9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..

FrostyJack

That video posted above is excellent, well worth watching.

It is the same as all those Loose Change, lizards are controlling the world videos on youtube, same music and voice over. This is a much better one, more realistic and more entertaining:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

"metal is stronger than ice" lol

Not doubting in my mind the fact that all three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions.

Your mind is easily made up when a few videos on youtube and propaganda "truther" websites convinces you. Facts and evidence are not need there obviously.

Here is an example of a video of similar propaganda methods (even has an exploding building in it for you :P) I take it you will believe everything in it too even though it's obviously one sided and a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1GAfpwnd7E

Time Magazine

grainne_ed wrote: »

Your hanging on the 'superficial' aspect too much.

I love this line more than just about anything I've ever read.

The Bankers Trust sustained considerable more damage than WTC7, was considerably closer to the fallen towers, yet remain standing to this day.

I bumped into my nephew the other day. He fell over.

meglome

It never ceases to amaze me in all this that we're expected to believe WTC7 was brought down with controlled demolition. Yet other large buildings that have been brought down with controlled demolition have taken months to prepare for this demolition. So because it looks 'like controlled demolition' it must be so. No one saw this preparation, no one, out of thousands of people who worked there not one person. The building burns for hours and this controlled demolition still worked, the cables didn't burn?, the explosives didn't go off prematurely? It's just such utter rubbish to believe in controlled demolition. Get a life people.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you're such a sheep meglome

meglome

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

you're such a sheep meglome

I know... my whole way of keeping dreams and reality separated, I hate myself sometimes.

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

You're just being disingenuous now. The other 911 thread that you contributed heavily to has several pictures in it which show that. I'll get them if you really want but you've already seen them.

I know the photos you are referring to here, and they do not show what you claim.

so please provide your conclusive evidence

grainne_ed

FrostyJack wrote: »

It is the same as all those Loose Change, lizards are controlling the world videos on youtube, same music and voice over. This is a much better one, more realistic and more entertaining:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

"metal is stronger than ice" lol




Your mind is easily made up when a few videos on youtube and propaganda "truther" websites convinces you. Facts and evidence are not need there obviously.

Here is an example of a video of similar propaganda methods (even has an exploding building in it for you :P) I take it you will believe everything in it too even though it's obviously one sided and a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1GAfpwnd7E

What have lizards got to do with anything?

You mind is easily made up when you take for fact the rubbish presented to the general public through main stream media.

The video is said was excellent makes much more sense than the supposed argument that fire alone caused the collapse of any of the towers.

oscarBravo

grainne_ed wrote: »

You mind is easily made up when you take for fact the rubbish presented to the general public through main stream media.

...because it's a much better idea to take for fact the rubbish presented to you on some website.

The video is said was excellent makes much more sense than the supposed argument that fire alone caused the collapse of any of the towers.

Just as well nobody is arguing that it did, isn't it?

Mr Magnolia

First time in the forum and it's very interesting reading, fair play all.

I'll have a look at the vids and the other thread later. Quick question though, did St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church escape totally undamaged? I visisted Ground Zero a couple of years back and had been told this by a guide.

The walk around the church was a very somber experience indeed.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I know the photos you are referring to here, and they do not show what you claim.

so please provide your conclusive evidence

How can I show conclusive evidence, but I can show the building was indeed badly damaged. Read some sense... http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

jackdaw

Gordon wrote: »

What exactly were the points from the presentation that made you change your mind?

The molten iron ... The building falling in freefall ..
the fact that you can see smaller explosions when you look closely at the side of the building ... WTC7 wouldn't just fall after a few floors were on fire...

The evidence of termate found ...

bonkey

grainne_ed wrote: »

Your hanging on the 'superficial' aspect too much.

No. I'making clear the fact that you made a claim which is blatantly untrue.

Not only did you make it, but you refused to answer questions put to you about that specific claim, despite OB asking again and again and again.

Not only did you make it, and refuse to answer those questions, but another poster came back and suggested that they were "basic questions" and he wouldn't answer them because he didn't think OB was genuine in asking them.

Had you said there were buildings closer that WTC 7 which suffered heavy, significiant, or extreme damage, but which didn't collapse, I would have presented a different argument.....but thats not what you said. You claimed it was superficial, and up until now you've refused to engage in any discussion of that claim

Now, having finally deigned to readdress the point, your defence is apparently that I'm concentrating too much on the fact that what you said is totally false.

Maybe you could tell me what it is I'm supposed to concentrate on?

The Bankers Trust sustained considerable more damage than WTC7,

Now...can we be clear on this? When you say "considerable more damage", is that what you mean, or like your use of the word "superficial" do you mean something entirely different to what the common understanding of the term is? If I start analysing this, will I merely get accused to concentrating too much on the detail of what you say again?

How about you provide evidence to support your claim this time, rather than me supplying evidence to show you're wrong, then you saying that I shouldn't be taking you so literally?

was considerably closer to the fallen towers, yet remain standing to this day.

Remained standing but is a write-off due for demolition".

It would seem that the question you really want addressed is why, of all the buildings that were significantly damaged, did only one collapse...and why was it WTC7. Would that be accurate?

Not doubting in my mind the fact that all three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions.

Frankly, I don't care what is in your mind, with or without doubt. I care about what can be reasonably and objectively argued, and what can be reasonably and objectively supported with evidence. Thats what everyone should be interested in, which is why I would ask that you supply evidence or reasoning to support whatver claims you be making...a bit like OB did back in post #19, which you proceeded to ignore.

So far, you've started with a blatantly untrue statement, refused to answer OBs questions regarding it, and finally claimed that you meant something completely different and we shouldn't really be concentrating on the words you used when it was shown that the claim was totally false.

Other than that, you've made a host of other claims that you've not supplied evidence for either.

Hardly convincing.

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me in all this that we're expected to believe WTC7 was brought down with controlled demolition. Yet other large buildings that have been brought down with controlled demolition have taken months to prepare for this demolition.

Now...lets be fair...

You should be talking about "other large buildings far smaller than WTC7", because nothing approaching that size has ever been brought down by controlled demolition.

If you're a "truther", feel free to add some rider like "that has been admitted to" to that claim. I'd recommend, if you do, though, that you also add "that we have evidence of".

So because it looks 'like controlled demolition' it must be so.

Except it doesn't really look like controlled demolition. It looks like a building collapsing...which is also what controlled demolition looks like. Controlled Demolition, on the other hand, has an absolute ton of "tells" that are missing. At best, we could say that it looks just like a Controlled Demolition made to look like a natural collapse would look like.

bonkey

jackdaw wrote: »

The molten iron ...

I guarantee you can't provide evidence of molten iron. (Hint: to do so will require metallurgic analysis of hte molten material).

The building falling in freefall ..

No building on September 11, 2001, fell at freefall speeds.

the fact that you can see smaller explosions when you look closely at the side of the building

No, you can't.

... WTC7 wouldn't just fall after a few floors were on fire...

You're probably right, but seeing as no-one claims this is what happened, this would seem to be irrelevant.

The evidence of termate found ...

No, there wasn't.


(This post has been deliberately formulated to contain only the bare minimum more reasoning and evidence as the post to which it is a response to. If you find it insufficient, consider first asking jackdaw to supply what you feel I have omitted in copying his style before criticising me for taking inspiration from him).

bonkey

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

Quick question though, did St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church escape totally undamaged?

I visisted Ground Zero a couple of years back and had been told this by a guide.

The walk around the church was a very somber experience indeed.

Strange...

According to this article from 2007, the church was destroyed, and has yet to be rebuilt. Indeed, a google for "St Nicholas Church 911" provides a ton of links all saying that it was destroyed and not rebuilt.

Are you sure you were walking around this undamaged church after 2001?

comewatmay

Great thread,good discussion.I love the way the conspiracy theorists have gone all quiet all of a sudden.Id just like to add one thing to the argument.

If as some of you theorists claim, that WT7 was demolished by explsoives involving the FDNY,and the Government, and leaked to the BBC,what does illustrate? What was to be gained by demolishing WT7? I hate the way conspirators claim that this building was demolished purposefully.Explain to me why this building was laced with explosives yet no other building was?

conceited

Can both camps without getting all childish, do the following.
Answer each one of these in a rational logical and orderly manner.

• Is the alternative story more complicated and therefore less probable than the mainstream story?

• Do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ Fallacies of logic?

• Are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?

• How many people — and what kind — have to be loyal conspirators?

• Is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are true, or are they "unfalseifiable"?

ShoulderChip

comewatmay wrote: »

What was to be gained by demolishing WT7? I hate the way conspirators claim that this building was demolished purposefully.Explain to me why this building was laced with explosives yet no other building was?

well several government agencies had offices there including the secret service.

it is claimed that the plan was orchestrated from a room in this buildingc

conceited

comewatmay

What was to be gained by demolishing WTC

ShoulderChip

well several government agencies had offices there including the secret service.

comewatmay

Explain to me why this building was laced with explosives yet no other building was?

ShoulderChip

it is claimed that the plan was orchestrated from a room in this building

You haven't answered his 2 questions.

ShoulderChip

oh right,

Q.What was to be gained by demolishing WTC ?
my answer implied that it was to get rid of evidence

Q.Explain to me why this building was laced with explosives yet no other building was?
A it is claimed that the twin towers and this tower were laced with explosives.




If it was conspired it would make sense for them to use new technology like thermite.

conceited

What evidence ?
Who said it was laced with explosives?
How do you know thermite is a new technology?
And why exactly are you talking about new technology?

ShoulderChip

you ask me these questions as if I have answers.

I am on the internet, and don't really care either way

conceited

Well what are you doing answering his qustions?:)

ShoulderChip

I wasn't answering his questions you assumed I was.

Mahatma coat

Meglome, theats the back corner of the building, the Cantilever bit, so thats not nearly s badly damaged as you would have us believe, that corner didnt go to the ground did it.

I still see no evidence of a building consumed by fire, and seriously lads, WTC7 housed the city of New York's emergency Bunker, where theoretically the whole response to 911 was meant to be handled from

Mr Magnolia

bonkey wrote: »

Strange...

According to this article from 2007, the church was destroyed, and has yet to be rebuilt. Indeed, a google for "St Nicholas Church 911" provides a ton of links all saying that it was destroyed and not rebuilt.

Are you sure you were walking around this undamaged church after 2001?

Hmm. The Church I was in was definitely not destroyed, maybe I named the wrong one, it's the only one on any of the maps.

It was located across from the 2 towers less than a stones throw from the site. We were told it was used as a base for the emergency services during the rescue and that people brought food and drink to the church. A lot of the fire-fighters civilian clothes and boots were left there as they went directly to the site, a lot of them were never picked up and are still there to this day as a kinda shrine. As I said, very somber. Maybe I got the name wrong put I can't see any other church on the map.



Edit/ I just remembered, I've photo's at home of the church, I'll dig them out later if no-one has come up with the name of it.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Meglome, theats the back corner of the building, the Cantilever bit, so thats not nearly s badly damaged as you would have us believe, that corner didnt go to the ground did it.

I still see no evidence of a building consumed by fire,

There are several more pictures and videos that show fires burning all over the building. There are numerous eye witnesses that say the building was badly on fire. Read all the information on the link I posted http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm At the end of the day WTC7 had a unique design as it had large spans over an electrical substation. It seems to me that a weakening/failure of these spans due to fire could have brought the building down. I can't say for a fact but that sounds much more likely than the conspiracies.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and seriously lads, WTC7 housed the city of New York's emergency Bunker, where theoretically the whole response to 911 was meant to be handled from

I can't imagine now that's relevant to the price of cheese.

I hear so much talk of 'explosions'. I was standing outside my local chipper some years ago and a car coming down one side of the road clipped a parked car and swerved head on into an on-coming car. The two cars crashed directly in front of me. I can only describe what I heard as an explosion. But it wasn't an explosion it was two cars crashing head on. This was a very large building filled with items that if burned could and would explode so how can it be any surprise that people said they heard explosions. So lets watch this footage of a small building being brought down by controlled demolition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdM9GpcFLN4 Even with this small building the explosives going off are as clear as day. Go here http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm and watch any number of them and you'll hear the clear sound of the explosives going off. Ah but of course WTC7 was brought down by a mystery new technology :rolleyes:

ShoulderChip

meglome wrote: »

I hear so much talk of 'explosions'. I was standing outside my local chipper some years ago and a car coming down one side of the road clipped a parked car and swerved head on into an on-coming car. The two cars crashed directly in front of me. I can only describe what I heard as an explosion. But it wasn't an explosion it was two cars crashing head on. This was a very large building filled with items that if burned could and would explode so how can it be any surprise that people said they heard explosions. So lets watch this footage of a small building being brought down by controlled demolition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdM9GpcFLN4 Even with this small building the explosives going off are as clear as day. Go here http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm and watch any number of them and you'll hear the clear sound of the explosives going off. Ah but of course WTC7 was brought down by a mystery new technology :rolleyes:

no one is saying they used traditional controled demolition methods so that argument is null and void in my opinion,
and no i have no evidence as to how they did it.

MoominPapa

ShoulderChip wrote: »

and no i have no evidence as to how they did it.

or that they did it

meglome

ShoulderChip wrote: »

no one is saying they used traditional controled demolition methods so that argument is null and void in my opinion,
and no i have no evidence as to how they did it.

But that's the whole point... I can say that it was brought down by a giant pink rabbit and we can't prove it wasn't. We are trying to show what we do have proof for, which is fires burning out of control, damage from the twin towers collapsing and the unique design of the building.

ShoulderChip

meglome wrote: »

But that's the whole point... I can say that it was brought down by a giant pink rabbit and we can't prove it wasn't. We are trying to show what we do have proof for, which is fires burning out of control, damage from the twin towers collapsing and the unique design of the building.

Oh right sorry my mistake,
I thought this forum was for theories.

meglome

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Oh right sorry my mistake,
I thought this forum was for theories.

Indeed... for the discussion of conspiracy theories. I didn't think it meant I'd have to believe any old fantasy that someone is peddling.

ShoulderChip

meglome wrote: »

Indeed... for the discussion of conspiracy theories. I didn't think it meant I'd have to believe any old fantasy that someone is peddling.

Of course not, I assumed it was a place for airing and discussing theories,
to force someone to believe them would be rediculous.

meglome

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Of course not, I assumed it was a place for airing and discussing theories,
to force someone to believe them would be ridiculous.

The issue I have is that no matter how many times the CT's are shown actual evidence that their theories don't add up they continue to believe them. I'm willing to believe whatever has evidence to back it up and the official version has most of that. As you say a theory gets aired and discussed but at some point when it's shown five times over to not make sense then that should be that. I fully understand that theory's involve speculation but a lot of what I hear is simple fantasy not speculation or theorising. The giant pink bunny did it.

bonkey

ShoulderChip wrote: »

no one is saying they used traditional controled demolition methods so that argument is null and void in my opinion,

So what are they saying? If no-one is arguing conventional CD methodology was used, it must be because the collapse does not bear the hallmarks of explosive-based CD.

If it doesn't bear the hallmarks of explosive-based CD, then what, exactly, is the reason for assuming that it was CD in the first place?

Also...from a previous post...

A it is claimed that the twin towers and this tower were laced with explosives.

Thermite is not an explosive.
If "it is claimed" that the twin towers were laced by explosives, then thermite doesn't enter the equation.

If it was conspired it would make sense for them to use new technology like thermite.

Thermite was invented in 1893 and patented in 1895.
If it is claimed that a "new technology" was used, then thermite doesn't enter the equation.

And again, I would point out that the only reason one would appeal to either the use of thermite or some new technology, is to explain why these collapses don't bear the hallmarks of controlled demolition by conventional explosive. Again, we must wonder...if the hallmarks of explosive-based controlled demolition are absent...

bonkey

conceited wrote: »

Can both camps without getting all childish, do the following.
Answer each one of these in a rational logical and orderly manner.

I'll give it a shot...

• Is the alternative story more complicated and therefore less probable than the mainstream story?

I don't know. I've never actually heard a beginning-to-end "alternative story".

I believe it was David Ray Griffin who went as far as claiming that of his 50 (or 100, or whatever number it was) arguments for a conspiracy, if even one was not disproved, it was proof of a conspiracy. Whatever about the merit of the argument, it is a tacit admission that if there is a conspiracy, he doesn't really have a clue what it was.

Also, given that you requested people be rational, logical, and orderly, I'd politely suggest that you not refer to the results of official investigations and the subsequent official findings as a "story". I'm assuming you meant nothing by it, but in my experience, too many people try to apply (or have others apply) the same terminology to opposite viewpoints to implicitly suggest that they are somehow equal.

• Do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ Fallacies of logic?

The work of NIST does not contain fallacies of logic that I have been able to find. Where it has had to deal with incomplete information, that incompleteness has been acknowledged and is generally of a reasonable nature when viewed in the light of how disasters (even of much smaller magnitude) are perforce managed.

Outside of that, I think you'll find a mix. Some pro-conspiracy arguments are well-presented. Some anti-conspiracy arguments are poorly presented. I would tend to say that on balance I find that the anti-conspiracy arguments ultimately tend to be less rigorous, but then again, they don't have the benefit of 30,000+ pages of official findings as their first reference.

• Are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?

I find the argument presented by NIST to be well constructed. The methodology is, I believe, relatively sound. It can be and has been meaningfully criticsed, but in general that criticism has been more focussed on the fact that they may have overlooked other combinations of structural-damage-and-ensuing-fire which would create subtly different collapse mechanisms.

I have seen a handful of pro-conspiracy works that I would consider well-constructed from a logical sense. However, I have far more rarely seen the authors or supporters of such pieces accept criticisms which pointed out flaws in their calculations or methodology.

As for a clear standard, I would firstly point out that in the correct usage of the terms, theories cannot be proven. I would secondly argue that there is a (relatively) clear standard - that of the scientific method.

In terms of dealing with the point non-pedantically, I would suggest that a good test of any theory is to ask an advocate of a theory what it would take to get them to accept their theory was wrong. An alternate is to get them to post a "critical question" and to define what would constitute a reasonable answer.

• How many people — and what kind — have to be loyal conspirators?

Anyone required to keep silent.

The notion that only some small elite core needed to know what was going on can no longer hold water. Anyone who was actively-involved-but-not-in-the-loop and who has paid any attention to these theories over the last seven years must know whether or not their part gels with the official accounts.

As a simple example, some people point out about how many firemen admit they were told that WTC7 was going to collapse. Firstly, as part of a co-ordinated rescue team, this is perfectly understandable...if one member of such a team believes there is a collapse imminent, they make damn sure that the rest of their team is informed. Secondly, while many of these firemen have said "I didn't see it for myself...I was told", not one has been found who said "I was told it was going to collapse and you know what...thats a load of hooey". So they're all in on it now, even if they weren't then.

I find it hard to find any part of the official account of events that someone, somewhere doesn't claim is a cover-up. As a result, its hard to find anyone involved in the events of the day or the subsequent investigations who is not required to be a "loyal conspirator".

? Because if they have paid attention at all, then they are now loyal conspirators. They would know that their part does not gel with the official accounts, and yet they maintain their silence.

• Is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are true, or are they "unfalseifiable"?

Which theory, and which claims? Some claims, such as what happens to a 110-storey building when a plane crashes into it "just so", or what a 110-storey building brought down by explosive-based controlled demolition would look like are effectively unfalsifiable because of the cost and simple practicality.

Many claims are falsifiable.

In the strictest sense, it is never possible to show that specific claims are "true", only that the explanatory theories match the available data.

Mr Magnolia

The Church was St Pauls. If anyone can locate it on a map I'd be grateful. It was totally undamaged, not even a window broken despite the fact it was so close to the site.

bonkey

If you look at the map in post 26, you'll see a dotted-green line running up the right hand side of the map, which "angles" off to the side between Vevey St. and Fulton St. St. Paul's would be on that block, just off the side of the map.

If you look at the map I linked to you'll see St. Pauls chapel mentioned.

Alternately, just put "St Paul's Chapel" into google maps and you can see exactly where it is.

R0C0

Basically, I see it like this...

The mainstream story says fire took down a 47 storey sky scraper.

People rightly question this because..

1) Thats never happened before.

2) The building came down symmetrically, which is not something you would associate with beams failing due to heat. The likelihood that all the joints and steel beams would fail at the same time and in a symmetrical manner is quite small.

3) If the building did in fact fall due to fire, then all building codes for sky scrapers in the U.S need to be reviewed as this would seem to contradict the findings these codes are based on.

4) There were explosions going off inside building 7 PRIOR to the collapse of the towers.

5) All the steel (bar one known salvaged piece) was taken away to be melted down before it could be properly analysed.

6) The collapse of building 7, was completely ommitted from the 9/11 commission report.

For these reasons alone people should be entitled to another investigation.

The circumstantial evidence stacks up aswell, but I know people who buy the mainstream media rubbish would never even consider that.

meglome

R0C0 wrote: »

1) Thats never happened before.

Indeed, so does that mean it couldn't. Keeping in mind the unique design of this buliding.

R0C0 wrote: »

2) The building came down symmetrically, which is not something you would associate with beams failing due to heat. The likelihood that all the joints and steel beams would fail at the same time and in a symmetrical manner is quite small.

As point 1... it's never happened before so who's says it couldn't and given the unique design of this building it's more likely to happen than with many other buildings.

R0C0 wrote: »

3) If the building did in fact fall due to fire, then all building codes for sky scrapers in the U.S need to be reviewed as this would seem to contradict the findings these codes are based on.

Again this building had some very unique features such as the large electrical substation it sat over so there mightn't be any need for such code changes. And if there are code changes it mightn't effect many buildings in practice.

R0C0 wrote: »

4) There were explosions going off inside building 7 PRIOR to the collapse of the towers.

Link?

R0C0 wrote: »

5) All the steel (bar one known salvaged piece) was taken away to be melted down before it could be properly analysed.

Would steel from a collapsed building normally all be kept?

R0C0 wrote: »

6) The collapse of building 7, was completely omitted from the 9/11 commission report.

It's never happened before so they couldn't figure it out. But it seems the damage to the building was worse than was thought at the time so it makes fire a likely culprit.

Just my 2c worth.

R0C0

meglome wrote: »

Indeed, so does that mean it couldn't. Keeping in mind the unique design of this buliding.

Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.

As point 1... it's never happened before so who's says it couldn't and given the unique design of this building it's more likely to happen than with many other buildings.

Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist

Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??

Again this building had some very unique features such as the large electrical substation it sat over so there mightn't be any need for such code changes. And if there are code changes it mightn't effect many buildings in practice.

If the steel beams and joints failed due to the heat we are being told caused them to fail, then so too would the steel beams of other structures under current building codes, regardless of whats under them, that has no effect on their resistance to heat.

Link?

Sure.. This is the uncut interview with Barry Jennings, the last man in wtc7. I recommend you watch the whole thing, pay close attention to his timeline of events too. http://www.infowars.com/?p=3233

Would steel from a collapsed building normally all be kept?

Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history? Yes. Yes it would.

Answers to why and how the only steel structure in history fell due to fire? Yes.

Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??

It's never happened before so they couldn't figure it out. But it seems the damage to the building was worse than was thought at the time so it makes fire a likely culprit.

Damage worse than they thought at the time?? Well.. no. Thats not true. People knew well in advance that the building was coming down. No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.

Just my 2c worth.

I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.

toiletduck

R0C0 wrote: »

all fail symetrically..............
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.

This has been debunked so many times here. I'll link the relevant Bonkey and Diagones posts (they should be in this thread?) when I'm less drunk.

toiletduck

Actually it seems it was just mentioned in the post prior to your first one in this threaad. Ywan

bonkey

R0C0 wrote: »

Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.

Anomalies like this are why "the official investigation" that you referred to (the one culimnating in the FEMA report) concluded that it wasn't happy with its own explanation, and that an additional official investigation (the NIST investigation, still ongoing) was needed, They instigated that, the interim findings of which already say that it wasn't "collapse due to fire".

meglome

R0C0 wrote: »

Nope. Doesn't mean its impossible, just strange if it was the case. This can't be replicated in a controlled setting, and as admitted by the official investigation, collapse due to fire only has a small chance of probability. Anyway.. just pointing out, anomolies like this are why people question it.

Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist

Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??

If the steel beams and joints failed due to the heat we are being told caused them to fail, then so too would the steel beams of other structures under current building codes, regardless of whats under them, that has no effect on their resistance to heat.

If, as is believed now, there was more damage done to the base of the building due to the twin towers collapse than was at first thought. Given that there was especially long spans above the electrical substation it's very easy to believe how this building could have collapsed. If enough of the long spans failed due to the heat, the core columns don't have enough structure to stop them bending with the weight of the buliding. One a failure starts, given the damage to the base of the building it's quite likely to pull the whole structure with it as it's all bolted together. So it's not just heat, it's damage from twin towers collapse, specific design elements of this building and fire. I'm no engineer but it sounds very plausible imho.

R0C0 wrote: »

Sure.. This is the uncut interview with Barry Jennings, the last man in wtc7. I recommend you watch the whole thing, pay close attention to his timeline of events too. http://www.infowars.com/?p=3233

Funnily he was heading to the command centre in the building so doesn't this make him one of the conspirators? He says he heard explosions but we have no way whatsoever to know what these actually were. There was so much going on at the time. I've seen him interviewed since and he says he never actually saw any bodies he was told to close his eyes so he wouldn't see what he assumed to be bodies.

R0C0 wrote: »

Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??

Well how much material as a percentage was kept from the entire site, I would guess it's fairly low. Anyone? Maybe there was nothing more to be learned from this material, maybe it was a lot of reasons.

R0C0 wrote: »

Damage worse than they thought at the time?? Well.. no. Thats not true. People knew well in advance that the building was coming down. No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.

The damage to the base of the building was worse than they thought at the time. The building didn't actually fall in a uniform manner which you can see for yourself by looking at the pictures of the rubble pile. It's only the CT's that are saying the building fell from fire alone.

R0C0 wrote: »

I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.
The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.
Falls uniformly into its own footprint.
That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.

1. You could drive a bus through the holes in the conspiracy theories. When they start inventing new technologies, resorting to threatening the people who disagree with them, running hate campaigns against these same people, wait seven years and still no actual smoking gun just lots of muck throwing... they've lost most of the argument.
2. There has to be a first for everything. But only the CT's are saying it failed from just fire.
3. Joints don't need to fail at the same time. Just enough of them to cause a cascade effect through the building.
4. It didn't fall into it's footprint, simply not true.

For me it was a massively confused day, if there were no conflicting reports it would be extremely suspicious. We're expected to believe the American government is capable of running a massive conspiracy which seven years later no one has spilt the beans on, one which involved mass murder of their own people. Governments by their very nature are bureaucratic and inept but somehow in this instance they managed to pull off a huge near prefect conspiracy, please. It's Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

bonkey

Continuing from this morning's post..

R0C0 wrote: »

Again, not saying it's impossible, but, if you think that hundreds of steel beams and joints will all fail symetrically and uniformly due to heat, then I'd say you're quite the conspiracy theorist

I agree. Indeed, I'll go further - If you think that this is what happened, you're living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

It is worth noting at this point, however, that none of the official findings to date - neither the FEMA report nor the NIST interim report - have suggested that this is what happened.

Do you think they could get a steel structure to collapse uniformly due to fire if they tried??

Maybe, but its not relevant because - again - the official accounting doesn't claim that this is what happened.

Evidence from the biggest crime scene in American history? Yes. Yes it would.

Answers to why and how the only steel structure in history fell due to fire? Yes.

Ask yourself.. what kind of total MORON would order it all to be destroyed??

Before I respond to this...could you explain exactly what you think happened to the steel. I'm not asking for a one-liner "it was shipped to China". I want you to clarify your understanding of how it got from the scene of the collapse to China, and explain exactly where along that process that something was done wrong.

Just in case you think I'm being unreasonable...I'll start you off with some of hte easier details...

The area was declared a rescue site for over 3 weeks. In a rescue site, criminal investigations take second place. Always have, always should. You do not allow additional people to die for fear of disturbing evidence.

After this, the rescue operations had already contaminated any crime scene...as indeed had the collapse itself.

The notion that the material be left in place (which I assume you're not making) would be quite literally insane. In any comparable event, the material is moved to a location where it can be properly sorted and dealt with.

The steel was moved from Ground Zero. It was moved in trucks, who's movements were tracked via GPS to make sure that there was nothing untoward about the transit of materials.

In excess of 100 investigators were then responsible for going through the steel to see what they could find. It was during this process that NIST had a completely free hand to obtain what samples they felt were useful and necessary. NIST have not once suggested that they were denied sufficient access the the material, nor that they did not recover what could be meaningfully used.

When all investigators from all involved areas were satisfied that they had garnered what evidence they could, the material was then released for disposal.

No criminal investigation in history involving building-collapses has ever gone to such detail, nor has ever retained the full building debris indefinitely.

So please...tell me where they went wrong, and fill in the detail that I'm missing in the above, given that you assert that it was unreasonable.

No one could use heat to bring down a building in such a uniform manner if they tried, if they could, they'd probably be using it in the demolition industry.

Of the 1.4 billion dollars of damage done to the Verizon building, a large amount of that was caused by the collapse of WTC 7. I think you are over-stating how cleanly the building collapsed.

I do appreciate it. It does seem to me though, that there's too many holes in that story.
First steel building to fall due to fire.

Wrong. Its not. You can find other examples with even the minimum amount of effort and the use of google.com.

In fairness, this is also something that the 911 Comission Report claims, and is one of the things that it gets wrong as well.

None of the three buildings which collapsed that day were the first steel-supported building to collapse due to fire.

This is true for two reasons:

1) Steel-supported buildings have previously collapsed due to fire.
2) None of the three steel-supported buildings which collapsed at Ground Zero that day did collapse "due to fire". All three collapsed due to a combination of significant structural damage and fire.

I'd also suggest you have a look at this. There's an interesting 7-point challenge in there, which I'll take the liberty of copying here:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

If you can't match that example, then whatever you're looking at doesn't compare to what the closest things we have to an official explanation for WTC 7 is - the NIST interim report. Note that its not just a fire...and its a very specific type of steel-frame construction. Unlike man, not all buildings are created equal.

(Aside : if you read the page, you'll also find references to what you claim don't exist - steel-supported buildings which collapsed due to fire, prior to September 11, 2001).

The incredibly unlikely odds of all joints failing at precisely the same time despite the fire being uneven.

The "joints" didn't fail at precisely the same time. Watch the collapse again. Watch the penthouse sink into the building. Watch the "kink" appear. Watch the building sag around the kink. These are all indications that there was a "first significant point of failure", which then caused the rest of the supports to be quickly-and-progressively overloaded.

Falls uniformly into its own footprint.

No, it doesn't. As I mentioned above...read up on the damage it caused to the Verizon building. Look at various shots before the rescue operation bulldozed through the streets.

This is a persistent fiction. WTC 7 no more collapsed "into its own footprint" than WTC 1 or 2 did.

That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me.

I agree. It does. Unfortunately, it involves making claims which aren't true, and criticising explanations which aren't those offered from the official investigations. When one dispenses with such details as accuracy and fact, its easy to make something sound like a conspiracy theory.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

I agree. It does. Unfortunately, it involves making claims which aren't true, and criticising explanations which aren't those offered from the official investigations. When one dispenses with such details as accuracy and fact, its easy to make something sound like a conspiracy theory.

ROCO, you coming back?

DinnyBatman

Hi all, just came across this thread. I'll stop laughing long enough at some of the posts to tell you all what happened.......... Two big planes hit two big buildings with so much force that they caused the buildings to collapse and cause a lot of damage to several nearby buildings. Now Ive got to go and take a picture of the UFO hovering over my garden....:eek:

DubTony

I've just remembered why I haven't read this forum in about 2 years. The amount of childish back and forward sniping is unreal. And that's from people on both sides of this argument.

The use of "agenda-ridden" web sites to "prove" a point is laughable. References to a particular report are countered with nonsense like "what report are you talking about?" for no other reason than the report seems to have been titled something different.

Arguments made on web sites that are used as "proof" or "evidence", have little to do with the actual argument being made. The video on the page bonkey linked to has so little information that counters the theorists arguments it's not funny - a 4 floor building collapsed from fire, a school collapsed from fire - the top 11 floors of a hotel collapsed from fire. (Although I don't think he linked to it to make the point about fires)

For God's sake people. What's the point in having these arguments if you're all simply going to reference the conspiracy sites or their detractors as your proof.

I have to admit though, one thing this thread has going for it is the very eloquent use of the English language by more than a couple of posters. What a shame the arguments couldn't be put across in as effective a manner.

As an aside, I would be of the opinion that to use reports in the mainstream media to "prove a point" is a little bit naive. Most media organisations today simply report what some other agency has told them. Actual "on the ground" investigating is quite rare these days. Mondays' Irish Independent reported a car crashing into a house in Tipperary at the weekend but thankfully nobody in or near the house was hurt. On the same shelf, The Examiner and The Irish Times both reported a young boy critically injured after being trapped between the car and the wall of the house as he played outside.

Who's Right?

meglome

DubTony wrote: »

I've just remembered why I haven't read this forum in about 2 years. The amount of childish back and forward sniping is unreal. And that's from people on both sides of this argument.

There are outbreaks of sniping but otherwise it's like any debate I would have said, point scoring.

DubTony wrote: »

The use of "agenda-ridden" web sites to "prove" a point is laughable. References to a particular report are countered with nonsense like "what report are you talking about?" for no other reason than the report seems to have been titled something different.

Even agenda ridden sites will have elements of what's actually true, you just have to pick through it. Don't remember report titles being argued over.

DubTony wrote: »

Arguments made on web sites that are used as "proof" or "evidence", have little to do with the actual argument being made. The video on the page bonkey linked to has so little information that counters the theorists arguments it's not funny - a 4 floor building collapsed from fire, a school collapsed from fire - the top 11 floors of a hotel collapsed from fire. (Although I don't think he linked to it to make the point about fires)

For God's sake people. What's the point in having these arguments if you're all simply going to reference the conspiracy sites or their detractors as your proof.

You've selected one link that Bonkey made, making one specific point, so? If someone, anyone, has well researched and comprehensive information on their site why shouldn't it be referenced, why wouldn't you reference it. Personally I don't see the argument as having different sides, there is evidence to back up a theory or there isn't. Maybe the conspiracy theorists see sides.

DubTony wrote: »

I have to admit though, one thing this thread has going for it is the very eloquent use of the English language by more than a couple of posters. What a shame the arguments couldn't be put across in as effective a manner.

Actually I disagree I think the arguments are put forward quite effectively, well by the debunkers anyway.

DubTony wrote: »

As an aside, I would be of the opinion that to use reports in the mainstream media to "prove a point" is a little bit naive. Most media organisations today simply report what some other agency has told them. Actual "on the ground" investigating is quite rare these days. Mondays' Irish Independent reported a car crashing into a house in Tipperary at the weekend but thankfully nobody in or near the house was hurt. On the same shelf, The Examiner and The Irish Times both reported a young boy critically injured after being trapped between the car and the wall of the house as he played outside.

Who's Right?

Didn't see the story at all but I had no idea the media had become infallible or uninterested in hyping a story. Is it relevant to your initial point?

You come in here after two years, obviously read very little and give us your opinion from on high. Yet I find myself replying, instead of ignoring most of your little rant. Ah well.