Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Building 7 ???

1235710

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    and the vauge wishy washy explanations of WTC 1&2 fell on it despite the fact that it was earmarked for collapse BEFORE Towers 1 or 2 fell.

    Building 7 was home to the CIA, Secret Service, and Guilliani's Office of Emergency Management.

    As part of their contingency plan they had 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

    It's great when the gov't is allowed to break the building codes, but the people are not.

    Anyhow, I can see how a cut water lines and burning diesel fuel could easily take down a building.

    People don't realize what temperature can do to steel rivets.

    The building was weakened by falling debris. That load was then redistributed to other areas of the building. The greater load on the rivets failed when temperatures got hot enough.

    They deny that their diesel was a contributing factor in the collapse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    But he claims to see something which couldn't be there.
    He said he saw bodies when there wasn't any. His testimony is clearly flawed and unreliable.
    You're simply inventing conspiracies because you don't want to admit he got something very very wrong.

    I am not ignoring this I am just trying to make some sense of it



    So unless you've got actual evidence that there was bodies which were covered up, or any evidence he'd been coerced to change his testimony, then you can't claim that's what happened.
    It's dishonest and childish to do so

    I take offence at being called a dishonest and childish


    Was not intending to create a conspiracy you asked me to speculate as to why he done this and then accuse me of creating a conspiracy If you dont want speculative answers dont ask that type of question it seems a bit underhanded

    Again I will as you've not actually been able to show that he is unreliable in regards to 9/11. Also there's many other sources which back up his claim.
    I have shown that your only source is an unreliable witness being presented edited and dishonestly by a propagandist.
    But you can keep trotting them out if it sits right with you....

    But you still havent provided these sources


    Wait... so he's lying about his testimony but somehow left a little nugget like this in it?
    Why does that make sense?
    And why are you disregarding what he has to say about the timing, yet believing whole heartedly what he has to say in other parts?
    That not strike you as inconsistent?

    Right he left that little nugget in how many people do you think have read that the way I have read it and you must agree with me because you havent tried to defend it

    first you say he was just misremembering the time then he forgot about a jet hitting a skyscraper then perhaps he was being misquoted by Avery or maybe he went in the side door and couldent see two of the of the biggest buildings in manhattan on fire or nobody told him about them Im sure two planes hitting the buildings were the topic of conversation at that time

    Will you please when you have time watch the unedited version of the interview and point out where Avery misrepresented him so we can deal with barry's statement on its own merits be it flawed /misremembered whatever




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    I am not ignoring this I am just trying to make some sense of it
    Barry Jennings claimed there was bodies in WTC7.
    There were no deaths in WTC7.
    Jennings could not have seen bodies in WTC7.
    His testimony is flawed.

    Not hard to grasp really.
    enno99 wrote: »
    I take offence at being called a dishonest and childish
    Well then I suggest not using childish and dishonest tactics.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Was not intending to create a conspiracy you asked me to speculate as to why he done this and then accuse me of creating a conspiracy If you dont want speculative answers dont ask that type of question it seems a bit underhanded
    But there's a limit to what you can honestly speculate.
    Imagining a vast conspiracy is not a reasonable one.

    What's wrong with the simple explanation that he felt that Avery misrepresented him?
    How do you know that this isn't the case?
    enno99 wrote: »
    But you still havent provided these sources
    Both I and Diogenes have provided many such sources.
    But since you haven't even acknowledged my request for sources that support Jennings I fail to see why i should bother gathering them.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Right he left that little nugget in how many people do you think have read that the way I have read it and you must agree with me because you havent tried to defend it
    Doesn't answer my question.
    Why since you think that his own comments portray him as a bad guy, why didn't he leave them out while he was lying about the other 9/11 stuff?
    Why do you think he's telling the truth here but are dismissing all the other stuff he's saying?
    enno99 wrote: »
    first you say he was just misremembering the time then he forgot about a jet hitting a skyscraper then perhaps he was being misquoted by Avery or maybe he went in the side door and couldent see two of the of the biggest buildings in manhattan on fire or nobody told him about them Im sure two planes hitting the buildings were the topic of conversation at that time
    Well considering he saw bodies that weren't there shows that his memory isn't prefect.
    And considering the amount of conflicting reports being throw around in the initial aftermath it's not a fantastic suggestion that he might not have gotten accurate reports himself.
    And considering the fact that the area was shrouded in smoke as well as hundreds of people rushing around, Jennings included it's not unlikely that he didn't see the impacts in the towers clearly.

    Are any of those things impossible? Yes or No?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Will you please when you have time watch the unedited version of the interview and point out where Avery misrepresented him so we can deal with barry's statement on its own merits be it flawed /misremembered whatever
    I have. Avery asks several leading questions and fails to ask proper follow up questions.
    Why exactly is there an edited version in the first place?
    Why are you still arguing for an known liar, who by your own strict standards you would have dismissed as unreliable (if not more so) as the witness who's testimony you don't like.

    I'm not particularly bothered to go through the video point by point because I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
    And if you were applying your own standards evenly, neither would you.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    have. Avery asks several leading questions and fails to ask proper follow up questions.
    Why exactly is there an edited version in the first place?
    Why are you still arguing for an known liar, who by your own strict standards you would have dismissed as unreliable (if not more so) as the witness who's testimony you don't like.

    I'm not particularly bothered to go through the video point by point because I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
    And if you were applying your own standards evenly, neither would you.
    Today 22:28
    OK heres a strange idea for you

    rather than another driveby dismissal You actually Get the transcripts and Show these leading Questions, clearly explaining why you dismiss them

    Then you can show us where Avery has been provento be Delibratley Lying


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    OK heres a strange idea for you

    rather than another driveby dismissal You actually Get the transcripts and Show these leading Questions, clearly explaining why you dismiss them
    You mean like the drive bys you do?
    I've made several points against this same interview.
    But since Avery is a known liar and that Jennings makes a clearly false claim and lacks any supporting evidence, I don't see a single reason why I should take the video seriously and waste the time making points that you and Enno will likely just ignore as usual.

    If you really want to rejoin the discussion, go back and answer some of the points you've left hanging.
    Then you can show us where Avery has been provento be Delibratley Lying
    Already done so. And enno even seems to agree.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73595714&postcount=183
    King Mob wrote: »
    Several examples have been presented.
    A basic level of research of his nonsense claims shows he's a liar.

    Here's one very very clear and relevant example of hundreds I can point to:
    Aveary claims that WTC 7 fell in 6 seconds and shows a video supposedly showing this.
    Seen here at about 30 mins.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
    A clearer example of a video showing the collapse and repeating the claim.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
    However, like most CTer sources Aveary edits his the footage he provides because the facts don't match his narrative.
    Here is a video showing the total collapse:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
    Can you see the difference?

    So there's simply no way Aveary did not see the start of the collapse, yet he edits it out to make his claim that the tower fell in 6 seconds.
    Knowingly falsifying evidence to make it show something other than the truth is lying.

    Many, many others including other truthers have called him out on all this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28film%29#Criticism

    So now, do you think he's an honest source?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »


    Well then I suggest not using childish and dishonest tactics.

    Like saying you have sources and not providing them


    Both I and Diogenes have provided many such sources.
    But since you haven't even acknowledged my request for sources that support Jennings I fail to see why i should bother gathering them.

    Thats more of your auld bollocks I never said I had sources But you on the other hand said you had


    Doesn't answer my question.
    Why since you think that his own comments portray him as a bad guy, why didn't he leave them out while he was lying about the other 9/11 stuff?
    Why do you think he's telling the truth here but are dismissing all the other stuff he's saying?

    Did you think he was a bad guy when you read his testimony







    I have. Avery asks several leading questions and fails to ask proper follow up questions.
    Why exactly is there an edited version in the first place?
    Why are you still arguing for an known liar, who by your own strict standards you would have dismissed as unreliable (if not more so) as the witness who's testimony you don't like.

    If you want to see leading questions you should read some of them testomonies diogenes put forward


    I'm not particularly bothered to go through the video point by point because I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
    And if you were applying your own standards evenly, neither would you.

    Then he did not misrepresent him or twist his words as you claimed all along



    Oh by the way when barry's account suits you and diogenes you dont mind using it

    Check out diogenes list of testimonies


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Like saying you have sources and not providing them
    They're littered around the thread and contained in some of the links.
    I am as bothered to repost them as you are to look for them.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Thats more of your auld bollocks I never said I had sources But you on the other hand said you had
    That's a very round about way of finally saying you don't have evidence to back up Jennings' testimony, but you got there eventually.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Did you think he was a bad guy when you read his testimony
    Again doesn't answer my questions.
    It doesn't make him any worse than anyone else and has no baring on the accuracy of his testimony.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Then he did not misrepresent him or twist his words as you claimed all along
    Again, why is there an "edited" version of the video?
    Why does that video make Jennings seem to say stuff he doesn't?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Oh by the way when barry's account suits you and diogenes you dont mind using it

    Check out diogenes list of testimonies
    Now again you seem to ignored points you don't like.

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Y
    Already done so. And enno even seems to agree.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73595714&postcount=183

    Now whos dishonest that was about the collapse and I agreed it it was dishonest
    But were talking about the barry jennings intervew here you need to show where he lied in that


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Now whos dishonest that was about the collapse and I agreed it it was dishonest
    But were talking about the barry jennings intervew here you need to show where he lied in that
    I was pointing to that as an example of Avery's known lies, I'm reposting it because that's what MC asked for.
    You're grasping at straws.

    And if you want an example of him lying on the interview, just watch the differences between the edited and unedited interviews.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    They're littered around the thread and contained in some of the links.
    I am as bothered to repost them as you are to look for them.

    No they are not Ive looked I take it you dont have them

    That's a very round about way of finally saying you don't have evidence to back up Jennings' testimony, but you got there eventually.

    More bollocks


    Again doesn't answer my questions.
    It doesn't make him any worse than anyone else and has no baring on the accuracy of his testimony.


    No worse than anyone else bet that firefighters family would disagree




    Again, why is there an "edited" version of the video?
    Why does that video make Jennings seem to say stuff he doesn't?

    But now you have an unedited version deal with that


    Now again you seem to ignored points you don't like.

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    So if your timeline is right why were he and Hess told to go to 23rd floor of a building that was being evacuated since the first plane hit


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Listen enno, you're just ignoring questions left and right now.
    If I do address your points in the previous post you're just going to ignore them as well, so it's clearly a waste of my time to do so.

    So I'll make I deal with you. I will provide all the stuff which backs up the claims of the witness you don't like if you answer the following simple questions:

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    And importantly, is Avery more, or less trustworthy than the witness you don't like?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Listen enno, you're just ignoring questions left and right now.
    If I do address your points in the previous post you're just going to ignore them as well, so it's clearly a waste of my time to do so.

    So I'll make I deal with you. I will provide all the stuff which backs up the claims of the witness you don't like if you answer the following simple questions:

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    And importantly, is Avery more, or less trustworthy than the witness you don't like?

    Forget it you dont have them or you would have rammed them down my throath hours ago


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Forget it you dont have them or you would have rammed them down my throath hours ago
    Why is it so hard for you to answer simple yes or no questions?

    I'm pretty sure it's because that the only honest answers you can give would force you to admit that Jennings' testimony is flawed.
    And if his testimony is flawed you'd have to treat him as you do with the witness you don't like and therefore lose the one and only thing you have to suggest that there was explosions before the towers fell.

    You know this as well as I do, but you don't apply your standards evenly. You're dismissing Periugia's testimony on the barest of excuses because you don't like what he says while at the same time you're ignoring the fact that Jennings claims to have seen stuff he couldn't have (and that Avery is a proven liar, just like how you accuse and dismiss Periugua) because that testimony just so happens to fit into your preferred narrative.

    Now unlike you, I am not just dismissing a witness based one smudge on thier honour (Avery has a lot more than one).
    The reason I am dismissing Jennings is because:
    1) his testimony is misrepresented, twisted and distorted
    2) Jennings himself said that his testimony is misrepresented, twisted and distorted
    3) by your own admission there is no other evidence that supports his/Avery's claims
    and 4) as presented his testimony is in conflict with other testimonies and sources that are supported.

    Now, if you'd like me to provide back up for anything I've said at least do the barest of courtesy and actually answer basic questions:
    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    And importantly, is Avery more, or less trustworthy than the witness you don't like?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Well you said your sources were in the thread

    You have somthing in common with Avery who you dislike so much

    Your both Liars


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well you said your sources were in the thread

    You have somthing in common with Avery who you dislike so much

    Your both Liars
    Enno, maybe you should be asking yourself why you can't honestly answer 3 simple questions.

    And you really should be asking yourself why you're buying lies from a huckster like Avery.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Enno, maybe you should be asking yourself why you can't honestly answer 3 simple questions.

    And you really should be asking yourself why you're buying lies from a huckster like Avery.

    You are missing the point here I am more interested in giving Barry Jennings a fair shake

    I dont give a f*ck about Avery I already conceded he was a liar

    Maybe you should ask yourself why you have to tell lies to make a point


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    You are missing the point here I am more interested in giving Barry Jennings a fair shake
    But why? We've already seen that his testimony is flawed, since he claimed to see something he didn't.
    And since he's unreliable, we can just totally ignore what he has to say just like you do with Peruggia.
    Right?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Since asking for truthers to answer simple questions is a bit of a fool's game, I'm just going to post the other sources that go against Jennings' testimoney as presented by Dylan Avery and support Peruggia's

    The Second plane hits at 9:03.
    Jennings claims to be on the 23rd floor in the EMS offices when this happens, having passing a nearly empty lobby.
    Peruggia claims to be en-route at the time, arriving much later than 9:03 yet finds crowds of people scrambling to get out.

    Reports from the NIST conclude that the order to actually evacuate the building go out at 9:03, just after the second plane had hit, and a lot of people were getting out of dodge at before then anyway.
    This is consistent with Perugga's claims of still seeing people evacuate when he arrives after the second plane hits.
    It is not consistent with Jenning's testimony as for him to be at the 23rd floor at 9:03 he must have passed a ton of people in the lobby.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states, “As the second aircraft struck WTC 2, a decision was made to evacuate WTC 7.” This would be just after the Port Authority Police Department called for the evacuation of the entire WTC complex (see 8:59 a.m.-9:02 a.m. September 11, 2001). But by this time, “many WTC 7 occupants [have] already left the building and others [have] begun a self-evacuation of the building.”
    [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109]


    Next sources put the evacuation of the OEM at between 9:30 and 9:45:
    The OEM staff was ordered to evacuate Building 7 immediately as a precaution, but interview sources indicate they did not initially respond with a sense of urgency. They calmly collected personal belongings and began removing OEM records, but they were urged to abandon everything and leave the building quickly. Those interviewed believe that order saved their lives.
    http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm
    http://web.archive.org/web/20041020144854/http://www.decloah.com/mirrors/9-11/911_Report.txt
    Though some put it as early as 9:03 like the rest of the building.
    But this does not gel with Jennings claim that he found the office totally empty at just a little past 9:03 as the office had not yet been evacuated.

    Here's another witness saying that at around 9:03 the Lobby would still be full of people:
    http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/925/Default.aspx
    Chief Engineer Michael Catalano had served for 12 years at 7 World Trade Center ....
    ....Catalano headed to the 44th floor, and this is where he saw the damaged WTC tower for the first time. “We were a 100 feet from the towers; all you could see was smoke. The plane had already hit and there was a big gouge,” says Catalano. He returned to his crew and ordered an evacuation. The second plane hit and they were thrown to the ground. While the building was emptying, Catalano and his crew worked to maintain the building’s vital systems, especially in the data centers. Assistant Engineer Joe Gregori, who had worked in 7 WTC for 11 years, even took the time to unplug coffee pots while heroically checking for building occupants left behind after the evacuation.
    This gels with Peruggia's story but not Jennings'

    So the only conclusion you can draw from this is that Jennings was simply wrong about the time he got to the OEM.
    He simply could not have been there at 9:03 and not see anyone in the lobby on the way up or anyone in the office itself.
    Peruggia's testimony gels with all the other reports and the only one you can find to contradict it directly is one from a guy who thought he saw dead bodies when there couldn't have been any as filtered by a known liar.

    And yet I bet you still will swallow Avery's crap without a question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Since asking for truthers to answer simple questions is a bit of a fool's game,

    Well what could I expect ask a liar for sources And what do I get

    Old Testament for liars = 911commision report

    New testament for liars = NIST Report

    Gospel according to students/academics who wont even put names to the qoutes

    to top it off some building magazine who cant even get the amount of floors right

    The morning of the attack, Catalano was on the phone with Charlie Magee, an old friend, discussing Catalano’s son’s new uniform; his son’s first day as a helper was scheduled September 14th. After the conversation, Catalano had a meeting with his crew in the 48th-floor chiller plant. They felt the building shake, but in the windowless, soundproof area they were unaware of the nature of the attack. Because they had weathered the 1993 terrorist attack, the crew assumed another bomb had exploded. They sprang into action.

    Pathetic

    Just to Put you straight dont label me I have not made up my mind on this whole 911 thing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well what could I expect ask a liar for sources And what do I get
    And what could I expect when I provide sources, besides them being ignored on the flimsiest of excuses.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Old Testament for liars = 911commision report

    New testament for liars = NIST Report

    Gospel according to students/academics who wont even put names to the qoutes
    So what about the facts posted has been falsified and how do you know it's falsified?
    Please be specific and actually support your claims, otherwise it'd look like you're making it up to avoid facts you can't deal with.
    enno99 wrote: »
    to top it off some building magazine who cant even get the amount of floors right

    The morning of the attack, Catalano was on the phone with Charlie Magee, an old friend, discussing Catalano’s son’s new uniform; his son’s first day as a helper was scheduled September 14th. After the conversation, Catalano had a meeting with his crew in the 48th-floor chiller plant. They felt the building shake, but in the windowless, soundproof area they were unaware of the nature of the attack. Because they had weathered the 1993 terrorist attack, the crew assumed another bomb had exploded. They sprang into action.
    WTC 7 had a penthouse complex above the 47th floor.
    But hey, any excuse right?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Pathetic
    So I supply evidence and testimony that supports the claims made by Peruggia, which you dismiss because you insist that everything official is lies but don't specify what is lies or how you know and because you think that they got a single number wrong.
    But then on the other hand you support Jennings, who you admitted isn't supported by a single scrap of other evidence and who claimed he saw something he didn't.

    You're argument isn't just pathetic, it's laughable.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Just to Put you straight dont label me I have not made up my mind on this whole 911 thing
    Sure, you keep pretending that if you like.

    But since you've since long abandoned any semblance of honest debate I think we're done here.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet




    Enjoy. I think 2min 10secs is particularly poignant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses




    Enjoy. I think 2min 10secs is particularly poignant.


    Fact is they make it sound that a building like that would collapse a fire hits it and that is not true

    there are plenty of movies on youtube with skyscrapers burning for more then 20 hours and they didn't collapse

    2 things: 30 seconds in this movie he says "the world trade centers" ... builing 7 was finished in 1987 some say 1985 more then 10 years later

    And why is there no mention in this movie about the different design of building 7 because of the powerstation (cant find that movie again damn)

    I see alot of assumption on both sides CT an Debunk


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Fact is they make it sound that a building like that would collapse a fire hits it and that is not true

    That sentence doesn't make sense
    there are plenty of movies on youtube with skyscrapers burning for more then 20 hours and they didn't collapse

    Were these building hit by massive chunks of falling skyscrapers?
    2 things: 30 seconds in this movie he says "the world trade centers" ... builing 7 was finished in 1987 some say 1985 more then 10 years later

    So?
    And why is there no mention in this movie about the different design of building 7 because of the powerstation (cant find that movie again damn)

    It's a short documentary about the collaspe should it include everything?

    I see alot of assumption on both sides CT an Debunk


    No sorry.;


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    That sentence doesn't make sense



    Were these building hit by massive chunks of falling skyscrapers?



    So?



    It's a short documentary about the collaspe should it include everything?





    No sorry.;

    To me it does

    It was hit by debris but not massive chunks (drama queen)

    different decade different design (so you cant compare wtc7 with 1 and 2)
    There are pics of debris almost cutting buildings in half (not wtc7)

    The difficulty in designing around that power station could maybe make the building go the way it did I'm not buying that atm but keep it in my mind


    Last point says more about your tunnel vision thanks for clearing that up


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    Well, I have been doing a lot of research (watching videos, very intensely) and I am convinced that the building collapsed due to uncontrolled fire.

    Despite having no qualifications in any physical science or related subject, I feel my time spent sitting on my arse, staring at videos sufficiently qualifies me to make such statements.

    :-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    Well, I have been doing a lot of research (watching videos, very intensely) and I am convinced that the building collapsed due to uncontrolled fire.

    Despite having no qualifications in any physical science or related subject, I feel my time spent sitting on my arse, staring at videos sufficiently qualifies me to make such statements.

    :-)

    hahaha funny :D feel the same way only i am not buying the uncontrolled fire collapse at this time.

    Both sides are throwing with so called experts ... all we can do is make up our own minds in the end


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    To me it does

    Thats nice but you're trying to communicate with other people not just yourself, If I'm having trouble understanding you shouldn't get defensive.
    It was hit by debris but not massive chunks (drama queen)

    Firstly personal attacks like calling me a drama queen are against the charter.

    As to the extent of the damage to the WTC 7

    wtc7_2.jpg&sa=X&ei=I2BnTsipHIe6-AbBvdniCw&ved=0CAcQ8wc4Gw&usg=AFQjCNGM5Xou1MZqRp1rUWFSOmVnI-msiw

    If you like I'll drag out the quotes from the firefighters explaining the damage, oh I'll do that anyway
    1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

    2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

    3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

    4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

    5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

    6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

    Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

    So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
    Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
    Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
    Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
    Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

    9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

    10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

    We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

    Q. Were you injured?

    A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

    11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
    –FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

    12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

    13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

    Q. The door was blocked?

    A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

    14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

    (After collapse of south tower)
    15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

    16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

    Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

    A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

    17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

    18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

    19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

    20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
    The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

    Still think there wasn't massive damage from debris to WTC 7?

    different decade different design (so you cant compare wtc7 with 1 and 2)

    You're saying that between the 70s and 80s building design radically changed? Anyway who's comparing WTC 7 to WTC 1&2?
    There are pics of debris almost cutting buildings in half (not wtc7)

    Sources please?



    Last point says more about your tunnel vision thanks for clearing that up

    No see I've been talking and posting about building seven for about five years now. Theres no ambuigty about the collapse in my mind because it's been discussed to death and conclusively proved. Just because you're new to the table, and seem to have trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff as there being some kind of ambuigty out there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    weisses wrote: »
    hahaha funny :D feel the same way only i am not buying the uncontrolled fire collapse at this time.

    Both sides are throwing with so called experts ... all we can do is make up our own minds in the end

    Fair enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    there are plenty of movies on youtube with skyscrapers burning for more then 20 hours and they didn't collapse
    And?
    He showed a clip of a steel framed overpass that collapsed solely due to fire in a far shorter time than WTC7.

    How many of these buildings that burned for 20 hours were of similar construction and had comparable circumstances to building 7?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And?
    He showed a clip of a steel framed overpass that collapsed solely due to fire in a far shorter time than WTC7.

    How many of these buildings that burned for 20 hours were of similar construction and had comparable circumstances to building 7?

    If you can't compare the other buildings with wtc7 then the overpass clip is out as well


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    weisses wrote: »
    If you can't compare the other buildings with wtc7 then the overpass clip is out as well

    In fairness, King Mob didn't say you couldn't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    If you can't compare the other buildings with wtc7 then the overpass clip is out as well

    And why can't you compare the overpass exactly?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And why can't you compare the overpass exactly?

    Because i never seen a penthouse built on an overpass ..... Come on king mob


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Because i never seen a penthouse built on an overpass ..... Come on king mob
    So they are totally different designs, hence you can't compare them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So they are totally different designs, hence you can't compare them?



    Idon't think wtc7 had a unique design in construction methodes used if so please point out where!

    Unique about wtc 7 is the way it came down never happened before (note i didn't say wtc 1 and 2) ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Boo Radley


    Maybe this is off topic a bit - and possibly showing my ignorance on the topic - but I have a question.

    If the government or some other shadowy figure brought down WTC7 why would they do so in a fashion that would be immediately identifiable as controlled demolition?

    I don't believe it was a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like it when all angles and facts are considered, but for those who think otherwise why wouldn't 'they' bring the building down in stages or something that more closely resembled what might have been expected.

    Why would anyone make it so obvious - in the eyes of some - that it was controlled? Again, just to be clear I don't think it was controlled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    weisses wrote: »
    Idon't think wtc7 had a unique design in construction methodes used if so please point out where!

    Unique about wtc 7 is the way it came down never happened before (note i didn't say wtc 1 and 2) ;)

    It didn't have a unique design but what king mob is saying is that alot of buildings have different structures. WTC7 had structural steel columns, beams and trusses with a composite metal deck floor. Others common structures are reinforced concrete columns and floors or good old masonry walls and timber floors and all behave differently in fire. The comparison of WTC7 with the overpass is acceptable as both were structural steel construction.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Idon't think wtc7 had a unique design in construction methodes used if so please point out where!
    It is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
    The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[8] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[
    Most skyscrapers are of unique one off designs.

    Now if you think that WTC7 is not unique, please point to the buildings you are referring to that have the same number of stories, material and construction used with the same foundations and same steel frame.
    Then show one of these buildings that had survived skyscapers collapsing next to them followed by several hours of uncontrolled fires.

    But if you think that it's just about "construction methods" what's so fundamentally different about a steel framed overpass that makes it not count?
    weisses wrote: »
    Unique about wtc 7 is the way it came down never happened before (note i didn't say wtc 1 and 2) ;)
    So even ignoring the mountain of points against this reason, what happens when it's turned around.
    Have any buildings ever been totally demolished by ninja demolition experts?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished hours after a skyscraper fell right next to them?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished by secret thermite charges as alleged by A/E 911?

    Since the answer is no for all of the above and if you are to apply your own logic equally, the conspiracy theory explanation must be as impossible as the official one...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Di0genes wrote: »

    Sources please?



    No see I've been talking and posting about building seven for about five years now. Theres no ambuigty about the collapse in my mind because it's been discussed to death and conclusively proved. Just because you're new to the table, and seem to have trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff as there being some kind of ambuigty out there.


    After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said

    http://archives.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm



    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    You should have no trouble telling us who doctored this so


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    It is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

    Most skyscrapers are of unique one off designs.

    Now if you think that WTC7 is not unique, please point to the buildings you are referring to that have the same number of stories, material and construction used with the same foundations and same steel frame.
    Then show one of these buildings that had survived skyscapers collapsing next to them followed by several hours of uncontrolled fires.

    But if you think that it's just about "construction methods" what's so fundamentally different about a steel framed overpass that makes it not count?


    So even ignoring the mountain of points against this reason, what happens when it's turned around.
    Have any buildings ever been totally demolished by ninja demolition experts?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished hours after a skyscraper fell right next to them?
    Have any buildings ever been demolished by secret thermite charges as alleged by A/E 911?

    Since the answer is no for all of the above and if you are to apply your own logic equally, the conspiracy theory explanation must be as impossible as the official one...

    unique design yes ... construction method no

    the rest of your reply is nonsense i think

    And please stop asking things that you know is impossible to answer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,531 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    unique design yes ... construction method no
    So then if it's only a shared construction method you're using, why aren't you counting the collapsing overpass which has a similar construction method?

    weisses wrote: »
    the rest of your reply is nonsense i think
    The rest of my post is showing how if you were to apply your own logic to the conspiracy explanation then it runs into the same problem you have with the official story.
    If you think that the idea that no other steel framed building collapsed due to fire makes it impossible for WTC7 do have done so, you must then concede that idea that no building has been demolished by thermite makes that explanation just as impossible.
    weisses wrote: »
    And please stop asking things that you know is impossible to answer
    Which questions have I asked you that are impossible to answer?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then if it's only a shared construction method you're using, why aren't you counting the collapsing overpass which has a similar construction method?



    The rest of my post is showing how if you were to apply your own logic to the conspiracy explanation then it runs into the same problem you have with the official story.
    If you think that the idea that no other steel framed building collapsed due to fire makes it impossible for WTC7 do have done so, you must then concede that idea that no building has been demolished by thermite makes that explanation just as impossible.


    Which questions have I asked you that are impossible to answer?

    When i see the overpass video half of it is still standing despite a tanker with fuel burning underneath

    I don't know how the building collapsed but looking into the EVIDENCE neither did they and came up with the office furniture idea

    Thermite who knows do you ? i don't

    Could one of the wtc towers with all that debris falling over wtc7 have caused the building to collapse ?? sure 100% but not the way it did imo

    quote//
    Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely. end quote

    And NO i don't buy the simulation because they cannot be evidence because you can set the parameters yourself ... nicely done though

    ot: I know colin powell gave a demonstration and didn't do a simulation but everyone fell for it

    And i don't know if any building was ever brought down by SECRET thermite charges ... it wouldn't be secret if i knew would it ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    @weisses, Leaving aside building 7 for the minute, what is your view on 1 & 2. Do you have any doubts that they were brought down by planes crashing into them and the subsequent fires.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    @weisses, Leaving aside building 7 for the minute, what is your view on 1 & 2. Do you have any doubts that they were brought down by planes crashing into them and the subsequent fires.

    I stay away from the discussion on how the twin towers fell because there were 2 planes crashing into the building and who knows what damage they caused .... I am surprised the floors above the impact didn't collapse instantly on impact ..... It just shows how strong these constructions are (relating to the wtc7 discussion)

    A good discussion would be .... when you copy the damage and fires inflicted on wtc7 to the towers (without planes crashing into them) would they collapse ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    weisses wrote: »
    I stay away from the discussion on how the twin towers fell because there were 2 planes crashing into the building and who knows what damage they caused .... I am surprised the floors above the impact didn't collapse instantly on impact ..... It just shows how strong these constructions are (relating to the wtc7 discussion)
    Thats a bit of a copout to be honest. You suspect foul play in building 7 coming down, but with respect to an the event intrinsically linked to building 7 coming down you are sitting on the fence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    Thats a bit of a copout to be honest. You suspect foul play in building 7 coming down, but with respect to an the event intrinsically linked to building 7 coming down you are sitting on the fence.


    No i don't think so ... the twin towers were hit by airplanes full with kerosine traveling at 500mph ... could that trigger the collapse of the towers??? I think it could ... I wouldn't be surprised also if just the part above the impact would have toppled to 1 side leaving the rest of the building standing

    I just have a hard time believing sporadic office fire could bring down building 7 the way it did

    I say sporadic because there were only a few fires visible from the north side

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related

    first 25 seconds of this clip ...... Thats a building engulfed in fire ... different design ... don't know if the building techniques used are much different

    So to me it doesn't ad up


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    weisses wrote: »
    No i don't think so ... the twin towers were hit by airplanes full with kerosine traveling at 500mph ... could that trigger the collapse of the towers??? I think it could ...
    Now we are getting some where.
    weisses wrote: »
    I just have a hard time believing sporadic office fire could bring down building 7 the way it did
    So by inference something else caused the collapse of building 7. What? I'm going to assume you believe some sort of explosive or thermite compound was used to bring it down. (If my assumption is wrong will you clarify how you think the building came down)

    So will you talk me through the logic of how and why a building was wired to explode in the off chance terrorists providing a cover story for its explosion by talking out the buildings next to it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    Now we are getting some where.


    So by inference something else caused the collapse of building 7. What? I'm going to assume you believe some sort of explosive or thermite compound was used to bring it down. (If my assumption is wrong will you clarify how you think the building came down)

    So will you talk me through the logic of how and why a building was wired to explode in the off chance terrorists providing a cover story for its explosion by talking out the buildings next to it.

    Were are we getting ??? .. please explain ?

    Could thermite be used ?? god i don't know

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

    from 7:13 interesting to watch i think ... how it would be used i don't know

    I cant talk you trough that wiring logic sorry ... normal demolition takes months to set up an implosion like that

    Can you talk me through the logic that a few office fires can bring down a building like wtc7 the way it collapsed ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    weisses wrote: »
    Were are we getting ??? .. please explain ?
    Off the fence on how 1&2 came down.
    weisses wrote: »
    Could thermite be used ?? god i don't know
    So you are eminently qualified to doubt that fire and structural damage could bring down 7 but have no ideas what might have brought it down instead.
    weisses wrote: »
    Can you talk me through the logic that a few office fires can bring down a building like wtc7 the way it collapsed ?
    I will try. 100+ story building next to building 7 collapses causing structural damage to 7 and starts fires in 7. You say a few fires, whats a few, I don't know, but I have seen a pic with smoke emitting from the whole side of the building, so it looked like more than a few to me. Uncontrolled fires burn for 7 hours and them along with the structural damage cause a failure in one part of the building. This failure causes other failures which cascade to cause to complete collapse of the building.

    So lets try and follow the logic of the alternative.
    weisses wrote: »
    I cant talk you trough that wiring logic sorry ... normal demolition takes months to set up an implosion like that
    This is a fair point, so for building 7 to have been wired for demolition we have to assume that either it was wired clandestinely over those months with out any of the buildings residents noticing whats going on or we have to assume some new technique to wire the building; in the time between when the first plane hit and building 7 came down; has been developed and no person or camera witnessed this.

    Apply Occam's razor
    Which scenario makes the greatest assumptions.

    After the how then you have why was building 7 deliberately brought down?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭weisses


    Off the fence on how 1&2 came down.


    So you are eminently qualified to doubt that fire and structural damage could bring down 7 but have no ideas what might have brought it down instead.


    I will try. 100+ story building next to building 7 collapses causing structural damage to 7 and starts fires in 7. You say a few fires, whats a few, I don't know, but I have seen a pic with smoke emitting from the whole side of the building, so it looked like more than a few to me. Uncontrolled fires burn for 7 hours and them along with the structural damage cause a failure in one part of the building. This failure causes other failures which cascade to cause to complete collapse of the building.

    So lets try and follow the logic of the alternative.


    This is a fair point, so for building 7 to have been wired for demolition we have to assume that either it was wired clandestinely over those months with out any of the buildings residents noticing whats going on or we have to assume some new technique to wire the building; in the time between when the first plane hit and building 7 came down; has been developed and no person or camera witnessed this.

    Apply Occam's razor
    Which scenario makes the greatest assumptions.

    After the how then you have why was building 7 deliberately brought down?

    I never mentioned 1 and 2 anywhere .... You brought it up

    My only problem is the way it came down ..... I even support the idea of debris and fires weakening the building ..... But to me that doesnt explain the building collapsing on its own footprint in 14 secs (inc the penthouse) 8 secs otherwise. I totally can follow your logic as well to a certain point


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement