FREE TAPATALK APP

Jack by the hedge · 3rd October 2010, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

what's building 7? and why should I give two **** s about it?

This.

Like probably most of the world, I had never heard of WTC building 7 (before reading about truthers disputing what happened to it). I thought the twin towers were the WTC. The terrorists attacked the iconic twin towers. They didn't give a damn about any building 7, if they even knew what it was.

Miragememories · 3rd October 2010, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

The CTBUH agrees with NIST.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Peopl...raftReport.pdf

I think they might know a thing or two about all buildings eh?

Oh really.

From just a quick look.

10. CTBUH Conclusions

"The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79.

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss
of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction,
as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. "
on pg.10

MM

Cl1mh4224rd · 3rd October 2010, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

Yes.

What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents?

The key word in that question was "normal", not "office".

Miragememories · 3rd October 2010, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

FDNY knows that when buildings lean, and have huge bulges over many storys of the structure, that the building is going to collapse.

FDNY also knows that engineers who were there, who had a transit on the building, watching it's structural integrity go from bad to worse, know what they are talking about.

It is speculation to say that if Column 79 did not fail, that it would have stood.

Regarding the infamous bulge;

From Firehouse Magazine;

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Peter Hayden -- FDNY

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Originally Posted by JREF forum-Thread 10-story hole in WTC7-Page 106

"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"

MM

tsig · 3rd October 2010, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

If ordinary is one of the largest office fires ever, you are correct.

C'mon it was the largest office fire in the history of planet earth.

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

Bolding mine

Where did you get the idea that they knew column 79 would fail? They knew the building was going to fail based upon the fact that they are trained to ascertain building conditions in a fire.

But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.

I think you need to (A) read my ammendment upon others disputing the word choice, and (B) stop picking at Semantics.

Got anything else...anything worth addressing?

TAM

Edit: Also, I did not say that the FIREMEN and other RESPONDERS knew of the design issue/uniqueness.

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I think you need to (A) read my ammendment upon others disputing the word choice, and (B) stop picking at Semantics.

Got anything else...anything worth addressing?

TAM

Edit: Also, I did not say that the FIREMEN and other RESPONDERS knew of the design issue/uniqueness.

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

Disbelief · 3rd October 2010, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.

This has nothing to do with something TAM said, but about something you said.

cantonear1968 · 3rd October 2010, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

(B) stop picking at Semantics.

Got anything else...anything worth addressing?

TAM

Nope. I have come to the conclusion that after 8 long years of having each and every one of their "facts" exposed as having no merit, truthers are no longer arguing for a win but playing for a draw.

And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics.

Cooper. Fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse. You can refer to the question in my original response to this thread:
What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with the conclusions in NIST's Final Report on WTC7?

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

1. They just saw 2 large buildings collapse hours earlier.
2. Other buildings have collapsed before that day. Perhaps not complete collapses perhaps not steel framed skyscrapers, but buildings had collapsed (partially or fully) prior to 9/11.
3. They knew that uncontrolled untreated fires for hours, would eventually lead to collapse...eventually.

It took years for NIST to come up with a final theory as to the mechanism of collapse. Some of that time was due to the fact that NIST was not involved right away, some of it was due to delay while they focused on completion of the reports for WTC1/2, and some of it was due to the investigation and report of WTC7 itself (including looking at the viability of blast scenarios I might add).

TAM

cantonear1968 · 3rd October 2010, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction?

Does anyone have a facepalm for me?

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

Nope. I have come to the conclusion that after 8 long years of having each and every one of their "facts" exposed as having no merit, truthers are no longer arguing for a win but playing for a draw.

And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics.

Cooper. Fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse. You can refer to the question in my original response to this thread:
What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with the conclusions in NIST's Final Report on WTC7?

It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years.

Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column?

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

Does anyone have a facepalm for me?

Facepalms are fun but I would prefer an answer.

cantonear1968 · 3rd October 2010, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

Facepalms are fun but I would prefer an answer.

I believe TAM answered your question. Proving he has infinitely more patience than myself.

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

1. They just saw 2 large buildings collapse hours earlier.
2. Other buildings have collapsed before that day. Perhaps not complete collapses perhaps not steel framed skyscrapers, but buildings had collapsed (partially or fully) prior to 9/11.
3. They knew that uncontrolled untreated fires for hours, would eventually lead to collapse...eventually.

It took years for NIST to come up with a final theory as to the mechanism of collapse. Some of that time was due to the fact that NIST was not involved right away, some of it was due to delay while they focused on completion of the reports for WTC1/2, and some of it was due to the investigation and report of WTC7 itself (including looking at the viability of blast scenarios I might add).

TAM

Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon".

How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79?

You do see the problem here, don't you?

BigAl · 3rd October 2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

Because it was an out-of-control fire. Firemen have been schooled in the risks of collapse for fire in steel-framed buildings since forever.

Because firemen know how to watch for signs that anticipate a collapse. WTC7 displayed such signs as early as 2PM.

Quote:

FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years.

Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column?

Provide your evidence. In relation to "everyone knew WTC7 was going to collapse", provide quotes of what was said, by whom, and what their qualifications were.

I am not asking for this to be nasty, but you have made such a statement, and I want to see the proof. I wish to see this, not to corner you or to waste your time, but because I think if you look at who said such, and why they said it, it might explain things a little better.

TAM

triforcharity · 3rd October 2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

Fire+steel framed buildings + time-firefighting=collapse.

Every
Single
Time.

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon".

How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79?

You do see the problem here, don't you?

When was this quote said (time of day) and by whom? What were their qualifications (or lack of)?

The rest of your post, I answered above...

TAM

Edit: Oh and by eventually, I mean what Trio said...time+fire in building - firefighting = Collapse

Disbelief · 3rd October 2010, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

No, there is no contradiction. The firefighters on the scene, who are trained to assess the condition of buildings on fire, put a transit on it and found the lean. With the continuing fires that were not fought, along with informatio n like the transit, they decided it was going to collapse. Because they knew it was going to collapse does not mean they knew what the exact mechanism would be. Why would you even think that they would know this?

triforcharity · 3rd October 2010, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years.

Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column?

Cooperman,

We have seen your game before. HI played the same exact game.

Here, I will go slow for you.

Fire + steel framed buildings+time-firefighting= collapse.

Does it matter that the people on the scene that day knew that it would a Column 79? No. Not one bit.

All that matters, is that they saw the building, recognized the signs of collapse, and acted appropriately.

What is you point?

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 05:01 PM

I think he makes the mistake of thinking THE ONLY WAY that WTC7 could have collapsed due to fires, according to NIST, is via Column 79.

This is a mistake. NIST has concluded that this is why it collapsed, NOT that it was the only way it could have collapsed via fires.

TAM

cantonear1968 · 3rd October 2010, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon".

How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79?

You do see the problem here, don't you?

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics.

Oy Vay!

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Provide your evidence. In relation to "everyone knew WTC7 was going to collapse", provide quotes of what was said, by whom, and what their qualifications were.

I am not asking for this to be nasty, but you have made such a statement, and I want to see the proof. I wish to see this, not to corner you or to waste your time, but because I think if you look at who said such, and why they said it, it might explain things a little better.

TAM

These aren't my claims, they are debunker's claims.

However, it is true that everyone said that wtc7 collapse was imminent. The FDNY were all convinced of an imminent collapse. You media all reported that the building would collapse and were waiting for it to do so. You know this. It was a favourite argument of debunkers before the NIST report was released.

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Cooperman,

We have seen your game before. HI played the same exact game.

Here, I will go slow for you.

Fire + steel framed buildings+time-firefighting= collapse.

Does it matter that the people on the scene that day knew that it would a Column 79? No. Not one bit.

All that matters, is that they saw the building, recognized the signs of collapse, and acted appropriately.

What is you point?

What were the signs of collapse?

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

No, there is no contradiction. The firefighters on the scene, who are trained to assess the condition of buildings on fire, put a transit on it and found the lean. With the continuing fires that were not fought, along with informatio n like the transit, they decided it was going to collapse. Because they knew it was going to collapse does not mean they knew what the exact mechanism would be. Why would you even think that they would know this?

What evidence do you have that wtc7 was leaning?

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 05:09 PM

Nice dodge.

For example....

If it was a media person who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that they got such info from reports by firefighters or other experts.

If it was a firefighter who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that he assessed the situation and determined that an untreated fire for 5-6 hours was likely going to cause WTC7 to collapse, especially when he saw it was damaged and leaning.

If it was some average joe who said, at 1130AM that WTC7 collapse was imminent, I would say he was guessing, or was a sekrit agent.

TAM

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Nice dodge.

For example....

If it was a media person who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that they got such info from reports from firefighters or other experts.

If it was a firefighter who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that he assessed the situation and determined that an untreated fire for 5-6 hours was likely going to cause WTC7 to collapse, especially when he saw it was damaged and leaning.

If it was some average joe who said, at 1130AM that WTC7 collapse was imminent, I would say he was guessing, or was a sekrit agent.

TAM

wtc7 was not leaning.

BigAl · 3rd October 2010, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

What were the signs of collapse?

Do you read what we are posting? For the second time:

Quote:

FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning tocollapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

BigAl · 3rd October 2010, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

wtc7 was not leaning.

It was bulging. See post #114

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

It was bulging. See post #114

Bulging maybe, but it was not leaning. Why do people continue to say it was leaning when it wasn't?

T.A.M. · 3rd October 2010, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

wtc7 was not leaning.

Is that the entirety of your reply to my post? You agree with everything else then?????

TAM

Thunder · 3rd October 2010, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

Bulging maybe, but it was not leaning. Why do people continue to say it was leaning when it wasn't?

um...cause it was leaning.

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Is that the entirety of your reply to my post? You agree with everything else then?????

TAM

No, I disagree entirely but there is hardly much point in going round in circles. I do not believe that that everyone at the scene made a lucky guess that building 7 was about to collapse.

Thunder · 3rd October 2010, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

I do not believe that that everyone at the scene made a lucky guess that building 7 was about to collapse.

there are a plethera of videos, where folks on the street say the building is gonna come down.

are they all......"in on it"?

BigAl · 3rd October 2010, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

No, I disagree entirely but there is hardly much point in going round in circles. I do not believe that that everyone at the scene made a lucky guess that building 7 was about to collapse.

Training, not luck. For the third time:

Quote:

FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

Training, not luck. For the third time:

How did this bulge relate to the initiating event?

Is there any photographic or video evidence for this bulge?

cooperman · 3rd October 2010, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

um...cause it was leaning.

What evidence do you have that it was leaning?

BigAl · 3rd October 2010, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by cooperman

What evidence do you have that it was leaning?

It wasn't leaning, it was bulging.

Do read what we are posting? For the fourth time:

Quote:

FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

3rd October 2010, 04:25 PM	#162
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by triforcharity The CTBUH agrees with NIST. http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Peopl...raftReport.pdf I think they might know a thing or two about all buildings eh? Oh really. From just a quick look. 10. CTBUH Conclusions "The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction, as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. " on pg.10 MM
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

3rd October 2010, 04:29 PM	#164
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by triforcharity FDNY knows that when buildings lean, and have huge bulges over many storys of the structure, that the building is going to collapse. FDNY also knows that engineers who were there, who had a transit on the building, watching it's structural integrity go from bad to worse, know what they are talking about. It is speculation to say that if Column 79 did not fail, that it would have stood. Regarding the infamous bulge; From Firehouse Magazine; Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Peter Hayden -- FDNY "By now, this is going on into the afternoon...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." Originally Posted by JREF forum-Thread 10-story hole in WTC7-Page 106 "A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning. No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning. Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner. He did not say it was leaning. NIST did not say it was leaning. WTC 7 was NOT leaning!" MM
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

3rd October 2010, 04:33 PM	#166
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by Disbelief Bolding mine Where did you get the idea that they knew column 79 would fail? They knew the building was going to fail based upon the fact that they are trained to ascertain building conditions in a fire. But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 04:37 PM	#167
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cooperman But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on. I think you need to (A) read my ammendment upon others disputing the word choice, and (B) stop picking at Semantics. Got anything else...anything worth addressing? TAM Edit: Also, I did not say that the FIREMEN and other RESPONDERS knew of the design issue/uniqueness.
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 3rd October 2010 at 04:39 PM.

3rd October 2010, 04:42 PM	#168
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by T.A.M. I think you need to (A) read my ammendment upon others disputing the word choice, and (B) stop picking at Semantics. Got anything else...anything worth addressing? TAM Edit: Also, I did not say that the FIREMEN and other RESPONDERS knew of the design issue/uniqueness. And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 04:25 PM	#161
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,513	Originally Posted by Thunder what's building 7? and why should I give two **** s about it? This. Like probably most of the world, I had never heard of WTC building 7 (before reading about truthers disputing what happened to it). I thought the twin towers were the WTC. The terrorists attacked the iconic twin towers. They didn't give a damn about any building 7, if they even knew what it was.

3rd October 2010, 04:27 PM	#163
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by cooperman Yes. What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents? The key word in that question was "normal", not "office".

3rd October 2010, 04:29 PM	#165
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by Disbelief If ordinary is one of the largest office fires ever, you are correct. C'mon it was the largest office fire in the history of planet earth.

3rd October 2010, 04:44 PM	#169
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	Originally Posted by cooperman But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on. This has nothing to do with something TAM said, but about something you said.
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

3rd October 2010, 04:48 PM	#170
cantonear1968 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by T.A.M. (B) stop picking at Semantics. Got anything else...anything worth addressing? TAM Nope. I have come to the conclusion that after 8 long years of having each and every one of their "facts" exposed as having no merit, truthers are no longer arguing for a win but playing for a draw. And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics. Cooper. Fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse. You can refer to the question in my original response to this thread: What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with the conclusions in NIST's Final Report on WTC7?
	__________________ Richard Gage: "I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were". "I see so your deferring to the academic integrity of youtube. Wow." -Grandmastershek

3rd October 2010, 04:50 PM	#171
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cooperman And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse? 1. They just saw 2 large buildings collapse hours earlier. 2. Other buildings have collapsed before that day. Perhaps not complete collapses perhaps not steel framed skyscrapers, but buildings had collapsed (partially or fully) prior to 9/11. 3. They knew that uncontrolled untreated fires for hours, would eventually lead to collapse...eventually. It took years for NIST to come up with a final theory as to the mechanism of collapse. Some of that time was due to the fact that NIST was not involved right away, some of it was due to delay while they focused on completion of the reports for WTC1/2, and some of it was due to the investigation and report of WTC7 itself (including looking at the viability of blast scenarios I might add). TAM
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 3rd October 2010 at 04:52 PM.

3rd October 2010, 04:50 PM	#172
cantonear1968 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by cooperman For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? Does anyone have a facepalm for me?
	__________________ Richard Gage: "I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were". "I see so your deferring to the academic integrity of youtube. Wow." -Grandmastershek

3rd October 2010, 04:51 PM	#173
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by cantonear1968 Nope. I have come to the conclusion that after 8 long years of having each and every one of their "facts" exposed as having no merit, truthers are no longer arguing for a win but playing for a draw. And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics. Cooper. Fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse. You can refer to the question in my original response to this thread: What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with the conclusions in NIST's Final Report on WTC7? It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years. Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column?
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 04:52 PM	#174
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by cantonear1968 Does anyone have a facepalm for me? Facepalms are fun but I would prefer an answer.
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 04:54 PM	#175
cantonear1968 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by cooperman Facepalms are fun but I would prefer an answer. I believe TAM answered your question. Proving he has infinitely more patience than myself.
	__________________ Richard Gage: "I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were". "I see so your deferring to the academic integrity of youtube. Wow." -Grandmastershek

3rd October 2010, 04:54 PM	#176
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by T.A.M. 1. They just saw 2 large buildings collapse hours earlier. 2. Other buildings have collapsed before that day. Perhaps not complete collapses perhaps not steel framed skyscrapers, but buildings had collapsed (partially or fully) prior to 9/11. 3. They knew that uncontrolled untreated fires for hours, would eventually lead to collapse...eventually. It took years for NIST to come up with a final theory as to the mechanism of collapse. Some of that time was due to the fact that NIST was not involved right away, some of it was due to delay while they focused on completion of the reports for WTC1/2, and some of it was due to the investigation and report of WTC7 itself (including looking at the viability of blast scenarios I might add). TAM Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon". How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79? You do see the problem here, don't you?
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 04:55 PM	#177
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by cooperman And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse? Because it was an out-of-control fire. Firemen have been schooled in the risks of collapse for fire in steel-framed buildings since forever. Because firemen know how to watch for signs that anticipate a collapse. WTC7 displayed such signs as early as 2PM. Quote: FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM. FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept. Last edited by BigAl; 3rd October 2010 at 04:57 PM.

3rd October 2010, 04:55 PM	#178
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cooperman It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years. Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column? Provide your evidence. In relation to "everyone knew WTC7 was going to collapse", provide quotes of what was said, by whom, and what their qualifications were. I am not asking for this to be nasty, but you have made such a statement, and I want to see the proof. I wish to see this, not to corner you or to waste your time, but because I think if you look at who said such, and why they said it, it might explain things a little better. TAM

3rd October 2010, 04:55 PM	#179
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by cooperman And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse? Fire+steel framed buildings + time-firefighting=collapse. Every Single Time.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

3rd October 2010, 04:57 PM	#180
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cooperman Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon". How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79? You do see the problem here, don't you? When was this quote said (time of day) and by whom? What were their qualifications (or lack of)? The rest of your post, I answered above... TAM Edit: Oh and by eventually, I mean what Trio said...time+fire in building - firefighting = Collapse
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 3rd October 2010 at 04:58 PM.

3rd October 2010, 04:57 PM	#181
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	Originally Posted by cooperman And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse? No, there is no contradiction. The firefighters on the scene, who are trained to assess the condition of buildings on fire, put a transit on it and found the lean. With the continuing fires that were not fought, along with informatio n like the transit, they decided it was going to collapse. Because they knew it was going to collapse does not mean they knew what the exact mechanism would be. Why would you even think that they would know this?
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

3rd October 2010, 04:58 PM	#182
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by cooperman It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years. Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column? Cooperman, We have seen your game before. HI played the same exact game. Here, I will go slow for you. Fire + steel framed buildings+time-firefighting= collapse. Does it matter that the people on the scene that day knew that it would a Column 79? No. Not one bit. All that matters, is that they saw the building, recognized the signs of collapse, and acted appropriately. What is you point?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

3rd October 2010, 05:01 PM	#183
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	I think he makes the mistake of thinking THE ONLY WAY that WTC7 could have collapsed due to fires, according to NIST, is via Column 79. This is a mistake. NIST has concluded that this is why it collapsed, NOT that it was the only way it could have collapsed via fires. TAM

3rd October 2010, 05:01 PM	#184
cantonear1968 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by cooperman Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon". How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79? You do see the problem here, don't you? Originally Posted by cantonear1968 And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics. Oy Vay!
	__________________ Richard Gage: "I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were". "I see so your deferring to the academic integrity of youtube. Wow." -Grandmastershek

3rd October 2010, 05:04 PM	#185
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Provide your evidence. In relation to "everyone knew WTC7 was going to collapse", provide quotes of what was said, by whom, and what their qualifications were. I am not asking for this to be nasty, but you have made such a statement, and I want to see the proof. I wish to see this, not to corner you or to waste your time, but because I think if you look at who said such, and why they said it, it might explain things a little better. TAM These aren't my claims, they are debunker's claims. However, it is true that everyone said that wtc7 collapse was imminent. The FDNY were all convinced of an imminent collapse. You media all reported that the building would collapse and were waiting for it to do so. You know this. It was a favourite argument of debunkers before the NIST report was released.
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 05:06 PM	#186
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by triforcharity Cooperman, We have seen your game before. HI played the same exact game. Here, I will go slow for you. Fire + steel framed buildings+time-firefighting= collapse. Does it matter that the people on the scene that day knew that it would a Column 79? No. Not one bit. All that matters, is that they saw the building, recognized the signs of collapse, and acted appropriately. What is you point? What were the signs of collapse?
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 05:07 PM	#187
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by Disbelief No, there is no contradiction. The firefighters on the scene, who are trained to assess the condition of buildings on fire, put a transit on it and found the lean. With the continuing fires that were not fought, along with informatio n like the transit, they decided it was going to collapse. Because they knew it was going to collapse does not mean they knew what the exact mechanism would be. Why would you even think that they would know this? What evidence do you have that wtc7 was leaning?
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 05:09 PM	#188
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Nice dodge. For example.... If it was a media person who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that they got such info from reports by firefighters or other experts. If it was a firefighter who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that he assessed the situation and determined that an untreated fire for 5-6 hours was likely going to cause WTC7 to collapse, especially when he saw it was damaged and leaning. If it was some average joe who said, at 1130AM that WTC7 collapse was imminent, I would say he was guessing, or was a sekrit agent. TAM

3rd October 2010, 05:10 PM	#189
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Nice dodge. For example.... If it was a media person who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that they got such info from reports from firefighters or other experts. If it was a firefighter who said, at 330PM, that WTC7 was going to collapse, my suggestion would be that he assessed the situation and determined that an untreated fire for 5-6 hours was likely going to cause WTC7 to collapse, especially when he saw it was damaged and leaning. If it was some average joe who said, at 1130AM that WTC7 collapse was imminent, I would say he was guessing, or was a sekrit agent. TAM wtc7 was not leaning.
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 05:10 PM	#190
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by cooperman What were the signs of collapse? Do you read what we are posting? For the second time: Quote: FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning tocollapse as early as 2:00PM. FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

3rd October 2010, 05:11 PM	#191
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by cooperman wtc7 was not leaning. It was bulging. See post #114
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

3rd October 2010, 05:13 PM	#192
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by BigAl It was bulging. See post #114 Bulging maybe, but it was not leaning. Why do people continue to say it was leaning when it wasn't?
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467

3rd October 2010, 05:14 PM	#193
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cooperman wtc7 was not leaning. Is that the entirety of your reply to my post? You agree with everything else then????? TAM

3rd October 2010, 05:15 PM	#194
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by cooperman Bulging maybe, but it was not leaning. Why do people continue to say it was leaning when it wasn't? um...cause it was leaning.

3rd October 2010, 05:16 PM	#195
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Is that the entirety of your reply to my post? You agree with everything else then????? TAM No, I disagree entirely but there is hardly much point in going round in circles. I do not believe that that everyone at the scene made a lucky guess that building 7 was about to collapse.
cooperman Suspended Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 467