the nanothermite papers/ was wtc 7 due for demo before 911

[daws59]

hi folks, new to this forum but not to the 911 crapspiracy.
I have two questions I need help with:#1 are the two "so called" peer reviewd papers valid science and who reviewd them?
Are there any challenges to jones and co. findings?

#2 was wtc7 due for demo before 911.
thanks for any help:confused:

[Hokulele]

There is quite a bit here on the science behind the nanothermite papers. There are also links in that thread back to the issue with the peer review process, as well as earlier discussions.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

Regarding your second question, I hadn't heard that one before, but maybe someone else can be more helpful. Do you have a link to that claim?

[dtugg]

I have never heard that WTC7 was supposedly due for demolition before 9/11. It is definitely complete BS though.

[daws59]

There is quite a bit here on the science behind the nanothermite papers. There are also links in that thread back to the issue with the peer review process, as well as earlier discussions.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

Regarding your second question, I hadn't heard that one before, but maybe someone else can be more helpful. Do you have a link to that claim?
no I do not. it was part of a long running debate on another site on wtc 7

[ElMondoHummus]

If I remember correctly, the "demolition of WTC 7" myth was one of the side things stated in that whole "asbestos removal would be too expensive" and "Silverstein is losing money" claim.
http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

My guess - and admittedly, it's nothing more than a guess - is that some truthers have conflated the myth about asbestos removal and expense and lept to a conclusion about what Silverstein's plans were for the building. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the guess I'd hazard.

ETA: Ah, yes. Mike W's page goes into more detail. "Demolition" of WTC 7 was supposedly one of the options for how to deal with the asbestos. I really think this is nothing more than an expansion of a single point mentioned in the myth.

[daws59]

I have never heard that WTC7 was supposedly due for demolition before 9/11. It is definitely complete BS though.
bs? why? because the whole wtc7 collapse is a non event when compared to the other event of 911or because the government did it?

[daws59]

If I remember correctly, the "demolition of WTC 7" myth was one of the side things stated in that whole "asbestos removal would be too expensive" and "Silverstein is losing money" claim.
http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

My guess - and admittedly, it's nothing more than a guess - is that some truthers have conflated the myth about asbestos removal and expense and lept to a conclusion about what Silverstein's plans were for the building. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the guess I'd hazard.

ETA: Ah, yes. Mike W's page goes into more detail. "Demolition" of WTC 7 was supposedly one of the options for how to deal with the asbestos. I really think this is nothing more than an expansion of a single point mentioned in the myth.
I would have to agree, the twoofer are famous for jumping to erroneous conclusions.

[newton3376]

bs? why? because the whole wtc7 collapse is a non event when compared to the other event of 911or because the government did it?

I think he means that the information that WTC 7 was scheduled or "due" for demolition is complete nonsense...

dtugg isn't a truther, so he knows that the "gubmint" didn't bring down any buildings on 9-11

[daws59]

I think he means that the information that WTC 7 was scheduled or "due" for demolition is complete nonsense...

dtugg isn't a truther, so he knows that the "gubmint" didn't bring down any buildings on 9-11
thanks, had to ask.

[alienentity]

hi folks, new to this forum but not to the 911 crapspiracy.
I have two questions I need help with:#1 are the two "so called" peer reviewd papers valid science and who reviewd them?
Are there any challenges to jones and co. findings?

#2 was wtc7 due for demo before 911.
thanks for any help:confused:

You've already got the link to the scientific discussion on the paper.

Here's another couple regarding the problems that Bentham has had with the quality control process:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4806445#post4806445

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4662060#post4662060


As to the second question, Larry Silverstein decided on 9/11 to have the FDNY demolish the building. Firefighters always carry a supply of nanothermite with them, so they immediately carried out the demolition as per his request.

I think they sent the invoice directly to his offices....

Just kidding.

Although, maybe you can ask Tony Szamboti (of the 'Missing link...err Jolt' He claims that Silverstein is on record saying WTC7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3057023#post3057023

He purports to have gotten this quote from a 2004 TV show on the History channel
History's Business, Season 1, Episode 9.

Nobody has been able to confirm the truth of this claim. Of course.


As far as being scheduled for demolition PRIOR to 9/11, how come no tenants had been notified? Isn't that kind of rude to demolish a building while your tenants are still occupying the spaces? The nerve!

[Sam.I.Am]

WTC 7 was built in 1987. There was no reason to demolish it at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Whoever said that it had asbestos is an idiot. Asbestos was never used in WTC 7. The fireproofing was a gypsum based product.

[daws59]

You've already got the link to the scientific discussion on the paper.

Here's another couple regarding the problems that Bentham has had with the quality control process:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4806445#post4806445

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4662060#post4662060


As to the second question, Larry Silverstein decided on 9/11 to have the FDNY demolish the building. Firefighters always carry a supply of nanothermite with them, so they immediately carried out the demolition as per his request.

I think they sent the invoice directly to his offices....

Just kidding.

Although, maybe you can ask Tony Szamboti (of the 'Missing link...err Jolt' He claims that Silverstein is on record saying WTC7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3057023#post3057023

He purports to have gotten this quote from a 2004 TV show on the History channel
History's Business, Season 1, Episode 9.

Nobody has been able to confirm the truth of this claim. Of course.


As far as being scheduled for demolition PRIOR to 9/11, how come no tenants had been notified? Isn't that kind of rude to demolish a building while your tenants are still occupying the spaces? The nerve!
thanks. lol

[ElMondoHummus]

WTC 7 was built in 1987. There was no reason to demolish it at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Whoever said that it had asbestos is an idiot. Asbestos was never used in WTC 7. The fireproofing was a gypsum based product.

It wasn't? Oh... my goodness, I never put two and two together on that topic. I just presumed that since the main towers were noted to have asbestos - and this is very well known, since the EPA even went so far as to monitor asbestos levels post collapse - that 7 World Trade would contain it too. I never took into account the later date of that tower's construction, so I never questioned whether asbestos claims should appy to 7 at all.

Color me embarrased :o. Seems obvious now, but only now after you said this. I never put it together before. As a side note, this illustrates how damn easy to get lost in details. I just accepted the asbestos claim in conjunction with WTC 7 at face value. Put me on the idiot list; I guess I should've known better.

[Sunray Breaker]

Color me embarrased . Seems obvious now, but only now after you said this. I never put it together before. As a side note, this illustrates how damn easy to get lost in details. I just accepted the asbestos claim in conjunction with WTC 7 at face value. Put me on the idiot list; I guess I should've known better.

This is what makes skeptics so much cooler than truthers...Their not afraid to admit they didn't know something and they're willing to hear all sides...

Kudo's brutha...

9/11 TRUTH IS AN INSIDE JOB!!!

[Mr. Skinny]

WTC 7 was built in 1987. There was no reason to demolish it at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Whoever said that it had asbestos is an idiot. Asbestos was never used in WTC 7. The fireproofing was a gypsum based product.
While I believe your statement to be generally correct, I would also suspect that asbestos could be found in some products used in WTC7.

I've found (in post '87 constructed buildings) asbestos in floor tiles, the mastic that is used to adhere the tiles to the floor, some laboratory counter tops, gloves used remove samples from ovens, etc. These items seemed to have slipped through the ban (perhaps mfgrs. were allowed to use up material already produced?). Some were asbestos containing materials moved into new buildings from old buildings.

Anyhow, my point is that some asbestos could potentially be found in the rubble of a building constructed after the general ban on it's use.

[Horatius]

#2 was wtc7 due for demo before 911.
thanks for any help:confused:



This one may be a function of the typical twoofer being so ignorant, they don't even know their own claims.

Previously, it was WTC 1&2 that were "scheduled for demolition". This was attributed to both the aforementioned asbestos problem (despite the fact that asbestos was only used in part of the towers, and was being replaced on a floor-by-floor basis anyways), and to some alleged electrochemical reaction between the aluminum cladding and the steel structure, that supposedly was destroying the structural integrity of the towers.

[daws59]

While I believe your statement to be generally correct, I would also suspect that asbestos could be found in some products used in WTC7.

I've found (in post '87 constructed buildings) asbestos in floor tiles, the mastic that is used to adhere the tiles to the floor, some laboratory counter tops, gloves used remove samples from ovens, etc. These items seemed to have slipped through the ban (perhaps mfgrs. were allowed to use up material already produced?). Some were asbestos containing materials moved into new buildings from old buildings.

Anyhow, my point is that some asbestos could potentially be found in the rubble of a building constructed after the general ban on it's use.
In my years as a stage tech I worked in many theatres that still had asbestos.

[Newtons Bit]

It wasn't? Oh... my goodness, I never put two and two together on that topic. I just presumed that since the main towers were noted to have asbestos - and this is very well known, since the EPA even went so far as to monitor asbestos levels post collapse - that 7 World Trade would contain it too. I never took into account the later date of that tower's construction, so I never questioned whether asbestos claims should appy to 7 at all.

Color me embarrased :o. Seems obvious now, but only now after you said this. I never put it together before. As a side note, this illustrates how damn easy to get lost in details. I just accepted the asbestos claim in conjunction with WTC 7 at face value. Put me on the idiot list; I guess I should've known better.

And if you were a truther, you would modify your conspiracy theory to include that an EPA team (who must have had offices in the WTC complex) had discovered the original contractors used asbestos in the 1987 construction. This would have gotten Silverstein is big trouble, so he had the buildings and the EPA office "eliminated" to hide the evidence of the asbestos crime.

Because, if you're a truther, you're never wrong. Reality must shift.

[daws59]

And if you were a truther, you would modify your conspiracy theory to include that an EPA team (who must have had offices in the WTC complex) had discovered the original contractors used asbestos in the 1987 construction. This would have gotten Silverstein is big trouble, so he had the buildings and the EPA office "eliminated" to hide the evidence of the asbestos crime.

Because, if you're a truther, you're never wrong. Reality must shift.
or could it be that the agents who blew up wtc 1&2 were smoking around the left over nano thermite conveniently stashed in wtc7 that caused it's collapse?
(cue mysterious music)

[Thunder]

#2 was wtc7 due for demo before 911.
thanks for any help:confused:

buildings in NYC with structures nearby are NEVER demolished using explosives.

[16.5]

While I believe your statement to be generally correct, I would also suspect that asbestos could be found in some products used in WTC7.

I've found (in post '87 constructed buildings) asbestos in floor tiles, the mastic that is used to adhere the tiles to the floor, some laboratory counter tops, gloves used remove samples from ovens, etc. These items seemed to have slipped through the ban (perhaps mfgrs. were allowed to use up material already produced?). Some were asbestos containing materials moved into new buildings from old buildings.

Anyhow, my point is that some asbestos could potentially be found in the rubble of a building constructed after the general ban on it's use.

There was not a complete ban, particularly in instances like you cited where the asbestos was not friable and thus was unlikely to become airborne.

[Mr. Skinny]

There was not a complete ban, particularly in instances like you cited where the asbestos was not friable and thus was unlikely to become airborne.
Yeah, I know.

I suppose I was just trying to put too fine of a point on his statement before a truther pointed out that asbestos was found in a post '87 building somewhere, sometime....

[ElMondoHummus]

This is what makes skeptics so much cooler than truthers...Their not afraid to admit they didn't know something and they're willing to hear all sides...

Kudo's brutha...

9/11 TRUTH IS AN INSIDE JOB!!!

Well, thanks for the praise, but I'm not sure I deserve it. I mean, when a fact stares someone in the face, he's gotta accept it, you know? Sure, Mr. Skinny mentioned a perfectly reasonable way for asbestos to get there, but it would be a cop out for me to take that. The fact remains that I had always presumed it was there in 7 the same way it was in the main towers. And that's demonstrably wrong.

I mean, I know conspiracy peddlers set a low bar for acceptable behavior, but still...this is really the heart of the issue. When you're wrong, you're wrong. It's like back in '06 when I (and most others) thought that diesel fueled fires contributed to 7's collapse. I know now that most of the fuel was recovered, and on top of that NIST determined that diesel, quote, "did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7". But I've admitted this since discovering the truth, and I didn't do so in order to get a back slap. I did it because it's just the right thing to do: Accept and go forward. This admission doesn't negate the determination that explosives weren't used, it just means that the particular way we thought the thermal effects occurred did not in fact happen. Accept and move on. But this is what I mean about really being the heart of the issue: What do you accept as part of your narrative? What do you do to reconcile the various elements of the complex story? And when you're wrong, do you understand the impact and extent of how your mistake impacts your narrative?

This is the problem with truthers. They don't properly handle either them or us, or NIST, or anything else about 9/11 being wrong. When you're wrong, it's possible that you are so in a way that negates your entire premise. Or, in the case of the diesel fuel above, you might simply be wrong aobut a point matter that doesn't impact the conclusion. To what extent does your mistake impact the overall narrative? The fact of the matter is, truthers can't even handle mistakes by us, NIST, the government, or anything/anyone else they suspect correctly. They act as though "wrong"="invalidated", hence their repeated referrals to the military's mistakes about the Air National Guard's response. Or to the initial FEMA report about diesel feeding tower 7's fires. Or Quintiere's identification of problems with NIST's research. They proceed under the rule that being wrong about a point matter ruins the whole narrative, and pretend that identifying such mistakes validates their arguments. This leads to absurd and untenable positions like where they trumpet Quintiere shamelessly to score a point about NIST when in fact his objections to their conclusions move even farther away from their proposals. When you accept Quintiere's arguments, you utterly reject the notion of externals contributing to the collapse because his core issue is that NIST underestimates the fire and overestimates the fireproofing's ability to resist. But that detail is lost in their obsession with proving NIST wrong. Sure, they might be. But is his work really what Mr. Truther wants to use to illustrate this? Seeing as how it invalidates the conspiracy stance?

They can't even handle "The Official Story's" mistakes properly.

And then on top of that, they turn around and pooch-screw when they're wrong. Take Greening's latest comments on Steven Jones's thermite research. Jones's response to it was that possibly thermite was simply used to ignite conventional explosives. How in the world can that be proposed when the overwhelmingly obvious effects of explosions - shattered windows for blocks, severe to lethal barotrauma, fragmented steel columns, etc. - are not present? When a truther is shown to be wrong, how often does he run to a "safe harbor" argument in response? How many times, for example, does someone flip between explosives and thermite? Which ignores the fact that both are refuted, often by the exact same pieces of evidence (i.e. the state of the steel column remains refutes both). When "NORAD stood down" gets refuted, how many times do they continue to bring up even more evidence like PNAC? Which not only ignores the fact that the military's response was never interfered with to begin with, but pretends that such interference still occurred? How many times are conspiracy addicts presented with a fundamental fault or cumulative rebuttal, but yet insist on believing that "something" happened? When you take the energy arguments and refute Gordon Ross, when you take the lack of explosions and refute damn near 90% of the truthers, when you take the condition of the steel and refute Steven Jones et. al., when you take the testimony of firefighters and refute the notion that the collapse wasn't obvious, and when you take the evidence showing that there was no opportunity to implant explosives or thermite and definitively refute the power down or negate the "bomb sniffing dogs" argument, how in God's name does someone continue to hold onto the belief that there's still something suspicoius to the narrative? When all the points that made said truther doubt have been demonstrated to not only be wrong, but to add up to a rejection of the fundamental premise?

Truthers cannot handle when they're wrong. They even mishandle it when they admit mistakes.

I'm of the firm opinion that much of the problem is not about what's right. It's about fantasists being unable to handle mistakes, misapprehensions, misunderstandings, and contradictions. They cannot properly handle when they're wrong. And this leads to them continuing to build a mountain of mistakes instead of rectifying them and moving towards proper understanding. And ironically, they point at that mountain as a "where there's heat, there's fire" argument, ignoring the fact that the heat generated is not what they're thinking it's from. When evidence shaking the foundations of Ptomelaic cosmology became evident, it's true that some believers worked hard to keep the theory; look up "epicycles" as an illustration of how far such efforts can go. But others correctly identified the problem and accepted that it's the fundamental underpinning that's in error. This allowed them to move onto heliocentrism, which was a step closer towards proper understanding of the universe.

Where's the equivalent in trutherism? Where's the admission that the fundamental underpinnings are in error, nevermind the energetic debate over the epicyclic details like "North of Citgo", or Steven Jones's papers?

Truthers are not properly handling their mistakes, let alone correctly handling the few times they're right (for example, they did accidentally land on the right side of things to say that diesel fuel didn't affect WTC 7. They did so for the wrong reasons, and in order to lead to the wrong conclusion, but still...). And because they're not allowing their mistakes to illuminate where they should go next, they're not progressing in knowledge. They're reduced to arguing the equivalent of the finer points of epicycles. And really, how much impact does Ptolemaic theory have on cosmology nowadays? That's how much they're affecting the history of 9/11.

[Gravy]

While I believe your statement to be generally correct, I would also suspect that asbestos could be found in some products used in WTC7.

I've found (in post '87 constructed buildings) asbestos in floor tiles, the mastic that is used to adhere the tiles to the floor, some laboratory counter tops, gloves used remove samples from ovens, etc. These items seemed to have slipped through the ban (perhaps mfgrs. were allowed to use up material already produced?). Some were asbestos containing materials moved into new buildings from old buildings.

Anyhow, my point is that some asbestos could potentially be found in the rubble of a building constructed after the general ban on it's use.

Yes, Skinny, but the pre-collapse asbestos content of WTC 7 would have been minimal. WTC 7 was built and owned by Larry Silverstein's company. The towers were built and owned by the PANYNJ, which undertook asbestos removal there because new tenants didn't want asbestos in their office spaces. WTC 7 didn't have any such problem.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was asbestos in the ConEd electrical substation over which WTC 7 was constructed.

Anyway, that's the first time I've heard this nonsensical claim.

[Sam.I.Am]

While I believe your statement to be generally correct, I would also suspect that asbestos could be found in some products used in WTC7.

I've found (in post '87 constructed buildings) asbestos in floor tiles, the mastic that is used to adhere the tiles to the floor, some laboratory counter tops, gloves used remove samples from ovens, etc. These items seemed to have slipped through the ban (perhaps mfgrs. were allowed to use up material already produced?). Some were asbestos containing materials moved into new buildings from old buildings.

Anyhow, my point is that some asbestos could potentially be found in the rubble of a building constructed after the general ban on it's use.

I thought I was being pretty clear that I was talking about the fireproofing that the truthers conflated from 40 floors in tower one and was being abated as the tenants moved out, to all 220 floors in both towers and in WTC-7 hence the need for their destruction. But yes, I have no doubt that you could probably find something that had asbestos as a component inside the building if you looked hard enough.

[~enigma~]

bs? why? because the whole wtc7 collapse is a non event when compared to the other event of 911or because the government did it?
Think for a second (I know it's hard but just try). If WTC 7 was going to be demolished for some unknown reason, does that change what happened on 9/11?

[alienentity]

EMH wrote 'I'm of the firm opinion that much of the problem is not about what's right. It's about fantasists being unable to handle mistakes, misapprehensions, misunderstandings, and contradictions. They cannot properly handle when they're wrong. And this leads to them continuing to build a mountain of mistakes instead of rectifying them and moving towards proper understanding.'

Bingo

But this is of course the folly of having a predetermined outcome for an inquiry. The whole business is fatally polluted by the agenda.

Even when faced with internal inconsistencies in the truther canon, they are loath to abandon the obviously weaker (even really stupid) theories.....tenacity only carries you so far, sometimes it just means you're a stubborn idiot. Don't think they've figured that one out yet...

[Dumb All Over]

Hi daws59,
no I do not. it was part of a long running debate on another site on wtc 7
Which site, if you please?

Thanks,
DAO

[Sunray Breaker]

El Mondo Hummus:
That was a hell of a response...I'll have to get a good ramble going next time to overshadow it and steal your fire.

Now I have to dissect what you wrote and process it.

I'm just so very glad that I'm no longer involved in this movement. I have friends again!!!

[daws59]

Hi daws59,

Which site, if you please?

Thanks,
DAO
the old bill maher site and politcal groove

[daws59]

Think for a second (I know it's hard but just try). If WTC 7 was going to be demolished for some unknown reason, does that change what happened on 9/11?
ahhh.no that was my point in saying wtc7 was a non event.
a quick recap: two of Manhattan's major buildings destroyed, pentagon attacked, Passenger jet goes down in shanksville nearly 4000 dead....in the middle of all that an already evacuated building collapses(due to damage and fire) no casualties...a non event when compared to all that,
the collapse of wtc7 had zero effect on the events of 911..except in the minds of the twoof movement.
it's their holy grail.
guess sarcasm is not your forte ?!

[~enigma~]

ahhh.no that was my point in saying wtc7 was a non event.
a quick recap: two of Manhattan's major buildings destroyed, pentagon attacked, Passenger jet goes down in shanksville nearly 4000 dead....in the middle of all that an already evacuated building collapses(due to damage and fire) no casualties...a non event when compared to all that,
the collapse of wtc7 had zero effect on the events of 911..except in the minds of the twoof movement.
it's their holy grail.
guess sarcasm is not your forte ?!
Nope and neither is the fantasy "truth" that the bowel movement promotes.

[daws59]

Nope and neither is the fantasy "truth" that the bowel movement promotes.
then we're on the same page.

[phunk]

Demolition instead of asbestos removal is silly. Asbestos removal would be a prerequisite to demolition.

[T.A.M.]

Demolition instead of asbestos removal is silly. Asbestos removal would be a prerequisite to demolition.

I remember Pdoh or one of his puppets trying to sneak in with this claim...

"well what if the govt demolished WTC7 because it was a danger to keep it up." in his case, he was trying to state that because of the possibility of collapse and danger to those nearby, that the USG/FDNY etc... had it brought down to avoid this.

Of course, there was no sensible answer when you followed up his premise with,

"If that was the case, which would be legitimate, WHY WOULD THEY KEEP THAT SECRET FOR ALL THESE YEARS!!!"

TAM:)

[alienentity]

El Mondo Hummus:
That was a hell of a response...I'll have to get a good ramble going next time to overshadow it and steal your fire.

Now I have to dissect what you wrote and process it.

I'm just so very glad that I'm no longer involved in this movement. I have friends again!!!

Sunray, I read thru some of your posts, since you mentioned you recently came out of the truth movement. You guys have a unique and valuable perspective which is very difficult for people like me to understand -

Good luck with your projects.

btw, can you elaborate on this comment 'I'm just so very glad that I'm no longer involved in this movement. I have friends again!!!'

[ElMondoHummus]

Demolition instead of asbestos removal is silly. Asbestos removal would be a prerequisite to demolition.

... to a legal demolition (*nudge*, *wink*). ;)
[/truther]