Building 7 ???

Di0genes

Spacedog wrote: »

f
looked that way to me, are we talking about the same 9/11 here?
look at the overhead pics above, you can see very little rubble spilled past the footprint of the building considering their standing height, try building a scale model with blocks or jenga and try to make it fall in such a neat pile.

Are you really comparing the WTC with Jenga pile?

The WTC collapse was so devastating a half dozen buildings in the surrounding area suffered catastrophic damage. More buildings suffered serious damage.

Thats your definition of neat.?

yes please. link me the simulation file. I can finally put my super computer to work other than Metro 2033 like i said, I worked IT in an engineering firm and am familiar with the tools.

Wow. Well if you say so. Would you accept other engineering and architecture firms using the NIST model to improve building design.

You seem to think jenga is suitable model for a building collapse.

And you think you're the guy to figure this out.

Penn

Ease off with the sarcasm Di0genes

Di0genes

Barrington wrote: »

Ease off with the sarcasm Di0genes

http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/

Some of the compute models.



Here's some more
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp


A detailed background
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80268


In short spacedog you're going to need a cray, and about 30,000 quid worth of software.

Di0genes

Spacedog wrote: »

In that context...

"If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

-to your mind, is this statement true?

How many steel framed high rises were struck by debris from collapsing buildings, and how many had fire's that weren't fought for hours and just let burn.

I'll think you'll find the circumstances of the destruction of WTC7 to be unique. So applying that kind of logic to the destruction of WTC7 is incredibly pointless.

Mahatma coat

if it was as straightforward as you make out why was WTC7 omitted from the original NIST report???

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if it was as straightforward as you make out why was WTC7 omitted from the original NIST report???

Another strawman MC, we've never said it was "straightforward". If anything we've been detailing that it was in fact quite complex.

The reason it was not included in the original report was simply because no one died in it and was not as important as the Twin Towers in which thousands died.
The NIST eventually did release a report on it, so you point is redundant.

Now in your narrative, why did the conspirators neglect to write the fake report like they did with the twin towers, especially since it's apparently a dead give away?

Now MC, since you've seemingly abandoned the other drive by, long debunked points can we assume that you've no answer to the counter-points I and Diogenes made? Or would you like to keep firing them off and refusing to engage in debate?

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if it was as straightforward as you make out why was WTC7 omitted from the original NIST report???

Well as King Mob pointed out you seem to be running away from your original points and charging off into a tangent.

He's made several salient points, but what I'd like to add is I object to your term "omitted"

Omitted means to "Leave out or exclude (someone or something), either intentionally or forgetfully".

The NIST report didn't "forget" or exclude the WTC7 "intentionally" it's just the main body of focus of the original NIST report was the WTC 1&2. They were aware that there were outstanding questions about WTC 7, but their focus was on the Twin Towers, and once their exhaustive report into their collapse was released, they then focused on the WTC7.

What would you have preferred Mahatma Coat? That they delays the report of the WTC 1&2 until they released the report into the WTC 1&2 and 7?

It's dishonest to claim that it was omitted. The report was into the WTC 7 was delayed until the report of the WTC 1&2 was completed. Because the focus of the NIST was on the Twin Towers. Their phenomenal resources were entirely on the WTC 1&2. They didn't have the report on the WTC 7 to just forget about, they just hadn't had the time and resources to write the report yet.

What bugs me MC is you know all this already We've been through all this before with you.

I guess we can wait for Spacedog on his home pc to just blow this case wide open unless he's gotten distracted by whatever FPS has been just released.

Penn

Di0genes banned for 3 days for ignoring mod warning

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

Except you started off saying that the buildings fell straight down into their footprints.
Neither of those things are true.
Nothing subjective about it really.


Why? What's wrong with the independent review of it done by the NIST and detailed in the report they published?

You can go ahead and do it if you like, but the NIST report is conclusive enough for me, and no conspiracy theorist has been able to present any argument that holds up to scrutiny.

King Mob, the NIST investigation into 9/11 is painfully flawed and many of their tests contradict the conclusions. They have freely manipulated data to correlate to a preferred conclusion and if this is "conclusive" enough for you then I feel sorry for you.

The collapse of WTC7 is a glaring hole in the official account of what happened that day. As is the fact that a passport survived the impact and subsequent fireball, survived the fall to earth in the rubble abd was picked up by a well dressed man and given to NYPD as proof of the identity of one of the alleged hijackers.
If you can believe such poppycock then you really shouln't be questioing the gullibility of those you call "conspiracy theorists". You should take a good hard look in the mirror.

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

King Mob, the NIST investigation into 9/11 is painfully flawed and many of their tests contradict the conclusions. They have freely manipulated data to correlate to a preferred conclusion and if this is "conclusive" enough for you then I feel sorry for you.

Ok then, please point out one of these flaws or a single thing they freely manipulated.
I see these things often claimed but rarely actually explained in detail.
And unfortunately I don't just accept what I'm told without question.

jackiebaron wrote: »

The collapse of WTC7 is a glaring hole in the official account of what happened that day.

Why? What makes it a glaring hole? Where specifically does the actual explanation fail in explaining it's collapse?

jackiebaron wrote: »

As is the fact that a passport survived the impact and subsequent fireball, survived the fall to earth in the rubble abd was picked up by a well dressed man and given to NYPD as proof of the identity of one of the alleged hijackers.

And why is any of this impossible? Many personal effects and combustible material from the planes were recovered, not just the one passport.
Nor was that passport the sole proof of the identity of the hijackers.

jackiebaron wrote: »

If you can believe such poppycock then you really shouln't be questioing the gullibility of those you call "conspiracy theorists". You should take a good hard look in the mirror.

But here's the thing, I've been detailing how the conspiracy theory is supported by nothing except lies, mistruths and strawmen arguments, then trying to get people who do believe in the conspiracy to actually examine what they think they know.
You on the other hand haven't done anything similar to that. You've simply declared you position to be right and mine to be wrong, trotted out the usual party line and fail to actually provide an argument.

There's a whole thread of unanswered points (and a near forum load of ones from previous threads), if you really think my position is poppycock and yours is the truth, please try to tackle some of then rather than throw in some more red herrings which anyone can debunk with ten minutes of Googling.

Mahatma coat

I see these things often claimed but rarely actually explained in detail.
And unfortunately I don't just accept what I'm told without question.

Really???

so you can Explain in detail then what happened to building Seven

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Really???

so you can Explain in detail then what happened to building Seven

Yes. And I have done in this thread several times, often to correct strawman arguments.

So if you'd like an actual debate for once, please pick any any one of the points you've ignored and address them.
If not please by all means trot out the old debunked soundbites for us to smack down again and again and for you to promptly ignore.

Mahatma coat

OK, I'm gonna ask you to

repeat your points which you say I have ignored

giving us the benefit of your detailed analysis and Lay out your Timelined and scientific explanation of how WTC7 collapsed,

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, I'm gonna ask you to

repeat your points which you say I have ignored

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73063377&postcount=44
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73080312&postcount=50
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73093727&postcount=57

Pretty much everything we said against your drive by points which you didn't respond to.
As well as all of Diogenes points and all the points we've made before you entered the thread.

Feel free to pick any of those to discuss.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

giving us the benefit of your detailed analysis and Lay out your Timelined and scientific explanation of how WTC7 collapsed,

Fires started by the debris from WTC 1 raged uncontrolled for several hours, this coupled with the structural damage caused by the debris weakened the supports of the building, which continued to get weaker as the fires continued. Finally the supports failed and due to the unique design (and flaw) of the building, it collapsed totally.

Now, would you like to actually address the point I made to Jackie, where I asked for a few specific examples of flaws or manipulation in the report?
Or are you going to engage in more pedantry to avoid the point?

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73063377&postcount=44

its in the video I posted and you didnt watch

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73080312&postcount=50

How long then between the fire and the collapse, why if the fires didnt start til the first tower colapsed did it take less time for WTC to collapse?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73093727&postcount=57

because they hoped that after enough time had passed people would stop asking questions

Pretty much everything we said against your drive by points which you didn't respond to.

there ya go

As well as all of Diogenes points and all the points we've made before you entered the thread.

and if I have a poster on Ignore then I dont see these points when I'm logged in, and generaly chose not to respond even when I do see them

Feel free to pick any of those to discuss.

OK

Timeline,

could you lay out the official timeline of events please for the events you stated here and those preceeding it

Fires started by the debris from WTC 1 raged uncontrolled for several hours, this coupled with the structural damage caused by the debris weakened the supports of the building, which continued to get weaker as the fires continued. Finally the supports failed and due to the unique design (and flaw) of the building, it collapsed totally.

Now, would you like to actually address the point I made to Jackie, where I asked for a few specific examples of flaws or manipulation in the report?

No, I'll reply to points you make to ME

Or are you going to engage in more pedantry to avoid the point?

Athnion ciarog Ciaroig Eile:P

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

Ok then, please point out one of these flaws or a single thing they freely manipulated.
I see these things often claimed but rarely actually explained in detail.
And unfortunately I don't just accept what I'm told without question.




And why is any of this impossible? Many personal effects and combustible material from the planes were recovered, not just the one passport.
Nor was that passport the sole proof of the identity of the hijackers.

OK KM, I'm just going to stick to the magic passport for now. The entire problem with this whole 9/11 business is that it becomes a circular argument and everything and nothing then becomes proven or disproven.

And you can't really call the whole question of the passport a red herring. I'm sure you've been on a plane in the past and carried your passport with you. Now I'm going to make a wild assumption here and figure that this passport was in the guy's pocket on board the plane.

Now the plane slams into a building and goes inside it bursting into flames. These flames are allegedly hot enough to melt or at least weaken the steel endo-skeleton of the building. Now a passport is made of paper with some plastic laminated pages. So this passport was in the pocket of an occupant of the plane. The occupant and all other passengers were burnt to cinders and/or obliterated by the impact and inferno. Some while later the building collapses in a catastrophic failure and the debris and masonry of that failure are enough to cause such damage to other buildings that they themselves catch fire and eventually fail or are so badly destroyed as to need demolition. Yet this passport is found intact in the rubble.

For you to so blithely accept such a fantastic scenario is troubling. If you were on a jury and had to send someone to the electric chair on the back of such testimony, are you telling me you wouldn't have even a modicum of "reasonable doubt"?

If my assumption that the passport was in the guy's pocket or in his bag is correct then why wasn't it found inside his jacket or his bag in the rubble. How can a jacket or bag or body be incinerated leaving the passport intact to fall to earth?

I mean seriously, KM, how can you make this believable? Because I for the life of me can't see how it's possible.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you think that WTC7 was on fire before the towers fell? Have you got anything to actually support this?

The photos of the Bankers Trust building and others show beyond a shadow of a doubt that debris from the tower's collapse could make it some distance and cause significant damage.

How exactly did debris from the collapse of the two towers cause fires in WTC7 when this shrapnel would have need to be flaming? I don't recall seeing any flames or burning material flying from the two towers over WTC 3 and 4 and slamming into WTC causing multiple fires. When those towers started to crumble there were a thousand cameras on the scene from news agencies all over the world as well as amateur and hobby photographers. Not a single piece of footage of blazing debris flying hundreds of yards and into WTC7. None.


(spose I kinda didn't just stick to the passport)

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its in the video I posted and you didnt watch

Where in the video? What does he say specifically?
Given that the last video you posted didn't actually contain what you said it contained I don't think it's worth my time to watch another video through only to find that you've misinterpreted the quote again.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How long then between the fire and the collapse, why if the fires didnt start til the first tower colapsed did it take less time for WTC to collapse?

The north tower collapse at 10:28 the fires would have started around then. WTC 7 collapsed at 17:20.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed quicker because they were 1) of a different construction 2) had fires of a different nature and 3) had different circumstances to WTC7, namely passenger jets ripping holes in them.
That is the silliest question you've asked yet.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

because they hoped that after enough time had passed people would stop asking questions

But why did they need to do that? Why didn't they have the fake report ready to go like you think they must have had for the twin towers?
If they wanted to wait so people would forget, why did they release the twin towers report? Why not just wait till people forgot about that?
Why release any report at all if they thought people would just forget?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there ya go

Well I wouldn't say you answered them, but you acknowledged them. it's a start I guess.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK

Timeline,

could you lay out the official timeline of events please for the events you stated here and those preceeding it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks
It's all there.
What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, I'll reply to points you make to ME

Yet you felt that you needed to quote the point I was making to someone else to make... what point exactly?

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

OK KM, I'm just going to stick to the magic passport for now. The entire problem with this whole 9/11 business is that it becomes a circular argument and everything and nothing then becomes proven or disproven.

I appreciate the time and effort you took to actually type out and present an argument, I really do. But I think that it's best for the thread to stick specifically to the WTC7 stuff as per the topic. Otherwise we'll get side tracked into other unrelated areas and lose the focus of the thread.

if you'd like to pose this point in another thread for it or in a more general thread, I'd be glad to address it.

jackiebaron wrote: »

How exactly did debris from the collapse of the two towers cause fires in WTC7 when this shrapnel would have need to be flaming? I don't recall seeing any flames or burning material flying from the two towers over WTC 3 and 4 and slamming into WTC causing multiple fires. When those towers started to crumble there were a thousand cameras on the scene from news agencies all over the world as well as amateur and hobby photographers. Not a single piece of footage of blazing debris flying hundreds of yards and into WTC7. None.

(spose I kinda didn't just stick to the passport)

And why would you necessarily see any massive balls of fire?
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/reeldeal101/518_wtc1-collapse.jpg
There's so much smoke and ash and dust it's hard to see anything at all.

But we both know that the twin towers had extensive fires and we both know that debris from the towers hit and caused extensive damage to WTC7.
So why is it so impossible that some of this debris was on fire when it hit the building.
Hell there are even ways for fires to start even if the debris was somehow magically not on fire. A really hot piece of metal could set off the tons of paper in the offices. Or even a piece could have damaged some electric wiring or equipment and sparked a fire that way.
Or maybe it was combinations of all of the above?

Course you know that your argument is fallacious because there isn't a single picture of any of the demo charges used to blow up the towers, yet you are sure that they were there...

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

I appreciate the time and effort you took to actually type out and present an argument, I really do. But I think that it's best for the thread to stick specifically to the WTC7 stuff as per the topic. Otherwise we'll get side tracked into other unrelated areas and lose the focus of the thread.

if you'd like to pose this point in another thread for it or in a more general thread, I'd be glad to address it.


And why would you necessarily see any massive balls of fire?
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/reeldeal101/518_wtc1-collapse.jpg
There's so much smoke and ash and dust it's hard to see anything at all.

But we both know that the twin towers had extensive fires and we both know that debris from the towers hit and caused extensive damage to WTC7.
So why is it so impossible that some of this debris was on fire when it hit the building.
Hell there are even ways for fires to start even if the debris was somehow magically not on fire. A really hot piece of metal could set off the tons of paper in the offices. Or even a piece could have damaged some electric wiring or equipment and sparked a fire that way.
Or maybe it was combinations of all of the above?

Course you know that your argument is fallacious because there isn't a single picture of any of the demo charges used to blow up the towers, yet you are sure that they were there...

Not so fast KM. You state that this thread is purely about WTC7 and that you don't want to get sidetracked by the magic passport yet you seem to have no problem discussing WTC1 and 2.

You can't explain the fantasy of the magic passport therefore you are shutting it out of your mind.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

I appreciate the time and effort you took to actually type out and present an argument, I really do. But I think that it's best for the thread to stick specifically to the WTC7 stuff as per the topic. Otherwise we'll get side tracked into other unrelated areas and lose the focus of the thread.

if you'd like to pose this point in another thread for it or in a more general thread, I'd be glad to address it.


And why would you necessarily see any massive balls of fire?
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/reeldeal101/518_wtc1-collapse.jpg
There's so much smoke and ash and dust it's hard to see anything at all.

But we both know that the twin towers had extensive fires and we both know that debris from the towers hit and caused extensive damage to WTC7.
So why is it so impossible that some of this debris was on fire when it hit the building.
Hell there are even ways for fires to start even if the debris was somehow magically not on fire. A really hot piece of metal could set off the tons of paper in the offices. Or even a piece could have damaged some electric wiring or equipment and sparked a fire that way.
Or maybe it was combinations of all of the above?

Course you know that your argument is fallacious because there isn't a single picture of any of the demo charges used to blow up the towers, yet you are sure that they were there...

Can you explain to me how debris from a collapsing building can leap horizontally two city blocks, and set another building on fire and that fire is hot enough to cause the steel structure to fail.....even though it couldn't possibly have reached the requisite temperatures needed to cause a steel failure. Not only that but there was no sprinkler system in this building?

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

Not so fast KM. You state that this thread is purely about WTC7 and that you don't want to get sidetracked by the magic passport yet you seem to have no problem discussing WTC1 and 2.

I am discussing the Twin Towers because their collapse is the cause of the fires in WTC7 therefore are inescapably relevant. The "magic passport" is not.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You can't explain the fantasy of the magic passport therefore you are shutting it out of your mind.

Oh I can, I'm just not going to deal with it here on this WTC7 thread.
We've a whole 9/11 section now to fill up. I'll address the point in a new thread.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Can you explain to me how debris from a collapsing building can leap horizontally two city blocks,

Well that's kind of a strawman to put it like that.
But as we've seen from the rake of pictures I've put up, there's no question that the debris could make it as far as the south face of WTC7.
Unless you've a really good explanation for these:
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

Especially the first one as it's got a chunk of the towers actually dangling out of it's hole.

jackiebaron wrote: »

and set another building on fire and that fire is hot enough to cause the steel structure to fail.....
even though it couldn't possibly have reached the requisite temperatures needed to cause a steel failure.

What's the requisite temperatures for steel to fail?
How are you defining "fail"?

Because in reality, since the fire wasn't the only factor, it didn't have to melt through steel girders, it only had to weaken them to a point where the already damaged structure (and thanks to a design flaw) could no longer support the building.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Not only that but there was no sprinkler system in this building?

Actually it did have a sprinkler system, unfortunately the system on several of the lower and critical floors was fed by the city's water supply.
The city's water supply to that area was shut down when the towers collapsed.

Now again, what's impossible about the collapse and where have the NIST manipulated anything about WTC7?

Mahatma coat

see the thing is that your 'offficial' timeline has WTC7 evacuated After the Towrs collapse, however there are many reports of it being on fire and evacuated Before that.

care to explain

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see the thing is that your 'offficial' timeline has WTC7 evacuated After the Towrs collapse, however there are many reports of it being on fire and evacuated Before that.

care to explain

Ok, please provide those reports. You've claimed this before but the only thing you provided turned out not to show what you said it did.
Who reported these things? When?
What precisely did they say?

Are you going to address the other points I made in my last post?

Mahatma coat

like I have said before, its in the Jennings interview, watch that and see what he says himself

what other point???

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

like I have said before, its in the Jennings interview, watch that and see what he says himself

And like I said before, whereabouts in the interview does he say it?
What specifically does he say?

MC, the last time you claimed this you posted an interview that didn't said what you claimed it did.
Nor is that the first time you said something was in a video when it wasn't.

I've a limited bandwidth and I don't see the point in wasting it and my time when it's most likely that you're up to the same thing.

If he does say what you're claiming post a link to the video, point out the time he says the exact quote you think backs up your claim. Or at the very least just type out the quote.

Saying it's in a video is not an argument

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what other point???

The other points I made in the previous post.
Specifically:

The north tower collapse at 10:28 the fires would have started around then. WTC 7 collapsed at 17:20.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed quicker because they were 1) of a different construction 2) had fires of a different nature and 3) had different circumstances to WTC7, namely passenger jets ripping holes in them.
That is the silliest question you've asked yet.

But why did they need to do that? Why didn't they have the fake report ready to go like you think they must have had for the twin towers?
If they wanted to wait so people would forget, why did they release the twin towers report? Why not just wait till people forgot about that?
Why release any report at all if they thought people would just forget?

If you can't address them, please say so. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

Mahatma coat

If I thought for a second that you would consider what barry Jennings said as evidence, and maybe just maybe open your eyes to the myriad of contradictions that surround the Building seven issue, then yeah I'd transcribe it, but we both know that you'll just dismiss it as hearsay, or claim that it makes no sense out of context, or one of the many default dismissals you use to ignore anything that contradicts your world view

So Like I've said, watch the Jennings interview

also the fact that Guilianni said Damaged (so badly BTW that they abandoned the building which was meant to be their EMS Centre) instead of actually saying it was on fire does not IMO Negate toe point that the building was earmarked for destruction BEFORE the towers fell

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

If I thought for a second that you would consider what barry Jennings said as evidence, and maybe just maybe open your eyes to the myriad of contradictions that surround the Building seven issue, then yeah I'd transcribe it, but we both know that you'll just dismiss it as hearsay, or claim that it makes no sense out of context, or one of the many default dismissals you use to ignore anything that contradicts your world view

And it's not possible that any of those explanations are true?
Maybe there is an explanation for his quote that doesn't match your world-view?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Like I've said, watch the Jennings interview

Ok, since you're simply refusing to engage this point in any sort of way. I'll do your work for you and find the quote.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also the fact that Guilianni said Damaged (so badly BTW that they abandoned the building which was meant to be their EMS Centre) instead of actually saying it was on fire does not IMO Negate toe point that the building was earmarked for destruction BEFORE the towers fell

But the point you were trying to make was that he was reporting fires in WTC before the towers fell, this wasn't the case.
Why did you claim that he said there was fires?

Now which building was the EMS actually in cause the interview doesn't actually say it was in WTC7?

And what about the other point MC?
Perhaps you're ignoring it because it contradicts your world view?

King Mob

Watching the video, the first red flag is that it involves noted liar and hack Dylan Avery, this does not bode well.

The second is the amount of cuts made in the interview. If this were a government or main stream media job the CTers would be all over these.

And third red flag he doesn't actually mention that he used the stairs due to any active fires as you originally claimed MC.

Now to the actual uncut bits of the interview.

Jennings says he was in WTC7 at around 9:03 after the second plane hit and found the building empty. However this doesn't gel with other testimony specifically from John Peruggia EMS division chief.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Peruggia_John.txt

PERUGGIA:

I came out of the Battery Tunnel and as soon as I
came out, I parked my car immediately on the western side of
northbound West Street between Rector and West. Iím going to
mark that on the map with a number one. I put my boots on. I put
my EMS safety coat on, my helmet, grabbed the radio and a pad
and began to walk my way up West Street. My initial intent was
to pass through the site, make contact with the Chief at the
command post and advise them that I was en route to 7 World
Trade Center, the Office of Emergency Management, to provide
staffing, as it was now activated.

Q. As you were walking into the scene, the second plane
had just hit --

A. Just moments.

So we find that he was only arriving at the scene at 9:03 and not was not yet in the building, likely not arriving at WTC until 9:15 cause of various stops to talk to people he needed to talk to.

When he does arrive:

I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated.

So here's the none conspiracy explanation.
Barry Jennings was simply wrong (or had his words twisted by a dishonest hack of film-maker) about the time he arrived at the OEM. Likely getting there around 9:30 upwards After everyone was evacuated. After making some phone calls to a bunch of people (as per Jennings' testimony) the Deputy OEM Commissioner orders the complete evacuation of WTC 7 at 9:44 so we can imagine this is the individual who called and told him to leave right away. This likely occurring between 9:44 and 9:59.

Now Jennings mentions that the lights were out and since they were taking the stairs it was likely that the elevators weren't working, meaning the power was out.
This would have happened after the south tower collapsed and caused the power to fail.
This also gels with Hess's (the guy who was with him in WTC7) testimony of feeling the building shake when the power goes out.

They make their way down to the sixth floor which is about 17 floors down from the OEM. Since Mr. Jennings is a big dude and as per the interview had bad knees, he probably wasn't making good time on the way down especially since they couldn't see very well again as per the interview.
So when they reach the second floor it's about 10:28 when there's an "explosion" and the stairs collapse. Just about when WTC1 collapses and damages WTC7 with it's debris.

The important part of the interview where he says "both buildings where still standing..." comes after another cut and seems to be a part of a different topic concerning when the fire fighters came.

No where in that interview does he mention any fire at any point before the collapse of WTC1.

Mahatma coat

And it's not possible that any of those explanations are true?
Maybe there is an explanation for his quote that doesn't match your world-view?

Maybe there is, You however, have been unable to provide it so Far

Ok, since you're simply refusing to engage this point in any sort of way. I'll do your work for you and find the quote

oh FFS Sh1te like this gets on my Wick

1) I have not Refused to engage this point, I have asked you repeatedly to view the testemonial evidence which I am basing the statement on, YOU Have been the one refusing to do so.
2) If you wish to engage in a Debate its YOUR Responsibility to inform yourself of the details of that debate, otherwise you can just take my word for it on everything

But the point you were trying to make was that he was reporting fires in WTC before the towers fell, this wasn't the case.
Why did you claim that he said there was fires?

NO, the point I was making was that WTC7 had been reported as Badly damaged and on Fire PRIOR to WTC 1&2 Falling, my question was what caused THOSE fires

Now which building was the EMS actually in cause the interview doesn't actually say it was in WTC7?

you talkin about The Giulianni interview??? cos he clearly discusses their evacuation of WTC7 and the fact that it was supposed to be the Emergency Response centre for New Youk that day.

And what about the other point MC?
Perhaps you're ignoring it because it contradicts your world view?

what other point??

if you have something to say then SAY IT, this is getting tedious.

From now on if you wish to ask me a Question please put it in the format of a CLEAR Question. if I miss that question REPEAT IT, dont make vauge references to some random wittering on a previous page
Simples???

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

oh FFS Sh1te like this gets on my Wick

1) I have not Refused to engage this point, I have asked you repeatedly to view the testemonial evidence which I am basing the statement on, YOU Have been the one refusing to do so.
2) If you wish to engage in a Debate its YOUR Responsibility to inform yourself of the details of that debate, otherwise you can just take my word for it on everything

And all I've asked for is either the time in the interview in which the statement was made or a single line of a quote that illustrates the point of the video. Neither are massive things to ask for.

But I've since watched the entire video, including the pointless intro, so the point is moot.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

NO, the point I was making was that WTC7 had been reported as Badly damaged and on Fire PRIOR to WTC 1&2 Falling, my question was what caused THOSE fires

But you said specifically:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Jennings interview, the news reports at the time, the fact that the then mayor Rudi Giuliani commented at the time that the Emergency response centre was in WTC7 but that they couldnt use it because the building was on fire.............

This simply isn't supported by either interview no matter how liberal you get with the interpretation.
Neither interview at any point say there is fire in the building prior to the collapse of WTC1.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

you talkin about The Giulianni interview??? cos he clearly discusses their evacuation of WTC7 and the fact that it was supposed to be the Emergency Response centre for New Youk that day.

Thanks. See that now, my bad.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what other point??

if you have something to say then SAY IT, this is getting tedious.

From now on if you wish to ask me a Question please put it in the format of a CLEAR Question. if I miss that question REPEAT IT, dont make vauge references to some random wittering on a previous page
Simples???

I thought the points were incredibly clear and I have repeated them for you. You haven't even acknowledged their existence.

The north tower collapse at 10:28 the fires would have started around then. WTC 7 collapsed at 17:20.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed quicker because they were 1) of a different construction 2) had fires of a different nature and 3) had different circumstances to WTC7, namely passenger jets ripping holes in them.
That is the silliest question you've asked yet.

Or to put it into a clear concise question for you convince:
Do you still think that the twin towers collapsed quicker after being damaged is a relevant point?

This one is all questions concerning the "delay" in the WTC7 report.

But why did they need to do that? Why didn't they have the fake report ready to go like you think they must have had for the twin towers?
If they wanted to wait so people would forget, why did they release the twin towers report? Why not just wait till people forgot about that?
Why release any report at all if they thought people would just forget?

Mahatma coat

regards your Avery Adhomenim, what purpose does this serve besides demonstrating your Narrowmindedness and predetermined Bias??

So Jennings WAS in the building at 9.03 and the guy you quote Wasnt, and couldnt have been there by your own admission for another 20 minutes, yet you take his testimony of what happened at that time over the guy that was there, then you proceed to make some spurious assertions and fabricate a timeline that suits your asertions, all the time claiming tha Avery is a Fraud because he Lowers himself to that, wihout providing evidence of such.

Mahatma coat

yes, the Relative speeed of the collapses is a highly relevant point.

Mahatma coat

But why did they need to do that? Why didn't they have the fake report ready to go like you think they must have had for the twin towers?
If they wanted to wait so people would forget, why did they release the twin towers report? Why not just wait till people forgot about that?
Why release any report at all if they thought people would just forget?

WhyX5 so thats 5+ meandering questions, Pick one

drkpower

I'm beginning to think that the creation of a 9/11 subforum has perhaps inadvertently caused the loss of the better conspiracy theorists. I used to enjoy a reasonably well-matched debate on the issues.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

regards your Avery Adhomenim, what purpose does this serve besides demonstrating your Narrowmindedness and predetermined Bias??

Well it would be an ad-homium if Avery hadn't been called up on his deceptions, lies and **** ups before.

He's know to be such a hack that there's several conspiracy theorists who think he and his film are funded by the government to discredit the real truth movement.

So the fact that there's so many random cuts in the tape call the entire thing into question.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Jennings WAS in the building at 9.03 and the guy you quote Wasnt, and couldnt have been there by your own admission for another 20 minutes, yet you take his testimony of what happened at that time over the guy that was there,

He arrived later and found the place still being evacuated and full of people rushing out after Jennings says the place is empty.
One of these people have to be wrong.

Now if Jennings is simply off on his timing, a common feature of people remembering stressful situations, both of the testimonies make sense.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

then you proceed to make some spurious assertions and fabricate a timeline that suits your asertions,

What's wrong with the time line I proposed?
It fits everything that Jennings claims, beyond the exact time he arrived.
There's nothing far fetched in the time line and it all is consistent.
And I don't have to invent anything like hidden explosives.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

all the time claiming tha Avery is a Fraud because he Lowers himself to that, wihout providing evidence of such.

Well there's an edited cut right before he says that the towers were still up and he goes on to talk about a different subject. It's clearly a different part of the interview cut into another to make it seem like he's saying the explosion that took out the stairs happened before the towers collapsed.

Does this obvious cut not bother you?
Why do you think it's there?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yes, the Relative speeed of the collapses is a highly relevant point.

Why? They are different buildings under different circumstances, why would yo expect them to collapse in the same amount of time?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

WhyX5 so thats 5+ meandering questions, Pick one

Why can't you answer all of them they are all relevant.
You claim that they wanted to hold back the WTC7 report so people would forget.
But why didn't they just have the report ready like they did with the twin towers?
Or alternatively why didn't they just hold back the twin towers report until everyone forgot about that?

Simple questions MC that you are doing you level best to avoid.
But don't worry they're not going to disappear.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

Watching the video, the first red flag is that it involves noted liar and hack Dylan Avery, this does not bode well.

O yeah, your first tactic is to throw some garbage into the grocery bag so that it all stinks.

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetflaherty&refpage=issues

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

O yeah, your first tactic is to throw some garbage into the grocery bag so that it all stinks.

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetflaherty&refpage=issues

That would be the case if it was the only point I made.
It wasn't.

The fact that Avery is known to manipulate, misrepresent and outright lie means he could be doing the same again here.
I show this is probably the case by analysing what is actually said in the interview and point out the glaringly obvious cut he made to suit his ends.

In fact, you seem to be doing exactly what you're accusing me of: since I'm attacking the guys credibility I must not be actually making a good point.

But I've made several points that describe a non-conspiracy explanation as well as point out flaws in the conspiracy explanation.
All of which you can now ignore because you threw some garbage into the grocery bag so that it all stinks.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

That would be the case if it was the only point I made.
It wasn't.

The fact that Avery is known to manipulate, misrepresent and outright lie means he could be doing the same again here.
I show this is probably the case by analysing what is actually said in the interview and point out the glaringly obvious cut he made to suit his ends.

In fact, you seem to be doing exactly what you're accusing me of: since I'm attacking the guys credibility I must not be actually making a good point.

But I've made several points that describe a non-conspiracy explanation as well as point out flaws in the conspiracy explanation.
All of which you can now ignore because you threw some garbage into the grocery bag so that it all stinks.

Fair enough actually. Can't argue with that.

jackiebaron

Di0genes wrote: »

Two strawmen in one.

No one believes the steel "melted" in the WTC or WTC7.

Who says the this about either the towers or the WTC7?

Are you incoherently trying to suggest that the collapse of WTC 7 happened faster than the collapse of either of the Towers?

eehhhh.......the molten steel that was found underneath the rubble.

You see, you can't have it both ways. When a "truther" points out that jetfuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the "official" comeback will be "It wasn't melted it was only weakened, dammit!"
Yet pools of molten steel were found in the rubble of the WTC.
I believe fires burned there for 6 weeks after.

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

eehhhh.......the molten steel that was found underneath the rubble.

And how do you know this exactly?

jackiebaron wrote: »

You see, you can't have it both ways. When a "truther" points out that jetfuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the "official" comeback will be "It wasn't melted it was only weakened, dammit!"
Yet pools of molten steel were found in the rubble of the WTC.

Well first off the reality is that the jet fuel only weakened the steel.
It's not the "offical" comeback, it's the truth.

The only people who think that anyone claims the steel melted is the CTer crowd so they can throw out that particular red herring.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I believe fires burned there for 6 weeks after.

Source?

And is this stuff about WTC7 specifically?

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

I am discussing the Twin Towers because their collapse is the cause of the fires in WTC7 therefore are inescapably relevant. The "magic passport" is not.

Oh I can, I'm just not going to deal with it here on this WTC7 thread.
We've a whole 9/11 section now to fill up. I'll address the point in a new thread.


Well that's kind of a strawman to put it like that.
But as we've seen from the rake of pictures I've put up, there's no question that the debris could make it as far as the south face of WTC7.
Unless you've a really good explanation for these:
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

Especially the first one as it's got a chunk of the towers actually dangling out of it's hole.


What's the requisite temperatures for steel to fail?
How are you defining "fail"?

Because in reality, since the fire wasn't the only factor, it didn't have to melt through steel girders, it only had to weaken them to a point where the already damaged structure (and thanks to a design flaw) could no longer support the building.


Actually it did have a sprinkler system, unfortunately the system on several of the lower and critical floors was fed by the city's water supply.
The city's water supply to that area was shut down when the towers collapsed.

Now again, what's impossible about the collapse and where have the NIST manipulated anything about WTC7?

King Mob, what is your background in structural engineering and/or physics?
You claim to know exactly the cause of WTC7 collapsing yet 100's if not 1000's of highly qualified engineers have stated that what you're stating is impossible. You'll doubt the experts (who aren't paid off shills) yet you'll believe the know-nothings on TV.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

And there is absolutely NO account of WTC7 in the 9/11 report.

My simple question for you, KM, is this:

Why do you flatly refuse to believe that the official explanation of events might be false and why don't you even contemplate the posibility of an alternative? What are you afraid of?

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

King Mob, what is your background in structural engineering and/or physics?

Physics undergrad actually.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You claim to know exactly the cause of WTC7 collapsing yet 100's if not 1000's of highly qualified engineers have stated that what you're stating is impossible. You'll doubt the experts (who aren't paid off shills) yet you'll believe the know-nothings on TV.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

But there's thousands of other engineers that say the opposite, not just "people on TV".
It's almost as if relying on authority alone is a logical fallacy of some kind...

jackiebaron wrote: »

And there is absolutely NO account of WTC7 in the 9/11 report.

But there is an NIST report on it. I've been drawing from it extensively.

jackiebaron wrote: »

My simple question for you, KM, is this:

Why do you flatly refuse to believe that the official explanation of events might be false and why don't you even contemplate the posibility of an alternative? What are you afraid of?

I don't flatly refuse to believe anything. And I'm not afraid of anything. It's a bit silly and melodramatic to accuse me of it.
By actually reading your and other CTer's opinions on 9/11 I'm seeing what the questions are about the official story.
The difference is I'm critically examining stuff and finding that all the questions and claims about 9/11 come up flat, or are dishonest half truths or out and out lies.
Can you say that you are open to the possibility that the "official" story is true and that it wasn't an inside job?

There's a ton of points and questions in the post you quoted, would you care to address them, or would you prefer not to and stay safe in your worldview?

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know this exactly?


Well first off the reality is that the jet fuel only weakened the steel.
It's not the "offical" comeback, it's the truth.

The only people who think that anyone claims the steel melted is the CTer crowd so they can throw out that particular red herring.


Source?

And is this stuff about WTC7 specifically?

Well either molten steel WAS there or it wasn't. According to the New York Fire Department, it was. According to you, it wasn't.

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well either molten steel WAS there or it wasn't. According to the New York Fire Department, it was. According to you, it wasn't.

So who in the fire department said it? When? In what context?
Because I can't just take your word that they actually said this, you need to post the source.
If you can't, it's no different than me claiming that the FDNY said the exact opposite.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

Physics undergrad actually.

Congratulations. I'm an engineer myself. Though not a civil one though I did study civil for 2 years before branching into electronics.

But there's thousands of other engineers that say the opposite, not just "people on TV".
It's almost as if relying on authority alone is a logical fallacy of some kind...

Are these engineers reliable? Are they bought and paid for like the handful of bribed or blackmailed "scientists" who deny climate change? Can you get us the credentials of a couple of them?

But there is an NIST report on it. I've been drawing from it extensively.

KM, the NIST report is shambolic. It was politically controlled thereby limiting its scope. That's the easiest way to castrate an investigation.

In its official report the 9/11 Commission never once mentions the molten pools–––despite the testimony of the New York City commissioner.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.
After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:

“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

Now you previously stated that no steel melted and then asked who witnessed molten steel.

Well how about a plethora of contractors and first responders.
How about Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue:

www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”

So there are multiple eye-witness accounts of molten steel. They are documented in papers, statements, diaries, interviews, speeches, etc.

The NIST report glibly touches on it but can't explain it...in fact doesn't even try. The "possible" explanation given by the NIST is that under "certain circumstances" it is "conceivable" that some steel might have melted. It doesn't even bother to touch on what these certain "circumstances" might be. That miserably blow-off is an affront to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

So MC you can pull sh!t out of the NIST report if you want but you might as well be reading the Beano.

I don't flatly refuse to believe anything. And I'm not afraid of anything. It's a bit silly and melodramatic to accuse me of it.
By actually reading your and other CTer's opinions on 9/11 I'm seeing what the questions are about the official story.
The difference is I'm critically examining stuff and finding that all the questions and claims about 9/11 come up flat, or are dishonest half truths or out and out lies.
Can you say that you are open to the possibility that the "official" story is true and that it wasn't an inside job?

I am definitely open to the possibility that it happened according to the "official" report. Just as I am open to the possibility that a death may have happened according to the police and coroner's report. But once I hear of evidence destroyed or tampered with, witnesses threatened, and investigations stymied then I lose all faith in that explanation and nothing can convince me otherwise. Once I hear that the victim "fell on a knife 6 times" then I immediately have to dismiss the official report as codswallop.

There's a ton of points and questions in the post you quoted, would you care to address them, or would you prefer not to and stay safe in your worldview?

Well I'll try to find holes in your argument. I have no faith in the NIST report that you are religiously quoting from and neither do thousands of other engineers and scientists. It is a shoddy exercise masquarading as science and reminds me of the weak Intelligent Design crap masquerading as Creationism attempting to refute Evolution.

guitarzero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

Are these engineers reliable? Are they bought and paid for like the handful of bribed or blackmailed "scientists" who deny climate change? Can you get us the credentials of a couple of them?

Well I'm not particularly bothered to do this, as I'm not the one relying on an argument from authority.
Just because someone is an engineer doesn't make them immune to shoody logic, lies and propaganda, as I'm sure you'd agree at least in regards to the scientists who disagree with you.

jackiebaron wrote: »

KM, the NIST report is shambolic. It was politically controlled thereby limiting its scope. That's the easiest way to castrate an investigation.

Yea, you claimed this before and I asked you to point out some the exact parts that were manipulated. You failed to do so for some reason.

jackiebaron wrote: »

In its official report the 9/11 Commission never once mentions the molten pools–––despite the testimony of the New York City commissioner.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.
After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:

“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

Now before I actually address this I need to understand how this fits into your narrative.
Why first of all would there be molten steel in a controlled demolition?
Explosive demolition uses the shock of the explosion to break supports, heat plays no part.

And why exactly didn't they have a pre -scripted explanation for the molten steel?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now you previously stated that no steel melted and then asked who witnessed molten steel.

Well how about a plethora of contractors and first responders.
How about Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue:

www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”

So there are multiple eye-witness accounts of molten steel. They are documented in papers, statements, diaries, interviews, speeches, etc.

Again before I address these points you said:

Well either molten steel WAS there or it wasn't. According to the New York Fire Department, it was. According to you, it wasn't.

Can I take it that you can't actually find the FDNY actually saying what you think they said?

jackiebaron wrote: »

I am definitely open to the possibility that it happened according to the "official" report. Just as I am open to the possibility that a death may have happened according to the police and coroner's report. But once I hear of evidence destroyed or tampered with, witnesses threatened, and investigations stymied then I lose all faith in that explanation and nothing can convince me otherwise. Once I hear that the victim "fell on a knife 6 times" then I immediately have to dismiss the official report as codswallop.

So there's no reasoning or evidence I can possibly provide that could ever convince you that the official story is a valid explanation?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well I'll try to find holes in your argument. I have no faith in the NIST report that you are religiously quoting from and neither do thousands of other engineers and scientists. It is a shoddy exercise masquarading as science and reminds me of the weak Intelligent Design crap masquerading as Creationism attempting to refute Evolution.

You do realise that it's the creationists that are the ones rejecting the real explanation using shoddy reasoning and science and positing a conspiracy of scientists to keep them down, right?
You guys aren't on the winning side of that analogy.

King Mob

guitarzero wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Why aren't they showing the east side of the penthouse collapsing before the rest of the building?
It's almost as if they're dishonestly presenting the video...

guitarzero

King Mob wrote: »

Why aren't they showing the east side of the penthouse collapsing before the rest of the building?
It's almost as if they're dishonestly presenting the video...

Fell like a controlled demolition. Cant spell it any other way. You cant spell orange any other way. You're just bullish so no one should make it there policy to argue with your cemented nut. You just drain and not inform.