9-11 WTC 7 Tower collapse..

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.