could be possible that they gradually crippled the building until the final global collapse of the building.

However your assertion is one of speculation.


By the way you talk about the building collapse taking 13 seconds or whatever, but if you actually start timing the global collapse- when the entire structure from top to bottom begins to fall, it does so in a period of 6 to 7 seconds. This is indisputable.
And it blatantly ignores the initiating collapse events, unless you prefer to completely ignore them...

It doesn't matter if the initial collapse involved a creeping of the penthouse;
Actually it does matter... it is the initiating collapse event signifying a critical failure that progressed into a series of larger ones. How you can simply brush it off is quite astounding :\


What in your opinion should the collapse have looked like as a damage induced collapse?

[R.Mackey]

here you can hear a huge explosion in wtc 7 (this is after the first 2 collapsed). It could be possible that they gradually crippled the building until the final global collapse of the building.

"Gradually crippling" is inconsistent with your claims that the structure all failed simultaneously. Therefore, according to you, this scenario should also result in a highly asymmetric collapse.

This is false. Building collapses of this magnitude are expected to be total, and rapid, without exception. See Appendix B of my whitepaper (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey); see also comments in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3629800) (I think around Page 8) where I answer several questions regarding the evolution and failure of WTC 7.

ETA: I was way off -- the WTC 7 specific part of that discussion begins on Page 14, with my first response of interest at Post #539.

[papasmurf]

I find many statements about sound of collapse, the opinions of demolition experts, and the nature of the collapse that contradict what you have said in this analysis:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Thought you might be interested.

Why was WTC 7 never mentioned in the commission report?

Why was it's collapse never again aired on TV after 9/11?

So many unanswered questions....

I can't wait for the NIST report that comes out next month. How about you?

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't need to have my manners corrected by anyone here. I care less if you guys shut me out, it would just prove what cowards you were. If you read through this thread from beginning to end, you will see it is just a massive Indecent remark removed. of mockery. There is no discussion about why wtc 7 fell. If this is your idea of a debate, i have no interest being here. You people are delusional if you think you can just attack someone's rational concerns without even backing up your own beliefs.

Now, i complimented you on your post that addresses my questions... is there any real need to point out my non-polite responses that were merely defenses to an onslaught of personal attacks?


This is the last post I will make regarding your behavior.

You started first. Your first post was insulting and dripping with condescension; subsequent posts since then did not change. You cannot throw the first insult then claim self defense.

Our engineering-trained poster, R.Mackey, has written a post of substance. So have others. I suggest you stick to the issues instead of trying to deflect blame for your behavior,and I sincerely suggest you drop the arrogance. If you have any commentary aobut the flaws of the single-column theory, then please present them. Without insults. And if you can, you should address Mackey's point as well. And Grizzly's. And A W Smith's. Etc.

Stick to substance, please. And end the condescension. You will get healthy debate with far less insults if you do not throw insults yourself.

[SDC]

Papasmurf, at least I am what I purport to be: a librarian and academic historian without a scientific or engineering background. When I read posts, I look for consistency, clarity, literacy, and signs that the poster actually has some idea of what he/ she is talking about. I'm still waiting for that from you. Unfortunately, along with all the other shortcomings of your postings, they are nasty in the extreme.

[A W Smith]

21 posts and suspended, all in 3 1/2 hours

[SDC]

It was a remarkable performance. Even the East German judges would give it an 8 or 9.

[beachnut]

THANK YOU ELMONDOHUMMUS FOR BEING THE ONLY PERSON HERE TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

All of you take notes on his post. It is the way a debate SHOULD be. He took my concerns, and addressed them. Now i have something to look into, rather than arguing with SDC about whether or not i am really an engineering student or not...
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction)

Thanks for showing up prepared to discuss the facts.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction)

You must of missed small tidbits of stuff that can help you.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction)

Spewing ideas, which match verbatim, the hearsay lies of 9/11 truth earns you a badge of stupid ideas on 9/11. When you figure out 9/11 truth is making up lies, and remember thousands of people died on 9/11 due to terrorist, and 9/11 truth is basically blaming me (military), I find their disrespect pathetic and disgusting. Seems like you think it is okay to accuse people of murder and support people who tell lies, 9/11 truth.

After 6 years, you are just finding out people in the truth movement make up lies, and you believe them? There is no need to defend the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth, the people of 9/11 truth may be real nice, their ideas on 9/11 are false. Just like in school, your friends may flunk physics but they are still great people who do not make up lies!

Attack more and present your vast array of facts proving the so called "official story" wrong. Calling failed ideas dumb, is not good, please tell me how to act couth? The majority of posters here, except for 9/11 truth members, read the resources, do their own research before coming to a conclusion. Do you?

If this is you first time looking at 9/11 CTs, if you can figure it out in minutes, you are as good as the best, the Passengers on 93 had minutes, figured out 9/11 and took action. Go ahead try to beat that.

[Björn Toulouse]

Tsk, tsk. Poor guy. Maybe a 24 chill will help. Came in here like gangbusters and this was the opening sentence of his first thread:



You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?



Maybe he will have time to read over the forum and realize that this thread is not the only WTC7 discussion here. I never caught his "argument" that he was demanding to have addressed, only that he did not believe the building fell because of fire but that it was a CD. Why should that be addressed again without any new claim to back it?

[HawksFan]

Apparently because he said so. :con2:

[Kent1]

papasmurf:
Popular mechanics is a respectable article. I can't believe this idea is held by anyone here. Even when i did believe the official theory a few months ago, i despised this article for its ad hominem attacks and misinformation. It even goes as far as to use the proven-wrong pancake theory of collapse among other fallacies."


This is a common error by the truth movement. The Popular Mechanics article was in reference to the collapse (not the initiation). One of the sources used by Popular Mechanics was NIST (Shyam Sunder) the same source that truthers use to "prove" that it was not a pancake collapse. However NIST was making reference to the initiation in the often repeated FAQ.

"Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

It is not an error by any means from Popular Mechanics. Only a lack of understanding from the truth movement of how the collapse started vs how the building behaved as the collapse progressed. We also know there was pancaking as proven by the testimony and pictures showing many floors pancaked/smashed together.

[Stellafane]

Tsk, tsk. Poor guy. Maybe a 24 chill will help...

I kind of doubt it. I suspect he's basically yet another example of a particular breed of Truther, all insults and no evidence, who has no interest whatsoever in engaging in real debate and actually learning anything. The Truther movement just supplies him with an excuse to insult a whole lot of people over the internet.

...I never caught his "argument" that he was demanding to have addressed...

In all seriousness, I don't really think he had one. He just wanted to call people stupid.

...Why should that be addressed again without any new claim to back it?

Again, it's because the goal here isn't about such mundane things as evidence and debate, it's about calling people names because for some reason it makes you feel good. Papasmurf was probably fully aware his stay here was going to be a short one. But who cares? He got to insult a lot of people he knows full well are vastly more educated and qualified than he will ever be, and even if he never comes back here again, he'll get hours of pleasure just rereading this thread and seeing his sarcastic little comments posted here in perpetuity.

[Jonnyclueless]

I find many statements about sound of collapse, the opinions of demolition experts, and the nature of the collapse that contradict what you have said in this analysis:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Thought you might be interested.

Why was WTC 7 never mentioned in the commission report?

Why was it's collapse never again aired on TV after 9/11?

So many unanswered questions....

I can't wait for the NIST report that comes out next month. How about you?

We need a FAQ for this stuff since it gets answered every single day and people don't bother to search. The WTC 7 wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report because the goal of the report was to find out what happened that day and to find ways to prevent it from happening again. So as common sense would dictate, the collapse of WTC7 wasn't really in the scope of the report since it was collateral damage. It wasn't intentionally attacked like the other buildings and instead collapsed as a side effect, just like every single building in the WTC lot was destroyed in the process as well and you won't see the 9/11 commission report on each one. It's not their job and there are proper groups such as NIST to deal with such things.

The collapse of WTC 7 not only is not "not" shown on TV since, It's shown on TV on a regular basis. I see it all the time. Why would you think that it has never been shown on TV again? Is it because that's what some cult tabloid told you? And do you not watch TV at all ever? Clearly that unnswered question of yours is absolutely absurd. Because even if it was true (which is about as legitimate a claim as saying the moon is made of cheese), it would in no way shape or form have any influence on how the building fell.

I am sure there are many MANY silly and absurd questions.

[papasmurf]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.

[lapman]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Really? There was no reason to include 7 since it was not attacked, nor did anybody die. So, why don't you give us your "expert" opinion as to why it should have been included in the 9/11 Commission report.

[Pardalis]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

Keep apologizing for these Islamic fundamentalists who want to bring the world back to the stone age.

[Drudgewire]

The collapse of WTC 7 not only is not "not" shown on TV since, It's shown on TV on a regular basis. I see it all the time. Why would you think that it has never been shown on TV again? Is it because that's what some cult tabloid told you? And do you not watch TV at all ever? Clearly that unnswered question of yours is absolutely absurd. Because even if it was true (which is about as legitimate a claim as saying the moon is made of cheese), it would in no way shape or form have any influence on how the building fell.



There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.


Wow, your comprehension skills are FREAKIN' AWESOME!! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/rock.gif

[DGM]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.
Should we investigate and indite the towers (WTC 1/2) for falling on the building (WTC 7).

[Pardalis]

Should we investigate and indite the towers (WTC 1/2) for falling on the building (WTC 7).

I think it was mostly the north tower.

[DGM]

I think it was mostly the north tower.
Lynch the bastard!!!!!!:D

[Pardalis]

Lynch the bastard!!!!!!:D

I see you're prejudiced against things from the north. :p

[A W Smith]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.


Building seven was a property loss. Nothing more. No one was killed in it. It was collateral damage from the target buildings which were the towers. Did the commission address the Marriott? building six? how about five?