9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers? [Archive] - Page 3

Hellbound

2nd September 2006, 01:02 PM

And you have nothing to prove your debris damage/fire Hypothesis.

Nor is anyone other than T.A.M. willing to say that our military leaders are so stupid that they didn't provide a last line of defence (stinger misels or whatever) to protect the White House, even after the Cesna incident so dramaticly pointed out this vulnerability.

Do you even read the replies people make?

Or have you already started putting people on ignore?

Myself and Darth Rotor both replied, and told you that no, the Pentagon did NOT have AA capabilities.

Among others.

Yet here you admit that you haven't even read the replies that we've taken the time to type.

Yet, you're here for truth. You're hear to ionvestigate. Yo're here to discuss. But you can't spend 45 seconds to read replies to your questions?

Troll.

Architect

2nd September 2006, 01:16 PM

Welcome Architect, to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. From my experience here, all views, yours included, are allowed, but not neccesarily accepted. If you bring up a contentious issue, be prepared for a vigorous debate, and be prepared to have your evidence.

TAM (unofficial welcoming committee):)

S'okay, Bautforum regular and member of that awkward crowd that are qualified to tell the CT brigage they know nothing about (say) structures

Architect

2nd September 2006, 01:20 PM

Is the White House protected? Probably.

How is it protected? Don't know.

Does it have missles? Don't know.

What are the range, tracking, and radar capabilities of any such defences? Don't know.

Are any such defences only in place during times of increased alert? Don't know.

What are the firing protocols, given that Washinton is an inhabited area? Don't know.

See Chris, unless you know the answers to these, your arguments are meaningless. All you've said is (effectively) "I think that there are missiles, and they should be able to protect the Pentagon too".

That's not an argument. It barely counts as a hypothesis.

R.Mackey

2nd September 2006, 02:26 PM

I take this very seriously.
I'm asking a simple question.
Do you believe Washington D.C was defenceless on 911 ? (no anti aircraft misles)
Christopher7, you already know the answer to this, but I'll explain anyway.

You can't put guns or missiles into the center of an urban area, literally seconds away from a major airport, and expect to actually use them. Maybe if you have advance warning, say an hour, along with a good idea of your target's bearing, aspect, speed, and composition.

You would have us believe the Pentagon etc. "must" have had anti-aircraft defenses standing by since 1994. Yet you expect this system to react within, literally, seconds the first time it is tested, with no false alarms. And I'll bet you more than one aircraft accidentally strayed into any useful no-fly zone entirely by accident. As evidence, consider this example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301570_pf.html) of a civilian who breached this zone-of-exclusion, even years after being aware of its existence. There are others. Your claim would have us shoot these planes down.

Ain't going to happen.

So the Pentagon couldn't use active anti-aircraft defenses because it's unrealistic. Does that mean they take no defensive measures?

Wrong. They go to passive defenses. Partly motivated by the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Pentagon Renovation (http://www.contractormag.com/articles/1001/pentagon.html) was done, in part, to do exactly what you claim they must have done, and that is to add defenses. Defenses that have no risk of wiping out civilian aircraft, defenses that are fail-safe, and defenses more in-line with the expected attack mode pre-September 11th.

In summary, the Pentagon wasn't defenseless at all. So what is your complaint, exactly?

valis

2nd September 2006, 02:59 PM

I assume you're referring to UA175's 10,000 feet per minute descent towards New York? 10,000fpm is certainly a very uncomfortable descent for passengers, but not especially so for the aircraft. Bear in mind the limitations of turning and climb/descent for airliners are not for the safety of the aircraft - they are for the comfort of the passengers. Obviously the hijackers on 9/11 weren't overly concerned with passenger comfort.

-Andrew

Not to mention that most of the stress in that situation would occur when you try to bring the aircraft out of the dive. The pilots were planning on ending the dive by crashing into the building. The long term condition of the plane was not an issue to them

valis

2nd September 2006, 03:07 PM

Yes I was.

If what I've done is crazy, then what you do is sick or criminal.

I was trying to stop 9-11 in 1999, but unreasonable ignorant groups of people constantly obfuscated, confused and diffused my efforts.

As far as I can tell the opposition on this board is all on an infiltrated government payroll. Illegal black ops.

Okay I don't post much on this subject but I would be glad to put more effort into it if I could get payed. Could someone PM with details of where to sign up, who to contact etc.? I would really love to get on the gravy train here (no pun intended).

Brainache

2nd September 2006, 04:49 PM

Yeah c'mon Mr Black Ops CIA Guy where's my pay check? I'm on medical benefits how can I pay my rent? The brown envelope full of yankee dollars hasn't shown up yet...

Christopher7

2nd September 2006, 11:22 PM

Chris:

Sorry...LIHOS (Let It Happen Out of Stupidity)...LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence)...

Thanx
If you believe that it happened out of stupidity or incompetence then do you think the stupid/incompetents should be fired and perhaps tried for criminal neglence ?

Gravy

2nd September 2006, 11:31 PM

Thanx
If you believe that it happened out of stupidity or incompetence then do you think the stupid/incompetents should be fired and perhaps tried for criminal neglence ?
I think you mean "negligence." Do you believe it's a crime to be stupid or incompetent?

Christopher7

3rd September 2006, 02:31 AM

[quote=Huntsman;1892683]Do you even read the replies people make?

Or have you already started putting people on ignore?

Myself and Darth Rotor both replied, and told you that no, the Pentagon did NOT have AA capabilities.

Among others.

Yet here you admit that you haven't even read the replies that we've taken the time to type.

Yet, you're here for truth. You're hear to ionvestigate. Yo're here to discuss. But you can't spend 45 seconds to read replies to your questions?

Apology time: I try to read every post and click on every link (that's where most of the info. is) but i do skim sometimes because there's so much.
I just went back and re-read pg 11 and you are right, several people did respond to the AA question.
Gravy: RE-read your Richard Clark post. Point well taken. I'm going to look into this.
Huntsman: You made a very good point about the upper I beam acting as a lever. As to the 'straight line' 2/3 of it is straight and it's possible that the uneven part of it is stuff tha fell on top of it. The question still remains, can tearing steel create enough heat to cause the blue discouoration?
I have done a lot of research, mostly on CT sites. Until i came here the few debunk sites i had read were BS.
By forwarding my beliefs here and getting feedback i have learned some things and plan on continuing to do so.
You have probably noticed that i ignore the insults and respond to that which has value because i am here to debate and learn what the 'other side' has to say.

Christopher7

3rd September 2006, 02:33 AM

I think you mean "negligence." Do you believe it's a crime to be stupid or incompetent?

When 3,000 people die as a result........YES

Gravy

3rd September 2006, 04:09 AM

When 3,000 people die as a result........YES
Who do you think should be prosecuted for negligence, and why?

Belz...

3rd September 2006, 05:29 AM

Read my post again. I adderssed that question.

Do you believe our military leaders are so stupid as to not have a last line of defence?

I believe they're not so stupid as to put anti-aircraft batteries near a civilian airport.

Belz...

3rd September 2006, 05:39 AM

When 3,000 people die as a result........YES

Personally, I'm not sure we could call what happened on the US government's part incompetence. Negligence ? Perhaps. But one admit that the kind of attack the US suffered on 9/11 was unprecedented.

T.A.M.

3rd September 2006, 05:48 AM

Thanx
If you believe that it happened out of stupidity or incompetence then do you think the stupid/incompetents should be fired and perhaps tried for criminal neglence ?

If we the people had to prosecute and/or convict every governement official who was stupid or incompetent, throughout modern history...well lets just say we could watch it daily on court TV...

TAM

60hzxtl

3rd September 2006, 06:10 AM

If we the people had to prosecute and/or convict every governement official who was stupid or incompetent, throughout modern history...well lets just say we could watch it daily on court TV...

TAM

It would have to be on 2 channels, - there's only 24 hours in a day.

tsig

3rd September 2006, 06:58 AM

I guess he's never seen a shear load on a piece of steel cut it like butter. Guess he's never had to work with his hands, and over torque a bolt's head with a torque wrench, and shear the head right off. :p

I guess he has never used bolt cutters.

DR

Yes.

Architect

3rd September 2006, 07:07 AM

When 3,000 people die as a result........YES

Then do feel free to put your money where your mouth is, and launch a private prosocution....

Pardalis

3rd September 2006, 10:53 AM

Thanx
If you believe that it happened out of stupidity or incompetence then do you think the stupid/incompetents should be fired and perhaps tried for criminal neglence ?

Then the American voters who put them in office should be charged as well don't you think?

Pardalis

3rd September 2006, 11:00 AM

i am here to debate and learn what the 'other side' has to say.

So if you are here to debate and learn, why don't you stick with the OP and debate the controlled demolition theory, which we still haven't finished debating.

Christopher7

3rd September 2006, 11:29 AM

Who do you think should be prosecuted for negligence, and why?

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.
I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.
I can appreciate your dificulty in understanding my position and i don't think less of you for your beliefs.
We can debate all the diffrent points like the cut/broken beams ad nasium and where neither of us will sway the other on the basic issue, although i have had to rethink and alter my position on some things because of what i have learned in our discussions.

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen, and used it to further their quest to control the worlds oil supply.
I know that this is an extreamly serious charge and i woulden't make it if i were not certain. After doing a lot of reading and debating i'm convinced this is the case.
It's incredibly hard to believe that something like this could happen here, in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

I am here debating because this issue will be debated nationally soon and if i'm going to stick my foot in my mouth i'd rather do it here and now so i can get my position absolutely straight for when it really counts.

This the most serious issue any of us will ever face and it's imperative we get it right.

Architect

3rd September 2006, 11:30 AM

Chris,

Is English your first language? Seriously? Because I'm having trouble following some of what you say, and wonder if it's a translation issue.

Architect

tsig

3rd September 2006, 11:39 AM

YES

I've read Gravy's posts. Not Proof.

You still won't answer the question: Do you think D.C had no anti aircraft misels?

T.A.M. LIHOS/LIHOI ?

I've got to go to work now. Be back later.

I know that D. C. had no misels because I scouted it for the mission. Allah Akbar

PN

Pardalis

3rd September 2006, 11:39 AM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.

No it doesn't. There are multiple witnesses and video that show how the WTC7 building was extremely damaged (do you want me to post Gravy's post again?).

By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition.

Respectfully, you don't know a thing about controlled demolitions, neither do I. Controlled demolition experts have said that the idea of a CD is ludicrous.

That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

That's because you have a confirmation bias, a genuine distrust in your government, at least the Bush administration. You have to be able to free yourself of this bias and see things objectively. Your distrust in Bush is understandable, even merited, but you need to come back to reality and find another democratic way to protest his policies.

I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg

I can appreciate your dificulty in understanding my position and i don't think less of you for your beliefs.

These aren't beliefs, these are observations based on facts and evidence.

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen, and used it to further their quest to control the worlds oil supply.
I know that this is an extreamly serious charge and i woulden't make it if i were not certain. After doing a lot of reading and debating i'm convinced this is the case.

emphasis mine.

Wrong. What you have is a belief based on a confirmation bias. And this belief was accentuated by your reading flawed and ultra-biased sources and conspiracy theory sites.

It's incredibly hard to believe that something like this could happen here, in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

emphasis mine.

Don't you see that you show the same behaviour as a converted cult person?

This the most serious issue any of us will ever face and it's imperative we get it right.

Amen to that.

R.Mackey

3rd September 2006, 11:40 AM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.
I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.
I can appreciate your dificulty in understanding my position and i don't think less of you for your beliefs.
This isn't an issue of belief. Firefighters on the scene knew, for hours, that it was going to fall. They could see the damage. The actual mechanics of collapse are more complicated than you claim, and are consistent with the story on the ground.

Your "belief" is, in reality, nothing more than a "belief" that you, watching the collapse remotely on TV from some unknown, sub-optimal angle, are more qualified to understand the collapse than people on scene who handled the situation up close and personal.

That's not belief, that's arrogant, willful ignorance.

tsig

3rd September 2006, 11:54 AM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew ...... in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

this the most serious issue any of us will ever face and it's imperative we get it right.

Did you see it then, or on the History channel?

Woody-

3rd September 2006, 11:57 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=belief

be‧lief

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Nope, nothing about evidence and facts in there.

T.A.M.

3rd September 2006, 12:08 PM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

I have to agree with the others here Chris, millions of others watched that building fall just like you did, and did not come to any sort of conclusion that it was CD. Many said looked similar to it in the way it fell. I don't deny that WTC7 fell looking like a CD, that does not mean it did. Nobody begins this discussion completely neutral. Some are more neutral than others, but everyone has an opinion before they make their first post. It was your view and opinion that has put you on the arguing side at this forum, and it is that bias that made you take the leap from "looks similar to a controlled demolition" to "I knew it was a CD".

I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.

While I am sure occasionally you will hear things said like that, flipently, very few here will stand up and say "It looked NOTHING like a demolition." or "It's Definitely not a CD."

What you will commonly hear, is, "There is no proof that it was caused by a CD, so until there is, I am sticking with the official story".

I can appreciate your dificulty in understanding my position and i don't think less of you for your beliefs.
We can debate all the diffrent points like the cut/broken beams ad nasium and where neither of us will sway the other on the basic issue, although i have had to rethink and alter my position on some things because of what i have learned in our discussions.

Noone here, or on CT sites realisticly expect to turn any of the "believers' on either side. The purpose for most of us is to make sure there is a "logical" resource presenting the fact of the attacks for the "Fence Sitters" and "Joe Public" to find when the question of 9/11 enters there minds.

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen, and used it to further their quest to control the worlds oil supply.
I know that this is an extreamly serious charge and I woulden't make it if i were not certain. After doing a lot of reading and debating i'm convinced this is the case.

Are you convinced that they knew the time and place? My thought is that they new an attack was coming, but they did not know when exactly or where, or exactly how. I have been shown NO evidence that indicates they new anything about the exact nature of the attacks.

It's incredibly hard to believe that something like this could happen here, in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

Seems like an aweful flimsy thing to lay your entire belief on. I am sure more than the WTC 7 collapse did it. Likely it was the solidifying event for you.

I am here debating because this issue will be debated nationally soon and if i'm going to stick my foot in my mouth i'd rather do it here and now so i can get my position absolutely straight for when it really counts.

One of the smartest things you have said...:)

TAM

Christopher7

3rd September 2006, 12:09 PM

Vaya con dios

Belz...

3rd September 2006, 12:11 PM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

So, what you're saying is that you didn't actually use expertise, logic or reason. You just "knew" ?

It's a good thing Galileo wasn't like you.

I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.

See, in actual controlled demolitions, the building falls from the bottom up, and towards the center of its "footprint". Otherwise there's no way to control the fall. WTC7 didn't fall towards its own center; and WTC1 and 2 fell from the top down. Also, all three are missing the caracteristic demolition charges that not only produce loud "bangs", but also explode in non-random ways, whole floors at a time. So, aside from falling down, none of the WTC building collapses looked like a demolition job.

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen, and used it to further their quest to control the worlds oil supply.

Well, they screwed it up royally, didn't they ?

I also don't see why they "let" it happen. Had they had to shoot down airplanes full of civilians, or managed to evacuate each building in time, they would have minimised the casualties greatly while still achieving the desired results.

I know that this is an extreamly serious charge and i woulden't make it if i were not certain. After doing a lot of reading and debating i'm convinced this is the case.

If you are CERTAIN, then you must have some sort of proof. I think it would be time you presented that proof in court. If what you claim is correct, it could be a dire threat to freedom in north-america. Yapping about it in a forum isn't going to help, unless you're NOT certain.

It's incredibly hard to believe that something like this could happen here, in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

As far as I know no one died in WTC7. So why destroy it ? Did you read the reports that say that 20 stories were missing on the south side of the building ? Raging fires ? Why would you need to demolish a building that firefighters agree is going to collapse anyway because of the debris ?

This the most serious issue any of us will ever face and it's imperative we get it right.

This, however, I agree with.

Architect

3rd September 2006, 02:30 PM

Vaya con dios

¿Es usted español? ¿Sudamericano?

stateofgrace

3rd September 2006, 03:50 PM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

Chris I'm kind of new here but maybe you could help me out. See, I have this problem with WTC 7 and since you knew straight away it was a CD; you are just the man to help.

Here is the problem, since you knew straight away it was a controlled demolition and you have very little expertise in this area, would it not stand to reason, that hundreds, nay thousands of highly qualified experts in this area would know also. I mean they would know immediately that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

So here in lies my problem and since you know I'm sure you could help out. It would stand to reasons that, as I've stated thousands of qualified experts would see it so why allow it to be filmed in the first place?

Surely if you were about to commit an act of evil, the last thing you would want would be thousands of highly qualified experts to see it. Why didn't they just drop WTC 7 under cover of the cloud dust generated from the collapse of the towers? Why wait for the dust to settle, the worlds media to gather, announce the building was unsafe and then "pull it"?

You have to be incredibly stupid to do such a thing but hey, since you know, I'm sure you will be able to figure out why they did they way they did. Rather than being sensible and sane and not allow anybody to see it.

Just curious.

Christopher7

4th September 2006, 01:21 AM

I have to agree with the others here Chris, millions of others watched that building fall just like you did, and did not come to any sort of conclusion that it was CD. Many said looked similar to it in the way it fell. I don't deny that WTC7 fell looking like a CD, that does not mean it did. Nobody begins this discussion completely neutral. Some are more neutral than others, but everyone has an opinion before they make their first post. It was your view and opinion that has put you on the arguing side at this forum, and it is that bias that made you take the leap from "looks similar to a controlled demolition" to "I knew it was a CD".

ans) milinos of people recognised that wtc7 was a CD.
You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.

While I am sure occasionally you will hear things said like that, flipently, very few here will stand up and say "It looked NOTHING like a demolition." or "It's Definitely not a CD."

What you will commonly hear, is, "There is no proof that it was caused by a CD, so until there is, I am sticking with the official story".

Ans) ETA (in my opinion) The several videos of the wtc7 collapse are the proof. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of an ever increasing number of people world wide.
There is no proof that wyc7 collapsed due to fire, on the contrary, NIST tryed to prove that fire brought down wtc7 and could not.
Please note: the NIST hypothesis makes no mention of the debreis damage, only the fire.
People here site the opinions of fire fighters and others as proof/evidence

None here, or on CT sites realisticly expect to turn any of the "believers' on either side. The purpose for most of us is to make sure there is a "logical" resource presenting the fact of the attacks for the "Fence Sitters" and "Joe Public" to find when the question of 9/11 enters there minds.

Are you convinced that they knew the time and place? My thought is that they new an attack was coming, but they did not know when exactly or where, or exactly how. I have been shown NO evidence that indicates they new anything about the exact nature of the attacks.

Ans) In my opinion and the opinion of millions of others wtc7 was a CD
It takes weeks to rig a bldg. for a CD
Therefore: prior knowledge
Since neither side has proof (other than the videos) we are all expressing opinions.

Seems like an aweful flimsy thing to lay your entire belief on. I am sure more than the WTC 7 collapse did it. Likely it was the solidifying event for you.

Ans) Yes. I have done a lot of research on the subject and the official explination is full of holes. There are meny qualified people, who have no reason to lie, that believe as i do.

TAM

Thank you for your inteligent, non abusive responce.

twinstead

4th September 2006, 07:21 AM

Here is the problem, since you knew straight away it was a controlled demolition and you have very little expertise in this area, would it not stand to reason, that hundreds, nay thousands of highly qualified experts in this area would know also. I mean they would know immediately that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

I also wonder about that. If 'some guy' with no relevant training or knowledge in CD can be 100% sure it was CD just by looking at the collapse, a true expert in CD would know in a second. And if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that would be a pretty good reason to look at WTC1 and 2.

Where are all these folks? Shouldn't they be coming out through the woodwork to protest the possible mass murder of thousands of innocent people, or does it indeed only have a slight superficial resemblance to a CD, and the armchair 'investigators', like Chris, really have no idea what they are talking about?

Is this a study in structural engineering, or psychology?

T.A.M.

4th September 2006, 07:57 AM

Chris:

A sticky point, but in future, if possible, could you seperate my quote from your reponses, makes reading it easier...Thanks.

ans) milinos of people recognised that wtc7 was a CD.
You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.

I doubt millions recognized it as CD. If you are going to make such a monumental statement, you must bring SOLID EVIDENCE to prove it, or it is only your opinion. If Millions recognized it as CD, implicating an additional act of terrorism, or implicating foul play, then this would not have just gone away, and MSM would have been covering it. All that said...just show me your reference indicating Millions believe WTC7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

I think what is more likely is that Millions would say that WTC7 Collapse Looked SIMILAR TO a Controlled Demolition.

Ans) ETA (in my opinion) The several videos of the wtc7 collapse are the proof. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of an ever increasing number of people world wide.
There is no proof that wyc7 collapsed due to fire, on the contrary, NIST tryed to prove that fire brought down wtc7 and could not.
Please note: the NIST hypothesis makes no mention of the debreis damage, only the fire.
People here site the opinions of fire fighters and others as proof/evidence

Your opinion here is dated. Read the interim report from NIST on WTC7. Debris damage is heavily discussed and is brought in as part of the cause of the collapse.

NIST REVIEW (http://www.nistreview.org/)

The interim report is close to the bottom of the list of NIST documents. It is titled "Interim Report on WTC 7" and is there in PDF for your download and review.

Videos are not sufficient as proof, particularly when all they show is how it fell from 1-2 angles, and the approximate speed it fell. There are so many other variables.

If you were being accused of a break and enter crime, and the only evidence the prosecuter had was a broken window broken like someone hit it with a crowbar, and that items inside were taken, in keeping with a B&E, would you think that uis enough to convict you, or EVEn accuse you?

Ans) In my opinion and the opinion of millions of others wtc7 was a CD
It takes weeks to rig a bldg. for a CD
Therefore: prior knowledge
Since neither side has proof (other than the videos) we are all expressing opinions.

Once again, give me your proof before you make the statement "Millions think it was a CD" or else, restate it as "I BELIEVE millions think it was a CD". As to the time to set up a CD, you are right it takes a large amount of time, manpower, etc...and yet we have had a witness on here at the forum, who worked in WTC7 who never saw anyone come in and do anything remotely close to "Renovations", and this witness says he worked weekends, and often late into the evening.

And it is innocent til proven guilty, and since all you have are videos and a subjective interpretation of Silversteins comments, you cannot convict, Nay I say you would be slanderous even to accuse with such little evidence.

Ans) Yes. I have done a lot of research on the subject and the official explination is full of holes. There are meny qualified people, who have no reason to lie, that believe as i do.

Show me your list of QUALIFIED PEOPLE (Structural/Civil Engineers, Demolition Experts, Firemen/women) who believe as you do, and then I will list off the QUALIFICATIONS of the people of NIST, FEMA, ASCE, MIT Engineering Faculty, etc...Who believe the opposite of what you do.

Oh and before you start, if you are gonna just quote all the members of the "Scholars" I would appreciate their qualifications next to them, as to join that "sham" of a group, you don't need to have any "Qualifications", as Steven Jones has proven by putting people on this list who do not qualify by his very own criteria.

TAM

R.Mackey

4th September 2006, 10:29 AM

ans) milinos of people recognised that wtc7 was a CD.
You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.
The experts have recognized that it was not a controlled demolition.

You are, in effect, claiming that you and "millions" of other people (prove that, why don't you) are better at seeing "The Truth" than the experts.

You are thus claiming that studying structural engineering, demolitions, and failure analysis actually makes you stupider.

By your logic, a newborn child should be king.

Ans) ETA (in my opinion) The several videos of the wtc7 collapse are the proof. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of an ever increasing number of people world wide.
There is no proof that wyc7 collapsed due to fire, on the contrary, NIST tryed to prove that fire brought down wtc7 and could not.
Please note: the NIST hypothesis makes no mention of the debreis damage, only the fire.
People here site the opinions of fire fighters and others as proof/evidence
Emphasis added. You are lying. The NIST WTC 7 report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) discusses debris damage on pages 13-20, with photographs included.

Ans) In my opinion and the opinion of millions of others wtc7 was a CD
It takes weeks to rig a bldg. for a CD
Therefore: prior knowledge
Since neither side has proof (other than the videos) we are all expressing opinions.
Your opinion is in no way equivalent to the official theory. Yours violates several laws of physics, requires unobtainable materials, would have been easy to detect afterwards, and could not have taken place without complicity of thousands of ordinary people. The official theory does not. You have not even managed to cast doubt on the official theory.

Ans) Yes. I have done a lot of research on the subject and the official explination is full of holes. There are meny qualified people, who have no reason to lie, that believe as i do.
Please identify these holes.

Please identify these "qualified people," what they believe, and why you feel they are qualified.

Thank you for your inteligent, non abusive responce.
I have done my best to be non-abusive. You will get no name-calling from me. However, you have brought no evidence, and you have lied about the official theory -- I cannot make it any plainer than that.

Belz...

4th September 2006, 10:47 AM

You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.

No, but you should be better at it.

rwguinn

5th September 2006, 08:16 AM

http://www.koat.com/education/9788744/detail.html
obviously, a Controlled Demolition! A "loud Boom" was heard and the roof collapsed! There must have been explosives in there!

Christopher7

6th September 2006, 08:55 PM

R Mackey: I was wrong about the NIST report mentioning the debris damage.
I was refering to the summary on pg 50 but i was wrong . They refered to the debris damage there too.
I apologise and i stand corrected.

However in re-reading the report i noticed a cunndrum.

On pg 8: Note the location of the lobby is in the area supposidly destroyed by debris.
On pg 18: "Damage to the south face was described by a number or individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
-middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground
-
-
-
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
* Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 & 8 and led them out of the building
*
*
* No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed

Sentinel

7th September 2006, 11:21 AM

What is the equal G-force at 10.000 ft per minute?

I saw "Inside The Towers" the other night and there was a scene at West St just south of Liberty when there was a strange Popping sound like multi gunshots at the same time the south tower came down.

Can anyone tell me what the loud popping sound was?

Take care

Sentinel

Pardalis

7th September 2006, 11:23 AM

Sentinel, you are aware that "Inside the Towers" was shot by a film crew, 5 years after the events right?

... right?

Gravy

7th September 2006, 11:29 AM

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.

Since "that's what it all comes back to," perhaps you can refer me to that video. I haven't seen it.

Gravy

7th September 2006, 11:40 AM

No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed
Which exit were they using? Here's what JREFer NDBoston, who worked in WTC 7, says:

Hi everyone:

First of all it's my first post in here. I've been lurking for some time and after a long wait to get activated, here I am.

This is personal for me. I worked for SSB at 7WTC on 9-11. After seeing debris hit our building and taking 45 minutes to get down we had to go out the back of the building because of sooo much debris in front blocking the entrance.

I also lost many friends from Cantor who had just left my company to go over there. To deal with these CT's and their theories drives me insane. Little did I know that I missed the demolition people wiring my building for months and I didn't notice.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1719623&postcount=147

Another report, after the north tower collapsed:
For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://tinyurl.com/oyl85

Arkan_Wolfshade

7th September 2006, 11:42 AM

10 000 (feet per minute) = 50.8 meters per second
Now, assuming they are talking about acceleration, and not speed (therefore looking at 50.8 m/s^2) we are looking at ~5.13 g.

Gravy

7th September 2006, 11:49 AM

Can anyone tell me what the loud popping sound was?

Probably electrical shorts. EMT Patricia Ondrovic reports similar popping sounds and flashes coming from the lobby of building 6. Although she believed that it looked like demolitions explosives, she described the sound as like "lightbulbs popping," and of course no explosives went off there: several people were in the WTC 6 lobby at the time.

Listen to an actual building demolition here: http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e Remember that since the WTC buildings weren't prepped and strategically weakened, as is done with a normal demolition, much larger charges would need to be used.

Sentinel, please describe, in as much detail as possible, what should have been seen and heard at the base of the towers as they began to collapse.

Christopher7

7th September 2006, 03:09 PM

[quote=Gravy;1903421]Which exit were they using? Here's what JREFer NDBoston, who worked in WTC 7, says:

They may have gone out the back but they described the condition of the lobby which is at the front-center of the building as one might expect.
See pg 8 of NIST report to confirm this.

Christopher7

7th September 2006, 09:43 PM

In the NIST rerort On pg 18:
"Damage to the south face was described by a number or individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

-middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground
-
-
-
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
* Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 & 8 and led them out of the building
*
*
* No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed

******************************************

Cheif Frank Fellini:
".....building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower. When it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors accross the facade on Vesy street."

Boyle's statement about "a hole 20 storys tall in the building" is in conflict with "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby" and Chief Fellinis' statement and a 10 story gouge, he must have been refering to the south west corner.

Who stated that there was a 10 story gouge in WTC7 ?

Christopher7

7th September 2006, 09:56 PM

Edit to clarify:

[quote=Christopher7;1903964][quote=Gravy;1903421]Which exit were they using?

They may have gone out the back but they described the condition of the lobby which is at the front-center of the building as one might expect.
See pg 8 of NIST report to confirm this.

Pardalis

7th September 2006, 10:02 PM

Christopher7, how does this help the controlled demolition theory or weakens the official story?

Christopher7

7th September 2006, 10:09 PM

Christopher7, how does this help the controlled demolition theory or weakens the official story?

It shows that there was no severe damage to the lobby and therefore no damage to support columns 69, 72 and 75.

Pardalis

7th September 2006, 10:20 PM

Did the NIST report any signs of explosives or thermite?

Christopher7

7th September 2006, 10:52 PM

Did the NIST report any signs of explosives or thermite?

They didn't consider anything other than the debris damage/fire Hypothesis

Pardalis

7th September 2006, 10:53 PM

They didn't consider anything other than the debris damage/fire Hypothesis

Did they have any reason to?

Pardalis

7th September 2006, 11:18 PM

It shows that there was no severe damage to the lobby and therefore no damage to support columns 69, 72 and 75.

at page 50-51:

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears possible:

1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate
they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

page 43:
I3.6 Columns, Transfer Girders or Transfer Trusses Fail: The fires could have failed interior columns, transfer girders, transfer trusses, or their framing connections.

o I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system. Such thermally-induced displacements must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system against further lateral deflection of the column.

I see nothing here that states that the damage necesserally had to have been to the lobby, or that damage from the debris of the WTC1 collapse had to be the only cause for these columns to fail.

This says that fire could have caused the damage to the columns, at any floor where there were fires.

Christopher7

7th September 2006, 11:21 PM

Did they have any reason to?

Since a CD is the only known cause of a global collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building in the USA (other than 911) it must be at least considered as a possibility.

Pardalis

7th September 2006, 11:23 PM

Since a CD is the only known cause of a global collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building in the USA (other than 911) it must be at least considered as a possibility.

Again, were there any signs of explosives or thermite reported, before and after the collapse?

R.Mackey

8th September 2006, 12:04 AM

Since a CD is the only known cause of a global collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building in the USA (other than 911) it must be at least considered as a possibility.
Nope.

Following that logic, there has never been a CD in the USA that began with an airplane crashing into it. Nope, not one, never. Therefore, we should not consider CD as a possibility.

Pretty stupid, huh?

What I'm trying to say here is that precedence is irrelevant. People knew ahead of time, even though it had never happened, that (1) aircraft and (2) fire could destroy hi-rise buildings. That's why the original WTC designers considered the 707 case. That's why fire protection measures were included. That's why, to this day, hi-rises in NYC are built to earthquake standards, even though no hi-rise in NYC has ever been destroyed by an earthquake.

Science gives us the ability to predict things different from what we've experienced in the past. That's the whole point.

Christopher7

8th September 2006, 01:20 AM

[quote]at page 50-51:

There's no evidence to suggest that falling debris damaged any interior core framing. Cheif Fellini stated that the damage was between the third and sixth floors (no mention of the 14th floor) and could not have effected the elevators on the 8th floor.
Pg 18
12:10 pm "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8"

I have shown that there was no 20 story hole that would have taken out the lobby and damaged columns 69, 72 and 75. That was a misinterpertation of Boyles' statement, so i hope we can put that puppy to bed.

I see nothing here that states that the damage necesserally had to have been to the lobby, or that damage from the debris of the WTC1 collapse had to be the only cause for these columns to fail.

This says that fire could have caused the damage to the columns, at any floor where there were fires.

We are left with a lot of if's, could have, may have, etc. ending in "appears possible"

It cannot be said with any degree of cirtainty that wtc7 collapsed because of debris damage and fire and i only ask that you-all would stop saying so.

Christopher7

8th September 2006, 01:59 AM

[quote]Nope. Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.

Following that logic, there has never been a CD in the USA that began with an airplane crashing into it. Nope, not one, never. Therefore, we should not consider CD as a possibility.

Pretty stupid, huh? Yes, very stupid. We're talking about wtc7 and there was no airplane involved.

What I'm trying to say here is that precedence is irrelevant. People knew ahead of time, even though it had never happened, that (1) aircraft and (2) fire could destroy hi-rise buildings. That's why the original WTC designers considered the 707 case. That's why fire protection measures were included. That's why, to this day, hi-rises in NYC are built to earthquake standards, even though no hi-rise in NYC has ever been destroyed by an earthquake.

Science gives us the ability to predict things different from what we've experienced in the past. That's the whole point.
I'm not talking about precedence or prediction, just the FACT that CD's result in global collapse. They are the only known cause of global collapse (without the help of an airplane) and therefore any reasonible person would, at very least, consider that possibility.

Pardalis

8th September 2006, 02:01 AM

Again, were there any signs of explosives or thermite reported, before and after the collapse?

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th September 2006, 04:02 AM

REMINDER: Any info here quoting the NIST report is dealing with the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2, which is not the final report on WTC 7. That report is still pending.

Belz...

8th September 2006, 04:49 AM

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.

Look, mister Spock, it's certainly a bare possibility, but not one that can be entertained using the available evidence, and certainly not in any way, shape or form probable.

Yes, very stupid. We're talking about wtc7 and there was no airplane involved.

Yes, there were TWO airplaines involved.

I'm not talking about precedence or prediction, just the FACT that CD's result in global collapse. They are the only known cause of global collapse (without the help of an airplane) and therefore any reasonible person would, at very least, consider that possibility.

Incorrect. Earthquakes can cause total collapse as well, so can nuclear bombs, etc. The only reason why you say "They are the only known cause of global collapse" is BECAUSE of precedence, so don't say that you're not talking about that.

R.Mackey

8th September 2006, 10:41 AM

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.
Is that so.

I'm calling you out, buddy. Find the error in the following logic:

1. WTC 7 was hit by huge amounts of falling debris.
2. This debris caused gross structural damage and started fires on numerous floors.
3. The fires raged, relatively unfought, for hours.
4. A gross lean was observed in the building by approximately 2 PM.
5. Fires continued for another three hours until the building collapsed.
6. WTC 7's collapse mechanics are completely consistent with a major support member failure low in the structure, due to its transfer-beam geometry, and the large volume of diesel fuel previously contained near the suspected point of collapse initiation.
7. Physics tells us that additional energy, in the form of explosives or otherwise, would not be necessary to cause collapse.
8. There were no visible or audible signs consistent with explosives.
9. There is no post-collapse evidence of explosives.
10. The explosives hypothesis is inconsistent with all of the facts on the ground.

Find the error or retract your statement. I dare you.

Yes, very stupid. We're talking about wtc7 and there was no airplane involved.
You didn't make it clear -- you were talking about NIST. Nonetheless, substitute "hit by thousands of tons of falling debris" for "hit by aircraft," and the logic still stands. Nobody has ever done a CD starting with dumping another building on top of it, ever.

I'm not talking about precedence or prediction, just the FACT that CD's result in global collapse. They are the only known cause of global collapse (without the help of an airplane) and therefore any reasonible person would, at very least, consider that possibility.
Since you're not talking about precedence, you're completely wrong. Fire, sinkholes, earthquakes, meteors, potentially collision with ground vehicles, improper design, fraudulent building practices, and gross material defects are also known causes of global collapse. We have safeguards to deal with nearly all of these, but it can happen.

And WTC 7 did have the help of an airplane. WTC 1 and 2, hit by airplanes, eventually collapsed. Their collapse caused immense damage to WTC 7. Your entire argument is based on ignorance.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th September 2006, 10:47 AM

Adding to pt 6, was WTC 7 not an air-rights building and therefore the major structural support on the sixth floor consisted of cantilevered support beams?

T.A.M.

8th September 2006, 10:54 AM

So you are quoting NIST to prove there was no 20 storey gouge out of the south side of WTC7. So you feel the NIST report is valid then obviously. So from here on in, we can quote the NIST report for any of our purposes and obviously Chrstopher7 will accept the quotes validity, as he has now accepted NIST as a valid source.

So from now on, no complaints from Christopher7 about the NIST report. No calling it wrong, or created by shills...

Got it folks. So feel free to use NISt for any argument, knowing Christopher7 will not argue the validity of the evidence from this report.

TAM

R.Mackey

8th September 2006, 10:56 AM

Adding to pt 6, was WTC 7 not an air-rights building and therefore the major structural support on the sixth floor consisted of cantilevered support beams?
Once again, going back to the NIST interim WTC 7 report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf), the lower floors were cantilevered over a ConEd substation (see pp. 9-11).

A failure of a column there would have affected a very large floor area and rapidly distributed loads, leading to what Christopher7 calls a "previously unknown global collapse," and what NIST calls a "classic progressive collapse." (ibid, pg. 6)

Gravy

8th September 2006, 11:19 AM

I have shown that there was no 20 story hole that would have taken out the lobby and damaged columns 69, 72 and 75. That was a misinterpertation of Boyles' statement, so i hope we can put that puppy to bed.
I must have missed this. Who misinterpreted Boyle's statement to mean that those columns were damaged by debris?

Gravy

8th September 2006, 11:22 AM

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.
Your refusal to acknowledge the possiblilty that WTC7 could have been brought down by giant tunneling fire-breathing worms is neither reasonable nor logical.

R.Mackey

8th September 2006, 11:25 AM

For the record, Gravy, I didn't say that, it was Christopher7. The "quote" function put in an extra tag. I saw it too in my reply.

Also for the record, my rejection is both reasonable and logical. I reject the GTFBW hypothesis on the grounds that if I don't keep my mouth shut, they'll eat my house.

Belz...

8th September 2006, 12:14 PM

Since you're not talking about precedence, you're completely wrong. Fire, sinkholes, earthquakes, meteors, potentially collision with ground vehicles, improper design, fraudulent building practices, and gross material defects are also known causes of global collapse. We have safeguards to deal with nearly all of these, but it can happen.

Dammit. Forgot the meteors.

kookbreaker

8th September 2006, 12:55 PM

Your refusal to acknowledge the possiblilty that WTC7 could have been brought down by giant tunneling fire-breathing worms is neither reasonable nor logical.

Worm hugger.

Gravy

8th September 2006, 12:57 PM

For the record, Gravy, I didn't say that, it was Christopher7. The "quote" function put in an extra tag. I saw it too in my reply.Oh, I know, believe me, I know! :D I had fixed the tag: our posts got crossed.

pgwenthold

8th September 2006, 01:08 PM

Your refusal to acknowledge the possiblilty that WTC7 could have been brought down by giant tunneling fire-breathing worms is neither reasonable nor logical.

I was the one who pointed out that his 4 big observations (which I don't remember all of but were something like "it fell straight down" and "it started to fall in the middle") were perfectly consistent with having a helicopter drop one of the great pyramids on it. He never responded.

If you are going to ignore a bunch of evidence, you have consider ALL the possibilities.

Sentinel

8th September 2006, 01:13 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th September 2006, 01:19 PM

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

Wouldn't the people including the alledged hi-jackers on board the plane passed out from such high G-force?

P.s. The President will be at Ground Zero for the Memorial. Looks like the so-called Cointel Truth Movement will not be in attendance anywhere near the families and Mouners. Thank GOD

Have a nice day?

Sentinel

10 000 (feet per minute) = 50.8 meters per second
Now, assuming they are talking about acceleration, and not speed (therefore looking at 50.8 m/s^2) we are looking at ~5.13 g.

and I think R. Mackey also replied at some point on this issue.

R.Mackey

8th September 2006, 01:22 PM

and I think R. Mackey also replied at some point on this issue.
No, I didn't. You may be right about there being a typo in the units, but I'm guessing it's simply a fundamental misunderstanding about velocity and acceleration. I'd wait for clarification from the questioner.

Hellbound

8th September 2006, 01:51 PM

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

Wouldn't the people including the alledged hi-jackers on board the plane passed out from such high G-force?

Sentinel

If you mean 10,000 ft per minute, the G force is 1G (the Earth's gravity, nothing else). And you need to re-read your high school physics books.

If you mean 10,000 ft/minute squared (an acceleration), which works out to the more scientific 50.8 m/s2, then that's 5.18G (more accurately, 4.18G to 6.18G, depending on vertical direction of acceleration). However, I don't see how this applies, becaue the only time the planes underwent anything at or above 5G was during impact. Even assuming they did, 5 to 6 Gs is about where loss of vision begins (tunnel vision effects), but blackout takes some time at this threshold.

For comparison, see http://www.iaapa.org/modules/MediaNews/index.cfm?fuseaction=Details&iid=1050:

Sneeze: 2.9G
Cough: 3.5G
Slap on the back: 4.1G
Ploppong into a chair: 10.1G

THe amount of Gs and the duration are both important in considering effects. You'd need about 3 to 6 seconds at 5G for unconsciousness (see this faa site (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/1ab39b4ed563b08985256a35006d56af/23234bf17c35918e862569d900744d21/$FILE/ATTLQT4Z/ac91-61.pdf)).

And even in the second case, you need to reread some physics books, because if you think a 727 or 767 underwent a 5G manuever (without pieces breaking off), well, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Belz...

8th September 2006, 01:59 PM

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

At a constant speed ? 1G.

Mancman

8th September 2006, 02:15 PM

I believe Sentinel is referring to the rate of descent for Flights 11 and 175, which both dropped approx 30,000ft in the 3 minutes before impact.

T.A.M.

8th September 2006, 03:01 PM

Didnt I read somewhere that the effect of that drop would have been horrible on the passengers, but not on the people in the cockpit...or am I dreaming that one?

GlennB

8th September 2006, 04:01 PM

Again, were there any signs of explosives or thermite reported, before and after the collapse?

Yes, in appendix C to the FEMA report. The sulphur would suggest thermate rather than thermite

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th September 2006, 04:22 PM

Yes, in appendix C to the FEMA report. The sulphur would suggest thermate rather than thermite

Er, no. Sulpher would suggest sulpher. Now, if it was sulpher, iron slag, aluminum, and barium nitrate byproducts you might have something.

GlennB

8th September 2006, 04:23 PM

Is that so.

You didn't make it clear -- you were talking about NIST. Nonetheless, substitute "hit by thousands of tons of falling debris" for "hit by aircraft," and the logic still stands. Nobody has ever done a CD starting with dumping another building on top of it, ever.

Despite never having seen the NIST report photos of structural damage to the S. side of #7 before today, I'd still have to say that "dumping another building on top of it" is a massive exaggeration.

WTC #3 was very close to #! and #2 and, truth be told, suffered massive structural damage from falling debris from both, yet stayed up (in a way). The photos are freely available on the net. As a newbie here I can't post links, but 911research.wtc7.net shows #3 after impact from each of the Twin Towers.

Very different size+design, granted.

T.A.M.

8th September 2006, 04:30 PM

Despite never having seen the NIST report photos of structural damage to the S. side of #7 before today, I'd still have to say that "dumping another building on top of it" is a massive exaggeration.

WTC #3 was very close to #! and #2 and, truth be told, suffered massive structural damage from falling debris from both, yet stayed up (in a way). The photos are freely available on the net. As a newbie here I can't post links, but 911research.wtc7.net shows #3 after impact from each of the Twin Towers.

Very different size+design, granted.

Your last sentence saves you, as it is the key. The false assumption that because another building having similar variables involved, didn't fall, means that WTC7 shouldn't have either, is a classic argument made by the CT community.

eg:

Person A: 6'6" tall, 160 lbs, normal footwear
Person B: 5'0" tall, 200 lbs, cement shoes

If I were to attempt to tackle both persons, would you assume that if I could not knock down person B, that Person A should also be impossible for me to knock over?

Mancman

8th September 2006, 04:31 PM

Belz...

8th September 2006, 04:55 PM

GlennB

9th September 2006, 01:57 AM

Come on, it's a huge exaggeration to suggest that WTC3 'stood up, in a way'. The building was crushed to a 3 storey pulp.

Indeed, but after the S tower collapsed it looked like this :

Clearer photos freely available on the net.

GlennB

9th September 2006, 02:02 AM

It stayed up. 7 fell down. Now, what does that tell us, in and of itself ?

Nothing whatsoever. I was arguing against the phrase "dumping another building on top of it" used earlier in relation to WTC7, and using WTC3 as visual evidence of what "dumping another building on top of it" might look like.

Mentioning that it stood up was irrelevant and emotive.

GlennB

9th September 2006, 02:09 AM

Er, no. Sulpher would suggest sulpher. Now, if it was sulpher, iron slag, aluminum, and barium nitrate byproducts you might have something.
True. I am abashed. Told myself I wouldn't sit here spouting half-learnt, half-digested factoids and failed at the first hurdle.

R.Mackey

9th September 2006, 02:34 AM

Yes, in appendix C to the FEMA report. The sulphur would suggest thermate rather than thermite
Hi GlennB, welcome to the forum.

I presume you're talking about this (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf) FEMA Appendix C. If you read it closely, it comprehensively shows quite the opposite of what you claim.

The first clue is in the comprehensive chemical analysis of both samples, shown on pages 5 and 9-13. The EDX spectra show all of the compounds found in each. Had this been caused by a thermite reaction, you would see significant quantities of aluminum oxide co-located with these chemicals -- but there are none.

Thermate, as you claim, is even less likely. Thermate is roughly 2% sulphur, and 30% barium nitrate. If the sulphur compounds were created as a result of thermate combustion, not only would you find aluminum oxide, you would also see a barium signal far stronger than any sulphur compound. Again, there are none. EDX rules out thermate.

A second clue is found on page 2, in the temperatures that created this phenomenon:

The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1000oC (1800oF), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
The eutectic temperature of a mixture is the lowest melting point of any constituent chemical compound. The mixture is "eutectic" in the sense that once the lowest melting temperature is reached, the entire mixture may be treated as liquid. Think of water ice well mixed with frozen alcohol -- once you melt the alcohol, the entire thing is a slurry; you do not have to reach the melting temperature of ice.

This finding is significant because it implies the original steel was never heated far beyond this temperature. If it had, the different compounds would be expected to separate or form other products. 1000oC is far below the temperature one would expect from a "thermate cutting charge," or for that matter any form of deliberate demolition whatsoever! It is, however, completely consistent with a raging office building fire with additional diesel fuel tanks.

As the FEMA report notes in its conclusion, this observation is a rare event and the mechanics are not well understood. The source of the sulphur is unknown.

However, as sulphur makes up about 2.9% of the Earth, there are several possibilities. One that we have discussed here is, again, the diesel fuel, of which thousands of gallons were stored in WTC 7. Diesel in the USA is high in sulphur. Other elements in diesel are volatile organics that do not bond with iron, and could be expected to burn off and therefore not show in the EDX analysis, unlike thermate. While this speculation has not been proven as far as I know, it is credible. Thermite and thermate are strictly ruled out by this analysis.

If you have other evidence that you believe points to thermate, please feel free to bring it here for discussion. But thus far, the thermate hypothesis, in addition to suffering from numerous practical difficulties, has no support in evidence.

GlennB

9th September 2006, 03:45 AM

Hi GlennB, welcome to the forum.

I presume you're talking about <link> FEMA Appendix C. If you read it closely, it comprehensively shows quite the opposite of what you claim.

Yes, the evidence is very strong indeed that it does.
The urge to leap feet first into a vigourous debate is a dangerous thing.
My abashedness meter has redlined.

Regards

gumboot

9th September 2006, 04:41 AM

A. WTC evacuated aprox 40.000 people.

According to NISTNCSTAR1-7 Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Operations there were approximately 8,900 people in WTC1 and 8,600 people in WTC2, for a total of 17,500 people.

In addition, in the same report they estimated that, had the building been fully occupied, evacuation would have taken over four hours.

If the pentagon has lead time with so much radar

The Pentagon does not have an air traffic monitoring role.

and High Altatude Recon Patrol

There were no air patrols of US airspace pre 9/11.

and land based radar with the Sat/comm systems which can monitor the whole planet, tell me how they didn't see it from the initial lose Voice/comm at 0813hrs?

Monitoring of communications is relatively limited and does not happen even close to real time. The only people monitoring communications with airliners were the air traffic controllers. Until they notified NORAD, the military knew nothing. NEADS were notified of AA11 9 minutes before it crashed. They were told about UA175 precisely as it crashed. AA77 they found out about 2 minutes before it hit The Pentagon. They were not told about UA93 until 4 minutes after it had crashed.

B. The military drill started sept 10 as per DOD News.

I assume you mean Vigilant Guardian?

Secret Service was well aware of the event from the start. Yet, they didn't put the president into protective custody until after his pre-schedualed 0930 speech.

No one knew there was a terrorist suicide attack until UA175 hit WTC2 at 0903. Even Boston Centre, the FAA, and NEADS (who knew that AA11 was hijacked) did not find out that AA11 was the aircraft that hit WTC1 until about 90 minutes later.

The actions of The President are IMHO, the single gaping hole in the official story. All other tattered threads have a number of logical and fairly mundane explanations, but I have never heard an explanation for why the President reacted as he did. I can speculate on a number of reasons, but they are nothing more than speculation. I too would like to see some detailed information concerning events with the President and his personnel in the first hour of 9/11.

-Andrew

gumboot

9th September 2006, 05:05 AM

The plane approached D.C at 7,000 ft. and made a 330 degree turn.
A stinger misle team (or other system) stationed at the White House would have had plenty of thim to bring it down.

The FIM-92 Stinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger) has a range of 4,800m. The Pentagon is 3,430m from the White House (as per Google Earth).

AA77 impacted The Pentagon at 460 Kt - 236 m/s (as per the NTSB FDR report). That means (ignoring issues with altitude for a second) AA77 was within range for a Stinger located at the White House for 5.8 seconds before impact (4800-3430 / 236).

The Stinger has a speed of about 750 m/s, so once fired, would take 4.5 seconds to reach The Pentagon (for now we'll ignore the extra distance required to hit AA77 BEFORE it hits The Pentagon).

That gives the Stinger crew 1.3 seconds to identify the target and fire.

Are any US military folks here familiar with The Stinger? How would you feel about having 1.3 seconds to select a target and fire?

-Andrew

gumboot

9th September 2006, 05:14 AM

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen,

This, by definition, is negligence. You cannot be held as negligent unless you were aware of the flaw/threat/risk/danger/whatever and did nothing to address it.

I used to work in the traffic and safety department of New Zealand's largest city that dealt with claims for things like blown tyres from people driving over potholes. Unless they could prove Auckland City knew about the pothole PRIOR to the incident, and had done nothing to address the situation, the council were not negligent and did not have to pay.

In order to prove criminal negligence on the part of the US Government you would have to provide evidence that they had specific warning of the attacks prior to them occuring. In this context that would (at a minimum) require information on the date of the attacks and methodology to be employed.

-Andrew

Belz...

9th September 2006, 06:34 AM

Nothing whatsoever. I was arguing against the phrase "dumping another building on top of it" used earlier in relation to WTC7, and using WTC3 as visual evidence of what "dumping another building on top of it" might look like.

Considering the amount of steel that came down on it, I'd agree that a building fell down on it.

GlennB

9th September 2006, 07:11 AM

Considering the amount of steel that came down on it, I'd agree that a building fell down on it.

I was thinking in terms of the photos available in the NIST preliminary report, pp 16-17
In particular p16 shows the entire roof from above, after the collapse of both towers. It shows "minor damage to parapet wall"

Pardalis

9th September 2006, 10:12 AM

Indeed, but after the S tower collapsed it looked like this :

Clearer photos freely available on the net.

Let me ask you, if they planted explosives in WTC 1, 2 and 7, then why didn't they plant explosives in WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6?

R.Mackey

9th September 2006, 10:24 AM

I was thinking in terms of the photos available in the NIST preliminary report, pp 16-17
In particular p16 shows the entire roof from above, after the collapse of both towers. It shows "minor damage to parapet wall"
If you've seen the NIST WTC 7 preliminary report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf), you might try backing up to pg. 15, or if you prefer look at the chart on pg. 20. While WTC 2 didn't actually topple onto the roof of WTC 7, the damage it sustained to its south wall was tremendous, and the impact was enough to knock elevator cars free of their moorings.

Bad stuff.

Belz...

9th September 2006, 12:56 PM

I was thinking in terms of the photos available in the NIST preliminary report, pp 16-17
In particular p16 shows the entire roof from above, after the collapse of both towers. It shows "minor damage to parapet wall"

Well, I was talking about number 3, but seeing as a good portion of 20 of the 7th building's 50 floors was scooped out, I'd call that major damage.

Ravenwood

9th September 2006, 06:37 PM

That gives the Stinger crew 1.3 seconds to identify the target and fire.

Are any US military folks here familiar with The Stinger? How would you feel about having 1.3 seconds to select a target and fire?

-Andrew

IIRC, The Stinger would not have had time to lock on to the target in that small a window. The Gunner would have to do what is basically a ballistic launch, which in those cimcumstances & target angle would be for all intents & purposes, an impossible shot...1.3 seconds is barely enough time aquire the target in the sight.

Oliver

9th September 2006, 07:50 PM

If you have other evidence that you believe points to thermate, please feel free to bring it here for discussion. But thus far, the thermate hypothesis, in addition to suffering from numerous practical difficulties, has no support in evidence.

I did no investigation to the thermate/-mite-hype at all,
because chemistry is not my world and i don´t like wild
specualtions, but would´nt have someone noticed

- all these guys

- ripping all the walls open

- over several weeeks

- to place anything to the main-beams to bring seven down?

Correct me if i´m wrong, but these speculations about
thermate/-mite seems to me "kicking a dead cow" over
and over again.

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th September 2006, 08:09 PM

I did no investigation to the thermate/-mite-hype at all,
because chemistry is not my world and i don´t like wild
specualtions, but would´nt have someone noticed

- all these guys

- ripping all the walls open

- over several weeeks

- to place anything to the main-beams to bring seven down?

Correct me if i´m wrong, but these speculations about
thermate/-mite seems to me "kicking a dead cow" over
and over again.

Yes, yes it is. Not completely unlike: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/12/13

Oliver

9th September 2006, 08:14 PM

Yes, yes it is. Not completely unlike: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/12/13

Well, give me a short explanation if i´m wrong. Maybe
you could wake up my attention to this.

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th September 2006, 08:18 PM

Well, give me a short explanation if i´m wrong. Maybe
you could wake up my attention to this.

No, I'm agreeing with you. Having to continually readdress these same debunked ideas on demolition over, and over, and over again is like beating a dead horse. My link was merely a visual representation of what the CTists are doing.

Oliver

9th September 2006, 08:22 PM

No, I'm agreeing with you. Having to continually readdress these same debunked ideas on demolition over, and over, and over again is like beating a dead horse. My link was merely a visual representation of what the CTists are doing.

But why do the people in here still argue about it?
Some kind of slow and painful self-mutilation? :-D

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th September 2006, 08:23 PM

But why do the people in here still argue about it?
Some kind of slow and painful self-mutilation? :-D

For me, it's because I'm a stubborn S.O.B. and if it means I have to beat CTists to death with the facts, then so be it. And also, because the first time we refuse to refute it again they will claim that we can't refute it and try to claim victory.

Oliver

9th September 2006, 08:26 PM

For me, it's because I'm a stubborn S.O.B. and if it means I have to beat CTists to death with the facts, then so be it. And also, because the first time we refuse to refute it again they will claim that we can't refute it and try to claim victory.

Are you sure? Have a look to my signature... :D

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th September 2006, 08:42 PM

Are you sure? Have a look to my signature... :D

Since I haven't installed my new keyboard with the "Strangle Someone Over the Intarweb" button, there isn't much I can do for Jerry at the moment.

kevin

9th September 2006, 08:46 PM

But why do the people in here still argue about it?
Some kind of slow and painful self-mutilation? :-D

I dunno about everyone else, but I replaced myself with a reply posting bot after the 3rd round.

Sentinel

14th September 2006, 11:36 AM

Goodafternoon everybody,

I was at GZ for the memorial and have to say that it was a circus. It has become too commercialized with BS including the LC DVDs given out.

The LC DVD is nothing more than a sham that actually is intended to falsify what actually occured in 2005. I just recieved a peace E-mail From Dylan and now it turns out that its also under false pretenses.

I'll be back, Time

Sentinel

Sentinel

14th September 2006, 12:08 PM

I have to admit, Its quite stupid to distribute an edited version of something that you've already posted about the activities of the LC crew.

1st The recut of the second loosechange release is out of sequence. The part where I'm seen posing witgh the Police Officers was the last thing to occure. The second part where I'm seen with the "Hidden Cammera" which by the way folks, is proof that Loosechange is nothing more than a smear campain to defame people defending GZ and the Families Honors and a money making venture by people who think they're smarter than everyone.

2nd Notice how Jason isn't saying the sdame stupid stuff in the recut yet he has a cammera angle showing the argument between me and the gay guy. Notice when I stated that "everyone was watching them now"? That was the point when he grabbed his balls and told me to step up to the plate for $200.00. We didn't jason keep showing the second cammera angle so everyone could see how these idiots were behaving?

3rd Why do a sound loop which if you pay attention to the cop who was asking for the people to clear the sidewalk makes the comment "Don't pay attention to what the RETARDS are talking about"? Listen to the very begining of the sound loop and you'll hear it.

4th why did he remove Sarah fergusons interview? She will testify thatb the gay guy did grab himself and that many of the people with them were making slurs and racial remarks including jason.

Conspiracy threorist invade GZ the village voice 2005

Sentinel

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th September 2006, 01:02 PM

Sentinal,

I hope that even with all the LC crap on Monday that you had some quiet to time reflect on events without their noise.

Sentinel

15th September 2006, 11:17 AM

Arkan,

How are doinf today?

Yeah, I made the sportshooter.com front page.
Google My full name Paul Isaac Jr Ground Zero 2006.

Being aproached by the NYPD (who know quite well who the players are) about the antics of the so-called truth movement at GZ . They have everything under control, trust me.

Take care Buddy

Sentinel

T.A.M.

15th September 2006, 11:26 AM

Sentinel;

My deepest thoughts for you and those friends you lost on 9/11. I hope things went well for you at GZ Monday.

TAM

Sentinel

18th September 2006, 01:53 PM

So lets see if I have this right?

Dylan states to me in an E-mail after 9-11 that "they were working to keep the trouble makers away from GZ" That they even "scared away Wingtv from the event"

Yet in an E-mail sent from Lisa Guliani of wingtv, She states that "the Loosechange crowd help them carry their banner"

Now in case people don't know Wingtv wrote up a fake article pertaining to me making inapropriate remarks about how "9-11 was an inside job and how the police and firemen knew it too"

I hope that at least people will grasp the truth from the extra LC footage including the "recut" which has even more footage that this will prove once and for all that Its BS.

By the way, The extra footage is taken out of sequence. Its all backwards.

Sentinel

T.A.M.

18th September 2006, 03:13 PM

My favorite part of the "extra footage" is where Jason "Idiot" Bermas is telling you he is "all by himself" when in fact (a) his people are filming it, and (b) Dylan pulls right up next to him...to lie more outright would be beyond bold.

TAM

Sentinel

19th September 2006, 12:35 PM

My favorite part is when I asked Jason "why are they insulting these people?"
And his answer was "Because HE wasn't going to wait 40 years"
Proof They haven't got any respect for the victims.

And the part when the mute my argument then loop the audio where the police officer states "This is a public sidewalk never mind what these retards are talking about."

Notive how jason clearly intentionally tries to defame me by making me look like I'm the one starting the problem. Doesn't it seem odd that there was another fireman (A Real fireman a Dylan puts it) standing there upset?
And the other fireman who had my back the whole time?

What about the footage of the guy who rode his bike through their sign?
What about the footage of wingtv acting out making racial and anti semetic statements?

Remember, You can't edit the truth and be taken seriously. Thats what the Nazis did.

Take care,

Sentinel