JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags wtc , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 14th February 2007, 09:40 PM   #881
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,333
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
FEMA Chapter 5 pg 15

"...the 20,000 gallons that were recovered..."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[if clicking on link doesn't work, copy and paste URL]

It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 09:47 PM   #882
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Why is this damage to 30 West Broadway only to the top of the building and not at the bottom? Where exactly is this damaged building in relation to WTC 7?

The floors on 30 West Broadway look burnt.

Damage to only the top of a building.....I wonder.
Your ineptitude is thrilling. Look at the aerial photo above. The building at left is 30 W. Broadway.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 09:50 PM   #883
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Coritani View Post
Pot, Kettle, etc. I did notice that you didn't respond to all of my post.
I don't have time to respond to every statement of every post, so i skip the insults and the rhetorical or off topic questions.

Quote:
True.
Thank you

Quote:
It is NOT evidence of a CD.
That is subject to interpretation.

Quote:
There are many explanations for a 'clap of thunder' sound, which is quite ambiguous, and I'm not sure how you got 'bomb' from 'clap of thunder'.
We have two possible explanations so far, can you think of another?

I said 'explosion', not 'bomb'.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 10:17 PM   #884
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?
The FEMA and NIST reports contain a great deal of basic information about WTC 7.

All the tanks, pipes and generators were in the west end of the building,

except for the 4 SSB generators in the north east section.

The supply line to these generators was the only possible source of a fuel oil fire in the east end of WTC 7.

Last edited by Christopher7; 14th February 2007 at 10:19 PM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 10:22 PM   #885
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,333
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The FEMA and NIST reports contain a great deal of basic information about WTC 7.

etc. etc.
So, since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask it again:

Quote:
It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?

Last edited by LashL; 14th February 2007 at 10:26 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 10:27 PM   #886
Dog Town
NO! I'm not on Facebook! And I don't have an Iphone charger, you can use!
 
Dog Town's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water.
Posts: 4,971
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
So, since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask it again:

It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?
I wonder why 20k+ gallons, might have caused fires? Hell... half it, just 10!
Twoofers are idiots! Next!
__________________
So...I wrecked your life, what the heck! My new found faith, will pay by check!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 11:28 PM   #887
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Who claims that diesel engines were running at 12:10 to 12:15?
FEMA pg 15:

It is believed that they came on at 9:59.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 11:49 PM   #888
Coritani
Critical Thinker
 
Coritani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I don't have time to respond to every statement of every post, so i skip the insults and the rhetorical or off topic questions.
I decided to intervene on the Darryl statement because I had refuted it before, but you never replied.

As for skipping part of my post, you skipped two parts: the part about the noise of the core failing (you said it'd be a rumble) and the source of the 'explosions' you claimed existed. I don't see these as rhetorical, off topic or insulting.

Originally Posted by C7
Thank you


Originally Posted by C7
That is subject to interpretation.
How is hearing a 'clap of thunder' evidence of a CD? Especially since noone else has reported a 'clap of thunder' being heard seconds before collapse. It's not audible on any video either.

Originally Posted by C7
We have two possible explanations so far, can you think of another?
Off the top of my head:
  • electrical systems shorting
  • transformers blowing
  • generators failing
  • steam pipes bursting
  • debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts

There is also the 'steel failing' explanation as well.

Originally Posted by C7
I said 'explosion', not 'bomb'.
Sorry, I thought you were parroting one of the CF's favourite equations: Explosion = bomb. If you aren't saying that these explosions are bombs (or demolition charges, or whatever) then you don't really have a point.

Either way, the 'clap of thunder' does not necessarily mean an explosion - there are other explanations (listed above). And, even if there was an explosion of some sort, there are explanations to where that came from as well.
__________________


The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. - Winston Churchill
Coritani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 11:52 PM   #889
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
FEMA pg 15:

It is believed that they came on at 9:59.
I asked who claimed the diesel generators were running at 12:10 to 12:15. You directed me to the FEMA report. It does not make such a claim. It presents a hypothetical case, and in fact states that it is believed that some of the generators stopped running due to air intake contamination.

Your claims are not advanced by strawman arguments.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2007, 11:59 PM   #890
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
I wonder why 20k+ gallons, might have caused fires? Hell... half it, just 10!
Twoofers are idiots! Next!
All the tanks*, pipes and generators were in the west section of WTC 7.

* 6,000 gal. tank in center between 2nd and 3rd fl.

except for the 4 SSB generators in the north east section

[They were supplied by a pipe running across the building]

see FEMA pg 14
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 12:07 AM   #891
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal
Posts: 25,831
Chris, why don't you wait for the final report?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 12:14 AM   #892
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Chris, why don't you wait for the final report?
That question occurs to rational people, but Chris is not rational. He made up his mind about this stuff before reading any reports, and the reports he's read since haven't changed his uninformed, kooky opinions. He's only interested in reports for the "anomalies" he can fixate on and fetishize. He's a true woo believer.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 12:20 AM   #893
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
I asked who claimed the diesel generators were running at 12:10 to 12:15. You directed me to the FEMA report. It does not make such a claim. It presents a hypothetical case, and in fact states that it is believed that some of the generators stopped running due to air intake contamination.

Your claims are not advanced by strawman arguments.
My point was; no one is 'claiming' they came on or stayed on.

If the generators came on, the pumps would be pumping fuel oil to the north east section of WTC 7.

If they did not come on or shut down, then there would be NO fuel oil to burn in the east section of WTC 7.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 12:28 AM   #894
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,333
So, since you still haven't answered the question, ChristopherX, I'll ask for the third time,

Quote:
It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?
It's a simple, straightforward question, Chris. Surely, you can provide a simple, straightforward answer to it instead of avoiding it repeatedly.

Last edited by LashL; 15th February 2007 at 12:34 AM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 01:04 AM   #895
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
That question occurs to rational people, but Chris is not rational. He made up his mind about this stuff before reading any reports, and the reports he's read since haven't changed his uninformed, kooky opinions. He's only interested in reports for the "anomalies" he can fixate on and fetishize. He's a true woo believer.
What?

You want to ignore the information [that isn't going to change] contained in these documents.

Gravy, just last September, when NIST Apx. L was 2 1/4 years old, you insisted that i read it.

You said it was evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire.

Now it's 2 3/4 years old and you want me to fagidabodit.

I keep re-reading these documents and finding things that i had missed like:


The only fuel oil in the eastern part of WTC 7 was a pipe running across the building.

Also, the only generators on the east side of WTC 7 were in the north east section of WTC 7.

These basic facts about the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, is not going to change in the final report.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 01:06 AM   #896
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
So, since you still haven't answered the question, ChristopherX, I'll ask for the third time,
It's a simple, straightforward question, Chris. Surely, you can provide a simple, straightforward answer to it instead of avoiding it repeatedly.
Terribly sorry to keep you waiting.

I don't know.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 12:27 PM   #897
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,214
then last time, WAIT FOR THE FINAL REPORT. All this posturing is not doing a thing anyway. You are taking the claims of preliminary report and acting as if its the "above all/say all/concrete" findings.

IT ISN'T

So why dont you WAIT Till the final report is released, forget this thread and start a new one when the WTC 7 report is done and for you to read.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2007, 12:53 PM   #898
rwguinn
Philosopher
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 9,341
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Terribly sorry to keep you waiting.

I don't know.
Gee-
Someone who conclusively correlates "a thunderclap" sound to correlation can't figure out where 23000 gallons of kerosene might have gone during a fire...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 02:16 AM   #899
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Coritani View Post
Either way, the 'clap of thunder' does not necessarily mean an explosion - there are other explanations (listed above). And, even if there was an explosion of some sort, there are explanations to where that came from as well.
True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 02:44 AM   #900
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
then last time, WAIT FOR THE FINAL REPORT. All this posturing is not doing a thing anyway. You are taking the claims of preliminary report and acting as if its the "above all/say all/concrete" findings.

IT ISN'T
Actually, i was quoting facts, not claims.
The data about where the fuel oil tanks were located, will not change in the final report, unless you are assuming FEMA didn't get anything right.

The fact that there were only 4 generators [floor 5] and NO fuel oil tanks in the east part of WTC 7 is very important.

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.



If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.

It is not on fire.

Quote:
So why dont you WAIT Till the final report is released, forget this thread and start a new one when the WTC 7 report is done and for you to read.
We don't need to wait for the final report to look at the data [not the cliams] that is contained in the many official government reports that have been released.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 03:05 AM   #901
Coritani
Critical Thinker
 
Coritani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.
Yes. And the former two are far more logical, because the building was collapsing, and there'd definitely be steel and transformers in WTC 7 (as well as the other things I listed) that could easily make the 'clap of thunder' noise during collapse.

On the other hand, there were demolition teams present at Ground zero around the time of WTC 7's collapse. None of them said they heard anyhint out of the ordinary - i.e, no charges.

So, do you have any evidence that this 'clap of thunder' is demolition chargees going off?
__________________


The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. - Winston Churchill
Coritani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 03:55 AM   #902
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Coritani View Post
Yes. And the former two are far more logical, because the building was collapsing, and there'd definitely be steel and transformers in WTC 7 (as well as the other things I listed) that could easily make the 'clap of thunder' noise during collapse.

On the other hand, there were demolition teams present at Ground zero around the time of WTC 7's collapse. None of them said they heard anyhint out of the ordinary - i.e, no charges.

So, do you have any evidence that this 'clap of thunder' is demolition chargees going off?
No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.

Last edited by Christopher7; 16th February 2007 at 04:02 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:05 AM   #903
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Gravy, just last September, when NIST Apx. L was 2 1/4 years old, you insisted that i read it.
Because you were arguing that WTC 7 was the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but you didn't even know the NIST report existed.

Quote:
Now it's 2 3/4 years old and you want me to fagidabodit.
Wrong. I want you to try to understand it, and to understand that it's an interim report, created when the investigation was less than halfway complete.

Quote:
I keep re-reading these documents and finding things that i had missed like:


The only fuel oil in the eastern part of WTC 7 was a pipe running across the building.

Also, the only generators on the east side of WTC 7 were in the north east section of WTC 7.

These basic facts about the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, is not going to change in the final report.
By gosh, youire right! Come to think of it, none of these facts about WTC 7 are going to change in the final report:

It was 47 stories tall.
It had indoor plumbing.
It had shiny pinkish stone on the outside.
It had lights in the ceilings.
It had doors.

Thank you for reminding me of these unchanging facts.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:07 AM   #904
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.
As we know, when buildings collapse, they make loud noises. Next.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:09 AM   #905
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.

It is not on fire.

We don't need to wait for the final report to look at the data [not the cliams] that is contained in the many official government reports that have been released.
To support your conclusion, please show that view for the 7 hours that the building was on fire.

Thank you.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:12 AM   #906
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.
But since there were hundreds of people there, including explosive demolitions experts, who did not describe hearing or seeing anything like demolitions charges going off, we'll assign that possibility to the "vanishingly small" category.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:38 AM   #907
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Because you were arguing that WTC 7 was the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but you didn't even know the NIST report existed.
I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

Quote:
Wrong. I want you to try to understand it, and to understand that it's an interim report, created when the investigation was less than halfway complete.
The raw data about the construction and the layout of WTC 7 is not going to change. The investigation will have no effect on the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, it will be he other way around.

Quote:
By gosh, youire right! Come to think of it, none of these facts about WTC 7 are going to change in the final report:

It was 47 stories tall.
It had indoor plumbing.
It had shiny pinkish stone on the outside.
It had lights in the ceilings.
It had doors.

Thank you for reminding me of these unchanging facts.
Actually i was talking about tanks, pipes and generators, you know, the ones that were NOT on fire at the east end of WTC 7.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:42 AM   #908
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.
Here's my challenge to you: I will print a list of the claims that I can prove you got wrong. You print a list of what you can prove NIST got wrong. And then we'll know which claims are farcical and which are not. Agreed?

Quote:
The raw data about the construction and the layout of WTC 7 is not going to change. The investigation will have no effect on the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, it will be he other way around.

Actually i was talking about tanks, pipes and generators, you know, the ones that were NOT on fire at the east end of WTC 7.
Please present the data that support your claim, for the 7 hours that the building was on fire. Now would be good. Fair enough?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 04:51 AM   #909
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
To support your conclusion, please show that view for the 7 hours that the building was on fire.

Thank you.
Right

The photograph i posted was taken around 3 p.m.

There was no fire in the north east generator room at that time.

This is the only place where a fuel oil fire could have contributed to the initiating event.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 05:45 AM   #910
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Here's my challenge to you: I will print a list of the claims that I can prove you got wrong. You print a list of what you can prove NIST got wrong. And then we'll know which claims are farcical and which are not. Agreed?
I've got a better idea. Instead of getting into a pissing match, lets ponder the data in the FEMA report.

Page 14 is very informative.

It lays out where all the fuel tanks, risers and generators are located.

The text starts on page 13 and runs to page 16.

The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room. [along core column row 58 - 79]

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7.

This basic data is of course, essential to any investigation.

Do you think it is incorrect ?

If not, then according to the data, the only place near the initiating event that could have had a fuel fire was the generator room at the north east corner.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 06:21 AM   #911
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers
Posts: 11,766
I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

All that really shows christopher7 is that you had already decided that WTC was a CD BEFORE you had even done a proper investigation.

Now it appears, IMHO, that you are just working backwards from that initial predisposition looking for any anomalies or inconsistencies, no matter how small or irrelevant, in an otherwise pretty solid report to try to justify your beliefs.

What kind of kooky investigation is that?
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 06:21 AM   #912
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Um, Chris, who said the diesel fuel was the cause of the collapse?

Not FEMA. In fact, they assigned a low probability to that hypothesis.

That said, do you agree that because a single photo does not show fire in an area, it is not evidence that there was never fire there?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 06:38 AM   #913
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
What kind of kooky investigation is that?
This kind of kooky investigation.


Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:



"That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people."



"At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11."



"It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open.
I won't settle for a bandaid,
We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning."


"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."



"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"



"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."



"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person."



"This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)"


"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."




"Can you name one Senator or Rep. calling for an independent investigation or saying "911 was an inside job"."



"This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread."



"Bush made this self incriminating statement twice. What more do you need to know ?" http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml



On David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report Omissions":

"It's a lot to read folks, but read it as if your freedom depended on it becaues it DOES!"



"Oh please, are a gluten for insipid pseudo-scientific gibberish?"



"Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].

There are more than 300 Phd's and experts with meny years of service in the military and government. Do you have any experience in government?"



"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one."



"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes."



"I have been doing a lot of research on 911 and spreading the truth by giving copies of Loose Change and a 4 min. video on wtc7 to everyone I come in contact with."




Chris: "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and you don't have to be a demolitions expert to know a CD when you see one. CD are very distinctive, easy to recognise."

gumboot: "CD is distinct compared to what?"

Chris: "another CD."

gumboot: "???"




"In Shanksville a 575 hit filldirt at a 40 degree angle
A better comparison would be a tennis ball hitting an egg after bouncing off a brick wall."




"Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?"



"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"




"This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely. Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes. Look at this 4 min. video."



"Killtown: Excellent!
Anyone [not in deep denial] who takes the time to study your page,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/11...and-burnt.html
will agree that the Shanksville crash site is either probably or definately a fake."



"Can you possibly believe that a 757 completely burried itself, tail and all?
The coroner found NO body parts, NO blood."



"At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs."



"There were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT."

"It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer."



"The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber."



"The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE."


"The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!"



"Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns."



"So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause."



"There simply is no other explanation."


"Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise."


"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

"Denial will not protect you from reality."
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 16th February 2007 at 07:48 AM. Reason: Added a few.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 09:18 AM   #914
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 37,070
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I am basing my belief on what i see in the videos of WTC 7
You're basing a belief on layman interpretation, nothing more.

Quote:
The building falls mostly straight down and lands in a pile, mostly within its original footprint.

The surrounding buildings were of no concern. [imho]
Then you've covered all the bases. "Mostly" within its original footprint allows you to accept the fact that surrounding buildings were damaged while simultaneously clinging to your contention that it looks like a controlled demolition. Convenient, if contradictory.
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 09:20 AM   #915
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 37,070
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
It is now unclear to me what caused the gouge in the building or if it ever existed. Some here are saying the gouge is from the 10th floor to the bottom on the south side. There is reported damage on the 14th floor with black smoking emanating from the area.

The missile impact I saw taken by FOX cameraman Jack Taliercio shows debris flying out at a high rate of speed. I am now unsure such a massive hole could have been made by an air-to-air missile.
Air-to-air missiles are designed to take down planes, remember ? Planes are flimsy things, compared to buildings. You've seen the damage. You've seen that 7 WTC was intact when WTC 2 collapsed. What is your conclusion, so far ?
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 09:39 AM   #916
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 37,070
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
That said, do you agree that because a single photo does not show fire in an area, it is not evidence that there was never fire there?
In fact, it isn't even definitive evidence that there wasn't fire in that area when the picture was taken.
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 09:45 AM   #917
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 37,070
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
This kind of kooky investigation.


Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:
Well this certainly puts things into perspective.

I'm happy that MY friends who, at one time, thought 9/11 was an inside job were able to be convinced by actual evidence and reasoning, unlike Chris.
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 10:29 AM   #918
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border
Posts: 14,085
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The 2 story mechanical room it in the center of the east side.

There are no reports of damage or fire in this area.

To damage the mechanical room, debris would have to bust thru floors 7 & 8.
The smoke would be coming back up thru the debris hole.

NIST pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

No heavy dust or smoke on floor 8

Cubicle fire on west wall of floor 7



If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

Smoke would be pouring out of the louver vents
-If the generator is running it is drawing outside air IN through the louvers.
-Given the ejected elevators it is quite possible that the smoke is exiting the fire area via the elevator shaft acting as a chimney.
-The generators are separated from the rest of the building by walls and doors. Only if the fire were actually in the same room would smoke have any chance of exiting via the louvers.(assuming that the door was shut, a good bet IMO)
-The fuel fire need not be near the generator as you point out the fule line runs almost the length of the building.
-The day tank draws fuel from the basement tanks.
-Given that there was a fire on 7th floor and the number of fires in the area of the WTC complex of buildings all that the "no heavy dust or smoke" reference means is that the FF's could walk about on 8th floor without too much difficulty.
-There was both the fuel distribution line running the length of the building and a 6000 gal tank in the east elevator shaft between the 2nd and 3rd floor.


All of this indicates the possibility of a fuel fire near the east elevator shaft and thus near the east end of the core structure where the initial event that lead to collapse occured.
FEMA is diligent to point out that this requires more information to determine whether or not the generators were running at the time.

What really seems to trouble many CT's is that definitive information is still lacking. Why is it so very difficult to see that getting such information would be very difficult? In any 'normal' catastrophe it is well known what the initial conditions of a structure were.
In the case of the Murrah building we know that a bomb went off a known distance from the front of the building, we know the type of explosive, we know the condition of the building at the time of the blast.
In the case of the WTC towers we know the speed and mass of the aircraft, where they hit the towers and the testimony of people who were in the building.
In the case of WTC 7 we do not know the exact nature of the physical damage caused by the impact of unknown parts of WTC 1. We have only the testimony of a few workers and the FF's who all were out of the building quite a while before the collapse.

The fact that different groups of experts have looked at the limited available data and come to somewhat different possible causes is not unusual.

NIST concentrated on the towers because that is where people died and NIST's job is to reccommend standards for building safety.

AFTER they finished with the towers they came back to WTC 7 and will release a more in depth report soon.

Quote:
*WTC 7 140' deep, source?
You have said you read the reports.

NIST report page L-1, paragraph L.1.3
Quote:
WTC 7 was a 47 story commercial office building, completed in 1987. Its location relative to the WTC
Plaza is shown in Fig. L–1. It contained approximately 2 million ft2 of floor area. The overall
dimensions of WTC 7 were approximately 330 ft long, 140 ft wide, and 610 ft tall.
FEMA report figure 5.1
shows the distance between the south facade and north facade as 144'5"

The cantilever girders are described on page 5-7
They start at the north wall and extend for 6'9" to their north support coulmn then extend a further an additional 46 feet to the core for a total of 52'9" from the north facade to the north side of the core. Doing the math the northern most part of the core structure is 91'8" from the south facade.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 10:42 AM   #919
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border
Posts: 14,085
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

The photograph i posted was taken around 3 p.m.

There was no fire in the north east generator room at that time.

This is the only place where a fuel oil fire could have contributed to the initiating event.

No, the fire, if there were one , would have to have been outside the room in which the generator was and indeed that room was separated from the rest of the building including much of the supply line by wall and a door.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2007, 11:08 AM   #920
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border
Posts: 14,085
Quote:
"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"
You actually stated that Chris?

Confronted with the oft used CT arguement that the heat of fires should have been conducted away by the heavy steel and not allowed it to heat up such that it lost significant strength, I have asked, "why then is it deemed neccessary to install fire insulation on heavy structural steel?".

Your quote above is the closest anyone has come to attempting to answer that question, even though it would be doing so by asking another question.

The standards that determine what type of fire protection to put on structural members is designed by people who actually make a life's work of studying the effect of fire on such things.

All laymen know that solid steel simply does not burn in any situation one can envision. Some laymen also know or could deduce that heating steel will cause it to become soft(malleable). Any intelligent person who has seen a blacksmith work on iron will inuitively grasp that basic concept.
However you attempt to extrapolate that first bit of lay knowledge and ignore the second and come to what amounts to a questioning of the wisdom of the experts in this feild who do make an in depth study of such matters. You ignore the entire body of work known as fire engineering and substitute your own 'common sense'.

__________________________________________

There is a local handyman in my home town who is of the opinion that 'one nail is all that you need'.

I recently replaced a front door frame for a friend. We started on removing the old frame and saw a nail and pulled it out. We then searched the door frame for the others nails. There were none we could find. So I hauled off and gave the frame a hard smack and sure enough the whole frame came loose. It was held in place by ONE nail, a 3 inch finishing nail. That door frame had been like that for 30 years. My friend had noted that when the door was shut hard that it seemed to shudder the whole frame but he had never thought anything of it. It was also noted that the frame seemed to shift a lot causeing the door to stick. Sure , one nail held it together for 30 years but only out of shear luck. Had anyone tried breaking into the house all they would have to have done would be to give the door a good ram with the shoulder or boot of a big guy and that one piddly nail would not have held. So, in your expert carpenter's opinion was the local handyman(actually he is now deceased for more than a decade) right? He was the one who orginally installed that door.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.