Building 7 ... the saga continues

weisses

NIST report about building 7 has little to do with science ?

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

http://911debunkers.blogspot.ie/2011/07/unnecessary-freefall-revisit.html


And this link is also very interesting

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

That puts the use of the computer model as "evidence" into the waste bin imo

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

NIST report about building 7 has little to do with science ?

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

http://911debunkers.blogspot.ie/2011/07/unnecessary-freefall-revisit.html


And this link is also very interesting

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

That puts the use of the computer model as "evidence" into the waste bin imo

WTC 7 was one of four buildings in the WTC complex that suffered massive structural damage, it is the only one of these buildings that collapsed on its on. The rest were demeaned too unsafe after the attack, and were pulled down. WTC was a highly unusual structure built using a single major support over a power station and a underground station, it suffered major structural damage during the collapse of WTC 1&2, and had massive fires that burnt uncontrollably.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

WTC 7 was one of four buildings in the WTC complex that suffered massive structural damage, it is the only one of these buildings that collapsed on its on. The rest were demeaned too unsafe after the attack, and were pulled down. WTC was a highly unusual structure built using a single major support over a power station and a underground station, it suffered major structural damage during the collapse of WTC 1&2, and had massive fires that burnt uncontrollably.

Even the official story doesn't agree with you on how wtc7 collapsed so what is your point ? Did you even looked at the links provided ?

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

Even the official story doesn't agree with you on how wtc7 collapsed so what is your point ?

Really where's your proof.

Did you even looked at the links provided ?

Yes And I saw the same spurious fact free nonsense all truther spout.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Really where's your proof.

In the NIST report and also discussed in various threads here

Sixtus wrote: »

Yes And I saw the same spurious fact free nonsense all truther spout.

As long as you can't even find the official story plausible i assume that you have no clue what they are talking about in the links provided.

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

In the NIST report and also discussed in various threads here



As long as you can't even find the official story plausible i assume that you have no clue what they are talking about in the links provided.

Thats putting words into my mouth. The NIST report is completely plausible.

Perhaps you'd explain how you think WTC7 was destroyed. In detail.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Thats putting words into my mouth. The NIST report is completely plausible.

So you agree that the building didn't collapse due to the massive structural damage but fell due to fires creating a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion... ??

Sixtus wrote: »

Perhaps you'd explain how you think WTC7 was destroyed. In detail.

Nope not gonna entertain you ... why don't you start explaining in detail what is wrong with the claims made in the OP and try to leave the thruther crap out this time.

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

So you agree that the building didn't collapse due to the massive structural damage but fell due to fires creating a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion... ??



Nope not gonna entertain you ... why don't you start explaining in detail what is wrong with the claims made in the OP and try to leave the thruther crap out this time.

If you're not willing to discuss your theory as to what you think happened, why should I bother?

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

If you're not willing to discuss your theory as to what you think happened, why should I bother?

If your not willing to discuss what is in the OP other then labeling it as truther spout then i think you are in the wrong place indeed

Heck i asked you a 1 simple question and you cannot even answer that one

go troll somewhere else

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

So you agree that the building didn't collapse due to the massive structural damage but fell due to fires creating a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion... ??

Thats a strawman. The building collapsed after the main internal column buckled, triggering structural failure throughout the structure.

Please explain, in detail your theory as to how you think WTC 7 collapsed.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Thats a strawman. The building collapsed after the main internal column buckled, triggering structural failure throughout the structure.

Please explain, in detail your theory as to how you think WTC 7 collapsed.

No I'm poking holes in your initial post ... You must know that building 7 didn't collapse due to the damage done by the twin towers

Wtc7 imploded in nearly freefal speed partialy ... And as shown in the op the NIST report is full of holes.

Care to discuss the OP ??

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

No I'm poking holes in your initial post ... You must know that building 7 didn't collapse due to the damage done by the twin towers

Thats your theory. What do you think did cause the collapse of WTC7

Wtc7 imploded (no it didn't)

Fixed that for you.

in nearly freefal speed partialy ... And as shown in the op the NIST report is full of holes.

Care to discuss the OP ??

Yes for a couple of seconds the building collapsed at near free fall speed. No one is disputing that. You're dishonestly misrepresenting the NIST report.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Thats your theory. What do you think did cause the collapse of WTC7.

No its a reply on your original wrong post ... And i haven't got a clue what brought it down .. I don't believe its office fires though

FEMA said it Imploded or can't i qoute from them either ?

Sixtus wrote: »

Yes for a couple of seconds the building collapsed at near free fall speed. No one is disputing that. You're dishonestly misrepresenting the NIST report.

Where and how did i misrepresent the NIST report ?

And how do you explain the nearly symetrical freefal speed ?? because all the collums have to fail almost simultaneously!

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

No its a reply on your original wrong post ... And i haven't got a clue what brought it down ..

So you have a theory how the WTC 7 wasnt destroyed but don't have a theory as to how it was? Thats pretty desperate.

I don't believe its office fires though

You mean the fires started by falling debris after the collapse of WTC7? Fires that raged uncontrollably for over 6 hours?

FEMA said it Imploded or can't i qoute from them either ?

That would be the very early FEMA report. I believe the NIST report supersedes it.

The building didn't implode photographic evidence is clear that the debris field.

Where and how did i misrepresent the NIST report ?

you wrote:

So you agree that the building didn't collapse due to the massive structural damage but fell due to fires creating a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion...

And how do you explain the nearly symetrical freefal speed ?? because all the collums have to fail almost simultaneously!

It was a freefall speed for a small section of the total collapse. Making sense because the building was supported by one core column.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

So you have a theory how the WTC 7 wasnt destroyed but don't have a theory as to how it was? Thats pretty desperate..

No i posted a few links that i found interesting to discuss because i don't believe the NIST report ... nothing desperate about that don't you agree ?

Sixtus wrote: »

You mean the fires started by falling debris after the collapse of WTC7? Fires that raged uncontrollably for over 6 hours? ..

They burned uncontrolled yes and also Extinguished by itself on several floors as is seen in many videos ...

Sixtus wrote: »

That would be the very early FEMA report. I believe the NIST report supersedes it...

were in the NIST does it state that the FEMA report was wrong ???

Sixtus wrote: »

The building didn't implode photographic evidence is clear that the debris field....

70 feet in radius for a 47 floors skyscraper ... pretty impressive

Sixtus wrote: »

It was a freefall speed for a small section of the total collapse. Making sense because the building was supported by one core column.

The building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns so how did all of them pretty much vaporize in 1 or 2 seconds because that is needed to achieve freefal specialy if you count in the almost symetrical collapse of the building

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

No i posted a few links that i found interesting to discuss because i don't believe the NIST report ... nothing desperate about that don't you agree ?

No it's completely desperate. You deny the NIST report is accurate yet can't come up with a credible alternative theory, after ten years...

They burned uncontrolled yes and also Extinguished by itself on several floors as is seen in many videos ...

Videos like. You can provide links to these videos? I can provide links to expert eyewitness testimony and photos that disprove your claim. It's your claim, the onus is on you to support so.

Please provide evidence the fires were going out.

were in the NIST does it state that the FEMA report was wrong ???

The NIST report directly contradicts the FEMA report that it was a implosion.

70 feet in radius for a 47 floors skyscraper ... pretty impressive

Thats a very specific claim. Please provide clear and concise evidence that the collapse footprint was 70ft.

And a radius any more than a single foot beyond it's own foot print, defeats the claim that it was a implosion.

This is your cake (implosion). You can have your cake (implosion) and admit if it was a implosion it would fall into it's own footprint. Or you can admit it wasn't a implosion and it did not resemble a CT.

The building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns so how did all of them pretty much vaporize in 1 or 2 seconds because that is needed to achieve freefal specialy if you count in the almost symetrical collapse of the building

Because they did not vaporize. And as mentioned the buidling was not in freefall, went into freefall for 2.5 seconds, and then stopped being in freefall. If they all vaporized in 2 seconds, what arrested the speed of the collapse for the rest of 20 plus seconds?


Or to put simply, how can a building go fire, start to collapse, go into freefall collapse for a few seconds, and recover, if as you assert 70 plus columns vapourised.

And please Weisss, your theory as to what happened to the WTC7. Dont hold back this will be highly entertaining....

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

No it's completely desperate. You deny the NIST report is accurate yet can't come up with a credible alternative theory, after ten years...

I did via the links in the OP ... you know the ones you don't care to discuss

Sixtus wrote: »

Videos like. You can provide links to these videos? I can provide links to expert eyewitness testimony and photos that disprove your claim. It's your claim, the onus is on you to support so.

Please provide evidence the fires were going out.

http://www.asyura2.com/10/warb5/msg/634.html

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2597/imagebpw.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7892/imageosu.jpg

There are more examples ...i just cannot find them right now

Sixtus wrote: »

The NIST report directly contradicts the FEMA report that it was a implosion.

Where does the NIST report state that ?? be specific please

Sixtus wrote: »

Thats a very specific claim. Please provide clear and concise evidence that the collapse footprint was 70ft.

FEMA report ... I assume they measured it

Sixtus wrote: »

And a radius any more than a single foot beyond it's own foot print, defeats the claim that it was a implosion.

Where is the support for that claim ? you wanna be pedantic fine ..

Sixtus wrote: »

This is your cake (implosion). You can have your cake (implosion) and admit if it was a implosion it would fall into it's own footprint. Or you can admit it wasn't a implosion and it did not resemble a CT.

As long as you cannot provide evidence via NIST that FEMA was wrong .. i say we use the word implosion ... again Im only asking to backup your claim

Sixtus wrote: »

Because they did not vaporize. And as mentioned the buidling was not in freefall, went into freefall for 2.5 seconds, and then stopped being in freefall. If they all vaporized in 2 seconds, what arrested the speed of the collapse for the rest of 20 plus seconds?

What is your explanation for the free-fall then ... because free-fall means no resistance and there were 70 plus columns that give resistance

Sixtus wrote: »

Or to put simply, how can a building go fire, start to collapse, go into freefall collapse for a few seconds, and recover, if as you assert 70 plus columns vapourised.

Did the building recover?

Sixtus wrote: »

And please Weisss, your theory as to what happened to the WTC7. Dont hold back this will be highly entertaining....

Why don't you start with discussing (debunking) whats in the op ... Thats why i started this thread .. But i agree this is highly entertaining

FREETV

Particle beam weapons from military satellites in space possibly for the WTC?

weisses

FREETV wrote: »

Particle beam weapons from military satellites in space possibly for the WTC?

Discussed here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056762397

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

I did via the links in the OP ... you know the ones you don't care to discuss



http://www.asyura2.com/10/warb5/msg/634.html

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2597/imagebpw.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7892/imageosu.jpg

There are more examples ...i just cannot find them right now

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.
"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak
"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.

First responder accounts

Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

The building was involved in fire and not going out.

Where does the NIST report state that ?? be specific please

The NIST report doesn't say the building wasn't knocked down by a unicorn either.

The report clearly states the NIST believes it was not a implosion because the building did not fall into it's own footprint

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

FEMA report ... I assume they measured it

Where in the FEMA report. Specifically.

Where is the support for that claim ? you wanna be pedantic fine ..

You don't understand what a implosion is, but want to lecture us as the fact that you think WTC 7 was a implosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implosion_%28mechanical_process%29

As long as you cannot provide evidence via NIST that FEMA was wrong .. i say we use the word implosion ... again Im only asking to backup your claim

Neither the NIST or FEMA claim it was a implosion. So essentially trying to frame the rules of the debate makes you look foolish.

What is your explanation for the free-fall then ... because free-fall means no resistance and there were 70 plus columns that give resistance

Part of the building was in free fall for part of the collapse, meaning the columns were no longer capable of providing resistance.

Did the building recover?

Are you being obtuse?

Why don't you start with discussing (debunking) whats in the op ... Thats why i started this thread .. But i agree this is highly entertaining

Its already been done to death on this forum already, it's a mixture of bad science, cherry picked data and dishonesty

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

The building was involved in fire and not going out.

sixtus .. i showed you pictures of floors where the fire was out because you asked me do you agree fires where there but were extinguished ?

further

quote Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames

When it collapsed (all the video's) was the building fully involved in flames ?? yes or no

Sixtus wrote: »

Where in the FEMA report. Specifically.

2002 FEMA report chapter 5



Part of the building was in free fall for part of the collapse, meaning the columns were no longer capable of providing resistance.

You do know the science about free fall do you .. where did all the columns go (at least the outer ones because they were the only one visible) had to be removed symultaniously to achieve free fall because free fall means no resistance

Sixtus wrote: »

Its already been done to death on this forum already, it's a mixture of bad science, cherry picked data and dishonesty

That's why i asked you discuss and debunk what is in the OP and you have yet again fail to do so

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

sixtus .. i showed you pictures of floors where the fire was out because you asked me do you agree fires where there but were extinguished ?

And I've just given you dozens of eye witness testimony that contradict your photos. Could those photos have been taken earlier in the day. Are they time stamped does the photographer come forward and say "these were taken before later in the day before the collapse and the fires were going out".

Do they? No they don't.

further

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames

When it collapsed (all the video's) was the building fully involved in flames ?? yes or no

Yes supported by eye witness accounts by numerous members of the FDNY.

2002 FEMA report chapter 5



Part of the building was in free fall for part of the collapse, meaning the columns were no longer capable of providing resistance.

You do know the science about free fall do you .. where did all the columns go (at least the outer ones because they were the only one visible) had to be removed symultaniously to achieve free fall because free fall means no resistance

You're mixing the WTC1&2 and WTC 7 up in your head now.

Your clearly dont understand the NIST finding. I've bolded the important parts

Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.
Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

Part of building collapsed in free fall speed for a few seconds. The entire structure did not.

That's why i asked you discuss and debunk what is in the OP and you have yet again fail to do so

Just because you don't seem capable of grasping how I've shown you you're wrong doesn't mean you're not completely wrong.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

And I've just given you dozens of eye witness testimony that contradict your photos. Could those photos have been taken earlier in the day. Are they time stamped does the photographer come forward and say "these were taken before later in the day before the collapse and the fires were going out".

Do they? No they don't.

You asked me to proof that fires extinguish by themselves i showed you via photo's they did ... time stamps are irrelevant i proved my point you are moving the goalposts

Sixtus wrote: »

further
Yes supported by eye witness accounts by numerous members of the FDNY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Is the building fully involved in flames yes or no

Sixtus wrote: »

You're mixing the WTC1&2 and WTC 7 up in your head now.

Where did i mix them up ?

Sixtus wrote: »

Part of building collapsed in free fall speed for a few seconds. The entire structure did not.

Again where did the building go to support free fall ? free fall means no resistance ... there is a 47 story skyscraper giving resistance

Sixtus wrote: »

Just because you don't seem capable of grasping how I've shown you you're wrong doesn't mean you're not completely wrong.

Try answering questions first ... again you didn't even scraped to debunk what's mentioned in the OP

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

You asked me to proof that fires extinguish by themselves i showed you via photo's they did ... time stamps are irrelevant i proved my point you are moving the goalposts

No they are because as mentioned there's no evidence that those photos were taken before the fire took hold of those floor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Is the building fully involved in flames yes or no

It could well be, You can't tell from that angle. Are you calling all the FDNY members quoted in my post liars?

Where did i mix them up ?

Rabbiting on about the outer columns.

Again where did the building go to support free fall ? free fall means no resistance ... there is a 47 story skyscraper giving resistance

The NIST report consistently says, part of the building was was free fall for part of the time.

Horse water drink etc....

Try answering questions first ... again you didn't even scraped to debunk what's mentioned in the OP

Whats the point. I'm posting eye witness testimony that states the building was fully involved in fire, and you're ignoring it. I've quoted the parts of the NIST that directly refute your claim that the entire building was in free fall.

I've demolished your claim that the building was a implosion.

You're just ignoring it. Whats the point in arguing with someone who will just ignore anything that proves the wrong?

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

No they are because as mentioned there's no evidence that those photos were taken before the fire took hold of those floor

The photo's show that the fires burned there but not anymore (burst windows because of the heat .. the black markings on the outside because of the smoke)

If you think that is caused by something else explain in detail what you think caused it and why

Sixtus wrote: »

It could well be, You can't tell from that angle. Are you calling all the FDNY members quoted in my post liars?

different angle ... Is Building 7 fully involved in flames yes or no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI

More angles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

Now do you still stand behind your evidence ?? yes or no
You can see for yourself that what you quoted in your post doesn't add up with all the different video footage

Sixtus wrote: »

Rabbiting on about the outer columns.

What is your problem with the outer columns ?

Sixtus wrote: »

The NIST report consistently says, part of the building was was free fall for part of the time.

Horse water drink etc....

Having been cornered, NIST reversed its initial denial of free-fall in its Final Report. However, it couched its revised position in deceptive language, and failed to explain how freefall could be compatible with its fire-induced-progressive-collapse theory. For the observed straight-down collapse to happen, an immense network of heavy steel columns and beams would have had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural-steel connections would have had to fail every second, evenly, all across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – and could not be caused by it – because a freefalling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall.

Just look or read what is said here ... if you disagree perfect .. tell me why and how do you come to that conclusion .. and don't come back with the NIST report because that's the report debunked here

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

Sixtus wrote: »

Whats the point. I'm posting eye witness testimony that states the building was fully involved in fire, and you're ignoring it. I've quoted the parts of the NIST that directly refute your claim that the entire building was in free fall.

Im not ignoring it I'm addressing it with video evidence that clearly shows the building was not fully involved in fire.... I showed you that NIST made a false claim about its free-fall theory

Sixtus wrote: »

You're just ignoring it. Whats the point in arguing with someone who will just ignore anything that proves the wrong?

Again I'm addressing your points not ignoring them as is you said

The only one ignoring things is you because you fail time and time to discuss what is in the OP

breadmond

All this talk about the building being in freefall and that somehow proving a conspiracy is utter bollocks spread by people who haven't the first clue about engineering. When a steel framed building collapses we expect it to enter freefall for a good portion of that collapse. This is because buildings are mostly empty space. As the falling portion of the building collapses to fill this space it builds up momentum, it seems intuitive to lay people that the remaining structure of the building should provide some meaningful resistance to resist and this collapse but the fact is that the building has been designed to hold up its own weight under static conditions. The forces exerted on the structure by a falling mass are many magnitudes higher than the static load, leading to instantaneous buckling of beams and columns and allowing the building to freefall.

The NIST report is actually a very impressive document, the finite element model is a hell of a price of work and gives a very clear picture as to how the fillure of one column initially led to the total collapses

Brown Bomber

breadmond wrote: »

All this talk about the building being in freefall and that somehow proving a conspiracy is utter bollocks spread by people who haven't the first clue about engineering.

With the exclusion of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth and demolitions expert Danny Jowenko presumably?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAFnevcB5-Q

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With the exclusion of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth and demolitions expert Danny Jowenko presumably?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAFnevcB5-Q

Danny Jowenko. What is it 2007? Jowenko clearly didn't have the full facts at his disposal when he watched that collapse and hasn't in the last 6 years made any statements supporting WTC 7 conspiracy theories.

As to architects and engineers for truth. Their 1,800 members make up less than 1% of the number of practising architects in the USA today. Hardly a compelling movement.

Sixtus

From the Danny Jowenko Interview

No, you're wrong.

Here's a copy of the entire transcript from that clip:

Interviewer: On September 11, 2001 there were fires within [the building], but a plane never crashed into it.
Int.: Nevertheless, this building collapsed on September 11th.
Int.: This event didn't receive much attention; and, moreover, Denni Jowenko had never heard of it.
Int.: His reaction to the film we are showing him is unprejudiced.

Denni Jowenko: Did it seem to go [i.e., come down] from above? No, it starts from below.
D.J.: They simply blew away columns. Then the upper part follows [lit., comes after].

Int.: Did this fall in a different way than the World Trade Center [Buildings 1 and 2]?

D.J.: Don't you think so?

Int.: Yes, you [can] see the first floors going first.

D.J.: The rest simply falls into it.
D.J.: This is controlled demolition.

Int.: Without any doubt?

D.J.: Without any doubt.
D.J.: Certainly it came down from the top; this was a [deliberate] job.
D.J.: A team of experts did this.

Int.: But this also happened on September 11th.

D.J.: The same day?

Int.: The same day.

D.J.: The same day?!
D.J.: Are you sure?

Int.: Yes.

D.J.: Are you sure it was on the 11th?
D.J.: That can't be true.

Int.: Seven hours after the World Trade Center [Buildings 1 and 2] came down.

D.J.: Then they worked very hard.

Int.: In the official FEMA report, it couldn't be explained why Building 7 collapsed.

Int.: We discuss all the possibilities extensively with Denni Jowenko.
Int.: But his conclusion doesn't change: it was blown up.

D.J.: This was professional work, without any doubt.
D.J.: Those boys knew very well what they were doing.

Int.: The question is then whether it was prepared beforehand.
Int.: Or could it have been decided on on September 11th itself and been carried out?
Int.: How many men and how much time would you need to do it?

D.J.: I don't know exactly, but ...

Int.: Could you give an estimate?

D.J.: You would need experienced people. But, if you had 30-40 people, then ...
D.J.: A few with a plasma [?] cutter.
D.J.: And others assembling.
D.J.: And others to connect the dead cables with the boosters.
D.J.: It must all go at the same moment.
D.J.: And a third [team] setting off the electronic system.
D.J.: And then it goes.

Int.: There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

D.J.: And not extinguished?

Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
D.J.: I have no explanation for it

It's clear Jowenko had no idea of the damage and situation of the WTC7 building. And the interviewer made no attempt to explain it to him.

Meanwhole here's Richard Gage of AE911 Truth explaining the collapse of the twin towers using 3 cardboard boxed on top of each other

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

I don't think that it takes someone with a modicum of basic physics that comparing the design of one of the twin towers with 3 cardboard boxes stacked untop of each order is basically idiocy.

Brown Bomber

Are you taking the piss? That so-called transcript is pure deception that has been dishonestly edited to give a false impression of what Jowenko actually said.

You know this, I pointed this out to you two years ago. You could have pleaded ignorance for these lies then but I don't know where your wiggle room is now to justify the spreading of these lies having had this intentional deception pointed out to you.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you taking the piss? That so-called transcript is pure deception that has been dishonestly edited to give a false impression of what Jowenko actually said.

You know this, I pointed this out to you two years ago. You could have pleaded ignorance for these lies then but I don't know where your wiggle room is now to justify the spreading of these lies having had this intentional deception pointed out to you.

So what did he say that indicated that he had access to the information he needed to make an assessment, and wasn't withheld information that would have affected that assessment.

Cause I remember you having trouble addressing that last time, yet you post the video as if we never made those points...

Glass houses, BB.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you taking the piss? That so-called transcript is pure deception that has been dishonestly edited to give a false impression of what Jowenko actually said.

Can you provide a different translation?

You know this, I pointed this out to you two years ago. You could have pleaded ignorance for these lies then but I don't know where your wiggle room is now to justify the spreading of these lies having had this intentional deception pointed out to you.

First I've heard of it. Please provide a internal transcript. And why did Danny do only two interviews on the subject?

Sixtus

Sixtus wrote: »

And why did Danny do only two interviews on the subject?

He died in 2011 unfortunately.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Can you provide a different translation?



First I've heard of it. Please provide a internal transcript. And why did Danny do only two interviews on the subject?

It most certainly is not.
As I've pointed out you previously when you tried to pass off these lies as truth.

D.J.: And not extinguished?

Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
D.J.: I have no explanation for it

---

Originally Posted by false quote attributed to Jowenko

Int.: There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

D.J.: And not extinguished?

Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
D.J.: I have no explanation for it

It's two completely different parts of the interview welded together.

This is from part 2 of the youtube interview.

ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT[/B]
NTERVIEWER: This was the picture and movie thing. I don't know if I have other nice things to show, what more do I have. This has collapsed but the other building has imploded and on such a clean way that you have to ask yourself how could they do that in the chaos of that day. There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

DANNY JOWENKO: But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done.

INTERVIEWER: No they didn't do that.
DANNY JOWENKO: They didn't extinguish it?

INTERVIEWER: No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire.

(AND THIS IS HIS ACTUAL RESPONSE)

DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.

DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, then Silverstein must say bring it down because once there is fire, if it became hot you have to replace your steel. Do you know what it cost if you have to replace the bottom columns and jack up the rest? That will not be cheap for a building with 47 floors.

INTERVIEWER: [not translated]

DANNY JOWENKO: Then you say: away with it. And if there is a company, you so much million, we do it for 1 million. That's how it goes. Business goes very fast in such a situation. And they do it.

What is "strange" and of "no explanation" to the demolitions expert is something entirely different than your blatantly dishonest transcript describes. That is that the official reports deny any implosion.

DANNY JOWENKO: I don't know than that it has been imploded as we call it. I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded. If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No.

INTERVIEWER: Remains strange that in the official reports they don't admit it's been imploded.

DANNY JOWENKO: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange. I have no explanation for it.

Sixtus

King Mob wrote: »

He died in 2011 unfortunately.

Thats still several years after this interview.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.

What is "strange" and of "no explanation" to the demolitions expert is something entirely different than your blatantly dishonest transcript describes. That is that the official reports deny any implosion.

Why does the interviewer lie about there being no photos of the twin tower side of the building?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why does the interviewer lie about there being no photos of the twin tower side of the building?

One thing at a time.

What do you make of diogenes/sixtus using the same fake, unsourced transcript which completely misrepresents what the demolitons expert said ( to support his argument when in actuality the honest and truthful transcript contradicts his argument) not once but TWICE!!!?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

One thing at a time.

What do you make of diogenes/sixtus using the same fake, unsourced transcript which completely misrepresents what the demolitons expert said ( to support his argument when in actuality the honest and truthful transcript contradicts his argument) not once but TWICE!!!?

I don't think you are accurately describing what Sixtus/diogenes did.

And even if it was how you described it, it would not be nearly as dishonest as say withholding information while making a documentary to perhaps coax a preferred response from an interviewee.
And it would by about as dishonest as say reposting such an interview when you've been shown clearly that the documentary makers were withholding information (or too incompetent or lazy to find something I could in less than 10 minutes) and could not address that.
And it would be about as dishonest as using that indiscretion to continue to avoid the point I've made...

Brown Bomber

you describe it then. I thought this would be right up your strasse consider what a stickler you are for "honesty".

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

you describe it then. I thought this would be right up your strasse consider what a stickler you are for "honesty".

Lol so avoiding the point as predicted.

The additional text you gave does not actually refute the point that he made, so whether or not the translation is edited is irrelevant.
He could have used the incorrect translation without checking or saw that your section is irrelevant. Hell he could have gotten it from a conspiracy website who wanted to cut out the blatant lie they tell. It's all pretty irrelevant.
I'm not interested in discussing the accuracy of a source I did not use. Sixtus can do that himself.

But his point stands (and you've not addressed it).
The interviewer does not make an attempt to inform the expert of the details he need to form an expert opinion and the section of text Sixtus used highlights how the expert repeatedly says that he doesn't know the details.

The only thing the text you are inserting shows is that the interviewer and documentary makers either lied or were crap at research.
Which you seem to not want to address.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

, so whether or not the translation is edited is irrelevant.
.

--->

Searching for honest in posts by King Mob
229 Results (0.676 seconds)

Advanced Search »

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=honest&forum=&user=68949&date_from=&date_to=

:pac:

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

--->


:pac:

...Irrelevant to the point he made. I then go on to explain this and what I thought of the translation.
I've answered your question in full and more than than one way, but you don't seem at all interested in that answer.

Since you aren't will you now address the fact that the interviewer was leaving out information, rendering the "expert" opinion moot?
And perhaps explain why you reposted that interview even though you've been told that it tells a lie?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

...Irrelevant to the point he made. I then go on to explain this and what I thought of the translation.
I've answered your question in full and more than than one way, but you don't seem at all interested in that answer.

Since you aren't will you now address the fact that the interviewer was leaving out information, rendering the "expert" opinion moot?
And perhaps explain why you reposted that interview even though you've been told that it tells a lie?

It's not irrelevant just because you say it's so. It appears that someone has knowingly put forward false evidence to advance their (and also conveniently your) argument. Discussing this is relevant, the poster putting forward the false transcript made it relevant - yet you, who constantly questions people's honesty and integrity want to keep shtum now. Weird.

Penn

Quit the personal sniping, lads. Discuss the points (not each other) or move on.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why does the interviewer lie about there being no photos of the twin tower side of the building?

First ... very poor translation

second... Interviewer refers to the testimony of firefighters describing the south-side of wtc7....

The same firefighters you so vigorously defended here as being honest

i dont think interviewer is lying but just stating he doesn't have the photo;s

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not irrelevant just because you say it's so. It appears that someone has knowingly put forward false evidence to advance their (and also conveniently your) argument. Discussing this is relevant, the poster putting forward the false transcript made it relevant - yet you, who constantly questions people's honesty and integrity want to keep shtum now. Weird.

EDIT: only just saw your warning after I posted, penn. Edit/delete/infract as appropriate.

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

EDIT: only just saw your warning after I posted, penn. Edit/delete/infract as appropriate.

It's okay, I saw the time posted and presumed you were typing as I had posted it. No need for infraction but please rephrase post to be less antagonistic if you wish to continue this conversation.

Thanks.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

i dont think interviewer is lying but just stating he doesn't have the photo;s

Why didn't they have the photos? Could they not find something that I, someone with no background in research was able to easily find in minutes?
Wouldn't those photos be relevant?
What about the theories and other official opinions at the time, why didn't they present those to him?
What about the complete blueprints and the full reports of the damage?

And then there the fact the documentary uses the edited version of the collapse when showing it to the viewer, it's entirely possible that they likewise showed the edited collapse to their expert.

All of it shows that the video makers were either being dishonest or incompetent and that the expert did not have all of the information available or needed to form an expert opinion.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not irrelevant just because you say it's so. It appears that someone has knowingly put forward false evidence to advance their (and also conveniently your) argument. Discussing this is relevant, the poster putting forward the false transcript made it relevant - yet you, who constantly questions people's honesty and integrity want to keep shtum now. Weird.

Sixtus used a bad translation without a good reason. This is bad and would not be something I would have done.
I still believe it is irrelevant to the point he made.

will you now please address the point I made?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why didn't they have the photos? Could they not find something that I, someone with no background in research was able to easily find in minutes?
Wouldn't those photos be relevant?
What about the theories and other official opinions at the time, why didn't they present those to him?
What about the complete blueprints and the full reports of the damage?

And then there the fact the documentary uses the edited version of the collapse when showing it to the viewer, it's entirely possible that they likewise showed the edited collapse to their expert.

All of it shows that the video makers were either being dishonest or incompetent and that the expert did not have all of the information available or needed to form an expert opinion.

I dont know .. even now i cannot find photo's describing what they did with a "damage report" The only photo's i know are from a smoke covered south side

Also they refer to the fema report .. would have been nice if they could have done the interview with the NIST report

Interviewer wasn't very knowledgeable i believe ...but we are discussing it here six years later with the NIST report in one hand.

Again the translation to english is very poor as well

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I dont know .. even now i cannot find photo's describing what they did with a "damage report" The only photo's i know are from a smoke covered south side

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
Here's the chapter on WTC7 from FEMA's World Trade Centre Building Performance Study released in 2002.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

It has tons of information about the building, what the damage was believed to be, and had several pictures of the damaged side.
Are you saying the makers of the documentary were unable to find these pictures and information?
If so, then they are either lazy or incompetent.
If not, why did they claim that they did not have them?

weisses wrote: »

Also they refer to the fema report .. would have been nice if they could have done the interview with the NIST report

Or tell him the point the FEMA report had made to give him some background.
Again the above report contains possible explanations for the collapse.
Why was he not told about these?

weisses wrote: »

Interviewer wasn't very knowledgeable i believe ...but we are discussing it here six years later with the NIST report in one hand.

Again the translation to english is very poor as well

So if the interviewer was not very knowledgeable, and the expert was not given all the information needed to make an informed opinion, why is this video being put forward as expert opinion?