Saturday, June 17, 2006

WTC 7

I'm not going to get into any extensive structural analysis focusing on the column structure and the collapse of the building; I'm not an engineer and unlike a lot of the folks in the 9-11 "Truth" movement I'm not going to play one on the Internet.

First, let's take a look at WTC 7 as it looked prior to 9-11:



This shows the relative locations of the buildings:



When you hear that they were 300 feet apart, that sounds like quite a ways, until you remember how immense these buildings were. This photo (from the South Tower) should give you a better idea of the proximity:



This one might give you vertigo, but it certainly shows that tall buildings are closer together than one might think:



How was the building damaged?

It was damaged largely by the collapse of World Trade Center 1 (the North Tower). It may have also been hit by debris from the initial crash of the plane into the South Tower, as this film hints:



Update 12/9/07: I no longer believe it likely or possible that WTC-7 was hit by a significant amount of debris from the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower. There are no accounts to indicate this and Barry Jennings' story just seems to be off on the times involved.

See also this article:

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.


Was the building severely damaged?

Yes, as you can see from the photo below, WTC 7 was severely damaged:



Here's a graphic estimate of how much of the building was actually damaged by the impact of Tower One:



I have not found a good picture of the south side of World Trade Center 7 prior to its collapse but after the collapse of the Twin Towers. But I think you can see that it was quite extensively damaged.

Update: Here is a picture that was posted on Democratic Underground that purports to be a vidcap of what appears to be a San Francisco Bay Area TV station's coverage of the disaster. This picture certainly seems to match up with the other photos we've seen. If you're a WTC 7 person, this would appear to be the holy grail:



Update Again: Here's the video that was taken from:



This is not a surprise when you look at this picture:



As you can see, WTC 7 is clearly in the debris field for the collapse of WTC 1; indeed in this picture it looks as though some debris might have gone over the WTC 7 building.

Here's a terrific aerial oblique:



Be sure to click on that one to see it full size.

Of course, as the North Tower continued to collapse, it would eventually be below the roofline of WTC #7, which would mean what? That's right, that the debris would be hitting the side of the building. Which side? Looking at the site map, it appears obvious that the south side of WTC #7 would sustain the most damage.

Here are some looks at the fires raging in WTC 7:





Of course, again, these are pictures from the north side. Here's one I was able to obtain looking roughly east, which shows how much smoke is billowing out of WTC 7 on the south side. It is apparent that the building is experiencing a great deal of distress that is not evident from the north. Note particularly that the dust from the collapse of the two towers has already settled--the smoke is definitely coming from the fires in WTC 7. WTC 7 is the building at the far top left, which we glimpse just behind the white building.



Update: See also this terrific photo at Debunking911 of the damage to WTC7. Good scoop for Debunking 911!

In connection with the fires bear in mind that WTC 7 was build with substantial tanks of diesel fuel to power generators, and that when the power went out after the collapse of the South Tower, those generators and the pumps that fueled them started operating. If one of those fuel lines was broken by the collapse of the North Tower or the fire, it could have been pumping fuel steadily into the building.

Did its collapse come as a complete surprise? Not according to accounts of firefighters at the scene:

Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs.


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


A transit is a surveyor's instrument; the idea here is that you fix its sight on an identifiable spot and then check it periodically to see if the building has moved at all. Incidentally, note that the fact that the fire department fixed a transit on the building undermines the claim that nobody expected the building to fall, because after all it was a steel building and none of those had ever collapsed.

Update: A good point has been raised on this. If the southwest corner had a chunk out of it as in the photos, why didn't Hayden mention that instead of talking about a bulge?

By the way, that whole bit about WTC 7 collapsing neatly into its own footprint? Typical nonsense from the Loosers. Here's a picture of the damage to 30 West Broadway from the collapse of WTC 7:



Here's a picture of the damage to the Verizon Building from the collapse of WTC 7:



Here's the damage to the building adjacent to WTC 7 to the North (White building with terraced roof).



Incidentally, there were seven World Trade Center buildings in all; can you guess how many of them are still standing? Answer: Zero. Four buildings were destroyed on 9-11 (nobody ever mentions WTC 3, which was a 22-story hotel), and the other three (WTC 4-6) all partially collapsed and had to be demolished.

We also hear how far WTC 7 was from the WTC 1, but how many know even farther away buildings to the west suffered enormous damage? Here are the Winter Garden and World Financial Center #3:



You can see their relative positions here:



So we combine massive damage from the collapse of the North Tower, plus fires burning for hours with no attempts at firefighting, plus the fact that the fire department knew the building was doomed hours before it fell, and what's left for the CT crowd? Larry Silverstein's comment about "pulling" it.



Note in particular that the CTers always focus on the "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", but they never parse "and so they made the decision to pull". Since he was talking to a Fire Department Commander, doesn't that indicate that the Fire Department actually made the decision? What techniques does the Fire Department use to pull down buildings? How many buildings had the Fire Department pulled down in recent years? Why, when the building was impeding rescue efforts, did they not pull it earlier in the afternoon, instead of waiting until 5:20?

The good news is that the rebuilding of WTC 7 was completed last month (no, Silverstein didn't take the money and run, he rebuilt):



Update: In the comments, Inside Job says:

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.


There are some things so stupid only a Truther could believe them. Let's pause for some elementary physics here. The only way a building could fall faster than freefall speed is if some force other than gravity were bringing the building down, because gravity is what causes an object to fall at freefall speed. For example, suppose a giant were to push down on the building as it started to fall; then presumably it would come down in freefall or faster speed. But controlled demolition does not result in buildings coming down in faster than freefall speed.

More important, the amount of time that it took WTC 7 to fall was significantly longer than either of the two towers, at least according to the seismic readings that the Truthers cite as the source for the information that WTC 1 and 2 fell in 10 and 8 seconds, respectively. WTC 7 was a much smaller building than the two towers and yet it fell in 18 seconds according to seismic readings.

Labels: ,

147 Comments:

At 17 June, 2006 04:32, Blogger BG said...

Nice Pics.

Here's a recent interview with Tim Russert that touches on 9/11 Truth issues. No great revelations, but you can see Jack Blood pushing for the truth.

 
At 17 June, 2006 04:42, Blogger BG said...

More pics and a vid that contradicts your conclusion.

What are the odds that a fire could implode the east mechanical penthouse on top of the WTC 7 before it implodes the rest of the building?

 
At 17 June, 2006 04:54, Blogger BG said...

Regarding "what really happened" and discussion of the "9/11 Truth Movement" here

(http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006/06/june-2006-updates_16.html)
Nico Haupt's new Blog

Most other commenters (not to mention this blog's posters) will find some of Haupt's claims laughable and without merit. To that I say: "Everybody's gotta learn sometime".

 
At 17 June, 2006 05:27, Blogger BG said...

This video gives background to 9/11, the Middle East, and the Iraq Wars
Ralph Schoenman: The Category of Terror

Another short video I [Nimmo] produced, an audio excerpt from Schoenman’s talk, 911 and Other False Flag Operations of the Terror State. 9 minutes, 51 seconds, 18 MB, wmv format. Right mouse button click here and “Save as…”

 
At 17 June, 2006 05:50, Blogger telescopemerc said...

What are the odds that a fire could implode the east mechanical penthouse on top of the WTC 7 before it implodes the rest of the building?

What do you mean? "What are the odds?" The penthouse sank iunto the building that had little to no internal structural integrity left as a result of the fire? Just what the heck does that question prove? It certainly doesn't contradict the conclusion.

Seriously, do you guys have any any idea about the effects of fire and the nature of structures, or do you just swallow the crud that kooksites give you?

 
At 17 June, 2006 06:02, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Pat,
Question for you: Did the 9/11 Commission even consider controlled demolition as a mechanism for the collapses?

I'm not an engineer either but I'd want all possibilities examined, especially for which are the most LIKELY causes, if I was running the 9/11 investigation. (And, having seen doofus former NJ Gov. Tom Kean on C-SPAN say he'd "never heard of" the 5 Israelis celebrating on the rooftop in Jersey City as they watched the towers fall - widely reported in the Jersey press and nationally on 20/20 - I'd have been a more informed choice than he was, which in itself is a sad commentary on the seriousness of the 9/11 Commission).

 
At 17 June, 2006 06:09, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I wonder why FEMA or NIST didn't mention there was "bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

And what about those squibs?

 
At 17 June, 2006 06:26, Blogger JoanBasil said...

bg,
Thanks for that Jack Blood/Tim Russert interview. Hope everyone listens to it. Russert went on that show to push some schmaltzy book he's got out and instead he got some questions befitting his position of power in this country and the girly-boy coward cut off the interview with convenient "phone problems."

Blood made such a good point that Russert asked Bush and Kerry about their membership in Skull & Bones. This is some juvenile, college thing, and no one with a grain of seriousness in their whole body would think it has anything to do with being a candidate for President 30, 40 years later. So they had secret handshakes and sat around naked drinking beer and told each other nonsense about their sexual exploits or whatever - SO WHAT? Tim Russert, on the preeminent TV news show, thinks its important for the American people to hear this trivia and wastes that kind of time out of a 60 minute show on tackling the candidates over what they did with their friends at age 20??? It would just be pathetic except having an ass like Russert in such a position of power is one of the reasons we're in this stupid war in Iraq.

 
At 17 June, 2006 07:11, Blogger Alex said...

"What are the odds that a fire could implode the east mechanical penthouse on top of the WTC 7 before it implodes the rest of the building?"

Come ON BG. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Time to take a good, unbiased look at your motivations for beleiving this nonsense.

To answer the question though:

Answer 1: The odds are "1", since it happened. Odds are only relevant with future events. Onece something actually occurs, or fails to occur, the odds for that even having occured become either "0" or "1".

Andswer 2: What are the odds that the government blew up a penthouse before demolishing the rest of the building? Do you realize how retarded such a suggestion sounds?

 
At 17 June, 2006 07:33, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Sometime you OS'ers hold on so tightly to the fire brought the building down that you totaly forget about what the OS is. The NIST report said the penthouse sank in the roof because truss #1 on floor 7 failed. How the @%!#$ did that happened?!

 
At 17 June, 2006 07:36, Blogger jackhanyes said...

The good news is that the rebuilding of WTC 7 was completed last month

The bad news is no one wants to work there.

 
At 17 June, 2006 07:50, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The NIST report said the penthouse sank in the roof because truss #1 on floor 7 failed. How the @%!#$ did that happened?!

? The NIST report (which is very much preliminary states it was a failure in columns 79, 80 or 81. As to 'how that happened', you might want to actually try reading the report.

Its called vetical progress. Look at pages 31-36 of the report rather than getting spoon fed bits and pieces from conspiracy sites. Engineers understand this kind of failure, why do you think so much of yourself that you spot what they missed?

Pretty arrogant of you to think that way.

 
At 17 June, 2006 08:10, Blogger Alex said...

Arrogance? In the CT movement? No! NEVER!

 
At 17 June, 2006 08:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

There were no squibs on building 7.

If you look at a higher rez shot of that same video or the CBS video you can see there are no squbis.
For more info see...

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/
or
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/overp.htm

 
At 17 June, 2006 08:47, Blogger shawn said...

"What are the odds?"

Do you guys understand probability? There are no odds to discuss - it happened. The probability of it happening is 1.0.

Question for you: Did the 9/11 Commission even consider controlled demolition as a mechanism for the collapses?

No, because it's a ridiculous idea. You want them to examine if lasers did it? How about holographic planes?

 
At 17 June, 2006 09:01, Blogger undense said...

Question for you: Did the 9/11 Commission even consider controlled demolition as a mechanism for the collapses?

This red herring of an argument AGAIN?

How many times do the CTs need to be told that the 9/11 Commission did not investigate the collapse mechanisms of the towers? NIST did that and they concluded in their report that there was NO evidence for a controlled demolition.

 
At 17 June, 2006 11:23, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Its long but a good read. Here's a paper that says the NIST worked with only one hypothesis: the official version. http://www.teamliberty.net/id265.html

 
At 17 June, 2006 11:54, Blogger MarkyX said...

Joan, I prefer a nice real source, not a wannabe indie news site.

 
At 17 June, 2006 12:06, Blogger default.xbe said...

from the NIST report of WTC1 and WTC2

NIST foun dno corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

sounds like they investigated it to me, im sure they are applying the same investigation to WTC7

 
At 17 June, 2006 12:11, Blogger default.xbe said...

oh yeah, i set up some forums, hope you guys dont mind

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/

yes, BG, Joan and Jack are all welcome there too :)

 
At 17 June, 2006 13:10, Blogger JoanBasil said...

default,
please read the article, which says the NIST examined only a fraction of 1% of meaningful steel. Ergo, "no evidence?" And the models they did only looked the government's hypothesis. After all, bombs had been successfully exploded in the WTC once before, and there had been no steel frame buildings to collapse from fires before. A hypothesis that bombs were involved was obvious.

 
At 17 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger shawn said...

Here's a paper that says the NIST worked with only one hypothesis: the official version.

What's your point with this? Only one hypothesis makes sense.

 
At 17 June, 2006 13:29, Blogger shawn said...

After all, bombs had been successfully exploded in the WTC once before

Uh yeah from a parked van at the bottom that did nothing to harm the building. Horrendous point.

and there had been no steel frame buildings to collapse from fires before

First off, NONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS WERE HIT BY PLANES. Stop being a fucking moron and get that through that wall you call a skull. And what you fail to report is the steel portion of the Madrid tower DID INDEED COLLAPSE. THE CONCRETE PORTION DID NOT.

A hypothesis that bombs were involved was obvious.

No it isn't! It's utterly preposterous. The bombs wouldn't have survived the crash and subsequent fires. Just because you idiots think it's likely doesn't make it so. You shouldn't expect professional organizations to go on a wild goose chase for your stupid ideas.

 
At 17 June, 2006 15:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

please read the article, which says the NIST examined only a fraction of 1% of meaningful steel.


They examined the steel that they could identify and that was relevant. From an Engineering standpoint, there was little need to examine steel that was nowhere near the collapse point, and unidentified pieces really could not do much for them.

Ergo, "no evidence?"

Yes. Explosives leave many telltale signs that they have been employed. This isn't Hollywood.


And the models they did only looked the government's hypothesis.

Incorrect. They examined models from an Engineering standpoint, and they have looked at other engineering solutions to the problem. Wild CTer fantasies do not enter the picture.

Remember that NIST's WTC work was not done to satisfy cranks who claim there were bombs. NIST's work was done so that in the future, Engineers can know how it failed and what could be done about it.


After all, bombs had been successfully exploded in the WTC once before,


From a Van, in the parking basement. There were many tell-tale signs that explosives had been employed.

and there had been no steel frame buildings to collapse from fires before.

I'll assume what you meant to say was that there have been no collapses of steel framed skyscrapers because there have been examples of steel framed buildings that collapsed from fire.

A hypothesis that bombs were involved was obvious.


Not really. There is little to no evidence. A few quotes mined by CT's, some pictures of 'squibs' shown in stills after the building has started to collapse, and the gross ignorance of the CT crowd with regards to Engineering, Metallurgy, and Structures is all that there is in the way of 'evidence'.

 
At 17 June, 2006 15:20, Blogger undense said...

Its long but a good read. Here's a paper that says the NIST worked with only one hypothesis: the official version. http://www.teamliberty.net/id265.html

Here's a forum where many members claim CTs are nutjobs:

http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php

And?

If NIST only entertained the official version, why did they check for evidence of a controlled demolition?

default,
please read the article, which says the NIST examined only a fraction of 1% of meaningful steel. Ergo, "no evidence?"


You are just one red herring after another, joan. But maybe that's because you don't look at any evidence except that which makes you comfortable, like just about every CT.

The steel they examined was selected as representative examples from the WTC steel. It would be idiotic and redundant to test every single piece of steel. One percet of the total steel is still a hell of a lot of steel. But you are doing your best to downplay that in order to make about the millionth ignorant claim you've made in here.

 
At 17 June, 2006 15:33, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 June, 2006 15:37, Blogger CHF said...

bg, Joan...

Do any of you ever stop and ask yourselves:

"Why don't any structural engineers agree with our theories?"

"Why do we need water testers and theology professors to make our case?"

I'd be pretty worried about my credibility and accuracy if I came up with a mathematical formula that every mathematician said was a load of mindless shit.

How come this sort of thing doesn't bother you or make you question your logic?

The people best qualified to judge the issues at hand say that we're right and that you're mentally unstable.

Think about that for a second and comtemplate the implications this has on any debate.

Let me guess: every expert is in on the plot?

 
At 17 June, 2006 17:25, Blogger jackhanyes said...

There were no squibs on building 7.

If you look at a higher rez shot of that same video or the CBS video you can see there are no squbis.
For more info see...

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/
or
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/overp.htm


What crap.

The first site goes in lenght how the image was enhanced and thus dicrediting it.

The second doesn't even address the video that shows the squibs.

The thrid says it's the windows.

Ok. Fine. Let me present something to you. Did you know that in a CD the windows are removed?

Why in the world would they do that?

Hello McFly?! Maybe they don't want glass raining down on people!

What the heck does that have to do with anything?

Well if the room is sealed, gases will seak the least reistance.

What the heck does that have to do with anything!?

In a CD, squibs can easily be seen because the rooms aren't sealed. In the WTC 7 collapse the hot gases must break through glass or exit through an opening that is already there.

***blank stare***

Ok, you're not following me. Do this.

1) Load this video

2) Play it.

3) Before the video ends, click on the 9 nine second mark, and the video will rewind to that point.

4) Let it play for two seconds or so.

5) Until you see the progress of "squibs" goto to step 3.


What you are looking to see is a wave of dark smoke coming out of broken windows coming up from the buttom until it reachs the floor with the broken class shown in the third link above. Then the gases goes out the back, but still moving in the same shock wave at the same speed. If you want to say it's smoke from fires, then goes read the FEMA or NIST reports. The highest the fire got was the 28th floor. We're talking about the 30-47th floor here guys.

Notice some of the "sqiubs" come out the north wall, above the broken windows area, but not as much as the floors below.

Notice that all of these "squibs" are in one vertical line.

Notice that in relation to the west wall, they are coming out about where the core coloumns starts. (Again, look at the FEMA and NIST reports about this guys)

Notice that west wall pulls in towards that line of "squibs".

Notice flashes where the the squibs are coming from.


There are squibs. You just haven't looked at the video long enough. And if you want to see a better view of it.... hop down to block buster and rent a copy of "9/11".

 
At 17 June, 2006 17:45, Blogger CHF said...

jack,

Have you ever heard of "air pressure?"

When a structure starts to fall the air inside is trapped in a rapidly compressing environment. So what does it do? It break windows - the path of least resistance.

"The highest the fire got was the 28th floor. We're talking about the 30-47th floor here guys."

Smokes goes UP, last I checked. A massive fire on the 28th floor can fill many floors above it with smoke.

jack, there's a reason why you can't find structral engineers willing to endorse your beliefs!

Do you CTers honestly think you're smarter than engineering experts, CD specialists and firefighters when it comes to judging structural collapse?

Get over yourselves!

 
At 17 June, 2006 17:55, Blogger CHF said...

As a side note, I think these CD theories on WTC 7 are perfectly logical...that is if you have the mindset that believes the following:

Silverstein teams up with Bush and the neocons to destroy WTC 7. The building is rigged with explosives and is blow up at 5:20 pm on Sept 11. (Even thought the collapse doesn't look like a CD - http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/
news/archive/0318implosion1/
index.html

Silverstein then sits in front of a TV crew and calmly blows the biggest coverup in modern history. Without flinching!

He doesn't notice this for quite some time, since the interview concludes and is later aired on TV without objections from Silversetin or the Bush regime.

It must truly be confusing to simultaneously hold the belief that the Bush team is both A) fucking stupid, and b) cunning enough to mastermind and execute the 9/11 "truth."

 
At 17 June, 2006 18:10, Blogger CHF said...

On the video link in the above post (not sure how to do links, I'm afarid), notice how LOUD the CD charges were as they blow the building's support structure.

Notice how you hear NO such bangs in the case of WTC7.

I wonder why.

 
At 17 June, 2006 18:24, Blogger CHF said...

Pat, Pames,

I already posted this (and I don't like being a spammer) but it's a must read.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/37398

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46228

 
At 17 June, 2006 19:13, Blogger default.xbe said...

ever stop to wonder WHY the windows blow out in a CD? its not because of the explosives (they arent tryign to blow up thw windows)

its because when the building begins to collapse it increases the air pressure inside, which blows out the windows, its the COLLAPSE that blows out the windows, not the explosives, its perectly reasonable to expect a similar phenomenon with the WTC towers (1 and 2 showed it as well)

 
At 17 June, 2006 19:45, Blogger ScottSl said...

LOL!! That's got to be one of the funniest things I've seen. Lets go down some of your quotes.

"The first site goes in lenght how the image was enhanced and thus dicrediting it. "

Yep!

"The second doesn't even address the video that shows the squibs. "

"No it shows another video of the same area which doesn't have squibs."

"The thrid says it's the windows."

No it says its a combination of things, The artifacting and the damage on that corner.


Snip babble!! Your not addressing anything.


Ok, you're not following me. Do this.
1) Load this video
2) Play it.
3) Before the video ends, click on the 9 nine second mark, and the video will rewind to that point.
4) Let it play for two seconds or so.
5) Until you see the progress of "squibs" goto to step 3.

( I have the squibs aren't there when you look at a higher rez video nor are they there on the other video of the same side. Hence no squibs. The squibs are also in the same location as the corner damage)
Snip rest of long winded post.

 
At 17 June, 2006 19:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

LMAO! Question, WTC1 fell right on top of building 6 how come it didn't go down as well? Also, that photo you show of the damaged corner, why didn't the building tip over like the leaning tower of Pisa? heheh.. Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the offical story, okay..

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:01, Blogger nesNYC said...

And what about those squibs?

Yeah, those are photographed near the top of the structure so the "children of the matrix" cannot squeal "collapse pressure."

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger default.xbe said...

Yeah, those are photographed near the top of the structure so the "children of the matrix" cannot squeal "collapse pressure."

the ones at the top are artifacting from all your shitty video encodes :P

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger telescopemerc said...

LMAO! Question, WTC1 fell right on top of building 6 how come it didn't go down as well?

Are you seriously comparing an eight story, concrete framed building with a steel framed skyscraper.


Also, that photo you show of the damaged corner, why didn't the building tip over like the leaning tower of Pisa? heheh.. Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the offical story, okay..


The damaged corner was not where the critical structural failure took place. Do you always fail to pay attention?

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:22, Blogger nesNYC said...

Are you seriously comparing an eight story, concrete framed building with a steel framed skyscraper.

No, I am seriously questioning why a huge hole, crater described by many, didn't implode it on the spot. Try again slick...

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:24, Blogger nesNYC said...

The damaged corner was not where the critical structural failure took place. Do you always fail to pay attention?

Ah, so why include that in this piece anyway? The building was demolished via CD, everybody knows that except you guys. Stop trying to “make it fit.”

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

no, Silverstein didn't take the money and run, he rebuilt

Yeah! He's going to make triple in rents now that the building is up. Pretty nifty that that 9/11 happened and all the old tenants had to move out, huh?

Regardless, if there is any real "heat" from his collusion with this whole incident, all he has to do flee to Israel and he'll be safe and sound.

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

Funny how these "raging" fires were so seletive in the floors they burn. How come that mail truck on the ground isn't burning up like the building above?????

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:43, Blogger ScottSl said...

"If you want to say it's smoke from fires, then goes read the FEMA or NIST reports. The highest the fire got was the 28th floor. We're talking about the 30-47th floor here guys."

Oh another piece of crap remark.
There was clearly smoking coming out of floors above the 28th.
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1499.JPG
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1502.JPG
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:59, Blogger telescopemerc said...

No, I am seriously questioning why a huge hole, crater described by many, didn't implode it on the spot. Try again slick...

No, you try again. Come back when you have a clue about structures and how they stand ( or fail). You are trying to use your ignorace in this field as a weapon. Its rather emabrassing for you.

Ah, so why include that in this piece anyway?

Because CT'ers would have us beleive that WTC7 was never on fire, was barely touched by the collpase of the Twin Towers, and that nobody had any idea that the building was in danger. It is included to note that, among other things


The building was demolished via CD, everybody knows that except you guys. Stop trying to “make it fit.


"everyone knows it" conspicously does not include every structural engineer in the whole world, every structural demonlitionist, and that vast, vast majority of mechanical and civil enginers as well as architects.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:02, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Funny how these "raging" fires were so seletive in the floors they burn. How come that mail truck on the ground isn't burning up like the building above?????

Why should it burn? Its a small target for any flaming debris, and a vehicle has few flammable portions on its exterior. By comparison, any burning debris that makes entry into an office building is going to have plenty of fuel to work with.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:06, Blogger telescopemerc said...

If you want to say it's smoke from fires, then goes read the FEMA or NIST reports. The highest the fire got was the 28th floor. We're talking about the 30-47th floor here guys.

To add to what scottsl stated:

What you have written is not true. The NIST report states plainly:

"Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed"

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:08, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Oh another piece of crap remark.
There was clearly smoking coming out of floors above the 28th.


You should tell FEMA and NIST because they never mention any fire above the 28th floor.

If you're going to believe the offical story, you can't add to it.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:11, Blogger jackhanyes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:14, Blogger ScottSl said...

"You should tell FEMA and NIST because they never mention any fire above the 28th floor.

You should tell FEMA and NIST because they never mention any fire above the 28th floor.
If you're going to believe the offical story, you can't add to it."

Don't worry I've spoken to NIST.
FEMA was the first study that came out. NIST added upon that. NIST isn't done yet. I can "add" to it whatever information I have to it. (I've already given them information they didn't have in the past.)
All you have to do is look at the many videos and photos clearly showing smoke coming out of those upper floors.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:17, Blogger insidejob said...

yer darn tootin'. it's funny how that whole post tried to play up the damage to wtc7. those "raging" fires were limited to isolated sections of 2 floors. the "massive" damage to the bottom of one corner of the building was actually pretty minor, although a firefighter did call it "massive." "massive" is relative - the point is that there wasn't, by an stretch of the imagination, enough damage to make the building neatly and methodically, and very suddenly, implode in on itself. even if the damage to the corner could have caused a collapse (which it couldn't have), the collapse wouldn't have been straight down.

Pat tries to "debunk" the claim that wtc7 fell into its footprint by noting superficial damage to the 3 adjacent buildings. minor damage to adjacent buildings doesn't change the fact that wtc7 fell straight down into a neat rubble pile, maintaining radial symmetry all the way down and falling FASTER than freefall speed, like a controlled demolition.

scottsl, the links you gave about the squibs do not make any valid arguments to deny the squibs. they aren't simply 'windows breaking' - they're puffs of gas the go from the bottom up, in sequence, as in a controlled demolition. one of those sites shows that that corner of the building has some minor damage and the windows were broken, and asks, "what do you expect damaged window frames to do during a collapse?" I certainly wouldn't expect them to eject clouds of gas. The reason they were only visible in that part of the building is indeed BECAUSE the windows were broken there from some minor damage from the tower collapse.

another thing mentioned by Pat was that the firefighters knew the building was going to collapse. here's something you should ask yourself: how the hell did they know? who told them? there was nothing about the building itself that indicated it was about to collapse.

and as for the partial collapses of the other WTC buildings, they were directly adjacent to the towers, and had debris dropped on them and piled up on them from several hundred feet in the air. all WTC 7 had was damage to one of its corners and 2 small fires.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:18, Blogger ScottSl said...

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

Where's the smoke...gee?

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:20, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s


FEMA: fire on floor 28
NIST fire on floor 30

And the rest of the statement is very vague. They should get their shit together.


Also I love how the NIST slide show totaly removes the core from the WTC7 framing slide. Gotta love it.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:20, Blogger insidejob said...

and to answer my own question, it was Silverstein who told them it was going to collapse. "pull it." remember?

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:24, Blogger insidejob said...

in reply to scottsl's video of smoke:

oooooo. look at all the smoke. small fires can make lots of smoke. and even huge fires don't make steel-frame buildings collapse. do your research.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:26, Blogger ScottSl said...

"oooooo. look at all the smoke. small fires can make lots of smoke. and even huge fires don't make steel-frame buildings collapse. do your research."

Read the debate first.
And again no I don't see any large amount dust being ejected from that corner on this video either.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7.demolition.front.wmv

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:37, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Oh scooter, you're a cleaver one.

Lets see.. the build is shaped like this:

south side
east side /___\ west side
north side

The video is viewing the building from the north side.

You wouldn't be able to see anything from the north side because the camera is adjusting for sun setting in the west - south west sky.

And you wouldn't be able to see anything from the west wall because of the shape of the building.

Oh wait what's that dark smoke rising from the west wall?!

There ain't now fires up there. I wonder what could it be???

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:46, Blogger ScottSl said...

Huh, adjusting for the sun?
So I guess the squibs were kind of flat then. Where is the air movement? I would certainly expect to still see something.

But I agree there isn't large amounts of smoke coming out there anymore. But again adding this information to the 911myths links

http://www.911myths.com/html/high_velocity_effects.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_enhancements.html

Of cource the building is also alreadly falling before they show up

http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html

And adding that its in the same location as the building damage, everything comes together nicely.

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:56, Blogger shawn said...

small fires can make lots of smoke.

They can't make it come out of most of the floors, dumbass.

God, you and jack...there aren't words to describe the idiocy of your points. EVERYTHING you guys mention have been debunked. And you both keep saying that "pull it" line like it defends your stance at all.

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:01, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Hi Mr. Logical Fallacy!!

I see you didn't use you favorite word yet. Good for you!!

BTW, when did I use the "pull it" line in this thread?

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:17, Blogger jackhanyes said...

This is for you scooter.

And just think of that. The squibs pattern disappear when you freeze frame the whole deal! Who would-a thunk?

Show the video and then disprove the pattern.

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:41, Blogger shawn said...

Hi Mr. Logical Fallacy!!

I see you didn't use you favorite word yet. Good for you!!


So you're continuing with the defense that it's ridiculous for me to point out yours (and others) logical fallacies when you use them? How retarded are you?

I can imagine you back in school (or judging by your points, still in school):

You: Uh, why do you keep marking these answers incorrect?

Teacher: ...because they are.

You: Yeah, what's your point? You mark them incorrect EVERY time they're incorrect, that's ridiculous!


BTW, when did I use the "pull it" line in this thread?

By the way, when did I say you used in this thread? I didn't. I was pointing out how your moronic duo continue using the line like it supports your point.

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:42, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, it's not my fucking fault you idiots continue to use them. But throw the blame elsewhere, right, pal?

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:57, Blogger ScottSl said...

"And just think of that. The squibs pattern disappear when you freeze frame the whole deal! Who would-a thunk?"

As been explained, those stills are from a better source file.
All you have to do is look at the original file to tell is full of horrible artifacting. The 9/11myths link shows links to the original, and explains it in more detail

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibview.mpg

http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_enhancements.html

 
At 17 June, 2006 22:59, Blogger jackhanyes said...

How retarded are you?

Momma always said "stupid is as stupid does."

Momma also use to beat me with a rubber hose and call me a retard.

 
At 18 June, 2006 00:17, Blogger insidejob said...

They can't make it come out of most of the floors, dumbass.

it WASN'T coming out of most of the floors you sack of fresh camel dung.

 
At 18 June, 2006 00:55, Blogger insidejob said...

EVERYTHING you guys mention have been debunked

you've made this claim before Shawn, without backing it up. I posted a lot of the real evidence on this blog just 2 weeks ago, complete with sources, but all those threads have 'conveniently' disappeared. no, the real evidence has hardly been discussed here, except for WTC7. Pat has made a colossal effort to "debunk" controlled demolition of WTC7 by playing up the damage that was actually only to one corner of the building and by exaggerating the fires. I keep seeing the fact that there was cloud of smoke on the side of the building used as proof that the fires were widespread, whereas they were actually on isolated sections of 2 floors. and you ScrewLoosers continue to ignore the fact that the building fell straight down, maintaining radial symmetry all the way down - damage to one corner of the building could not do that. and even a full-fledged inferno, burning for 24 hours, will not make a steel-frame building collapse, let alone isolated fires on 2 floors. the fact that the fires and damage to the corner of the building were in combination also means nothing. the fires did squat. and the chunk taken out of the bottom of one corner did squat. the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.

let's hear you debunk these points, which you have previously claimed had already been 'debunked'(which is b/s):

(1) Bush Admin. had been warned, and had supressed FBI investigations

(2)Bush's inaction on 9/11, which was explained as not wanting to “upset the children”

(3)Jets, when finally scrambled, flew at 1/3 of maximum speed

(4)General Ahmad of ISI was meeting with Porter Goss and Colin Powell on Sept. 11th, talking about “terrorism from Afghanistan,” and had been having intense parleys with him over the past month, which had raised eyebrows.

(5)General Ahmad of ISI had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker

(6) Reinforcment (with Kevlar netting, etc.) of the section of the Pentagon that Flight 77 hit, which was completed ON 9/11

(7)War games on 9/11

(8)Israeli Mossad Agents caught filming the Towers, while wearing Sheikh outfits and carrying box cutters, and celebrating when the Towers collapsed

(9)Silverstein’s unprecedented privatization of the entire WTC complex and his connections with Israel

(10)Marvin Bush, his cousin, and Stratesec, and the evacuations of WTC Towers in weeks prior to the attacks

(11)Presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion of steel beams in building 7

(12)Flowing pools of literally molten steel in the WTC rubble. (Prof. Steven Jones quotes eyewitnesses on his website)

(13)Rumsfeld changed protocol for response in the event of a hijacking 3 months before the attacks, so that NORAD had to get permission directly from him to respond. The Pentagon will not release the videos (from the Sheraton Hotel and the freeway camera) that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, thereby baiting the more naïve members of the truth movement into claiming that it did not hit the Pentagon. There is no other logical reason for them not to release these videos. I'll go ahead and anticipate the claim that it would be a 'threat to national security' to release those videos. think about this for a second. how could it possibly threaten national security to show Flight 77 about to hit the Pentagon?

(14)The members of the Bush-appointed 9/11 Commission, and their distortions and omissions

supplementary evidence:

(15)Anthrax mailings: Anthrax was mailed on Oct. 9th and sent only to Democratic officials who had opposed the Patriot Act on Oct. 2nd and Oct. 4th, and the anthrax was found to have come from a U.S. Military Lab. The FBI’s main suspect is a former U.S. military scientist.

(16)Bush lied about Iraqi connection with Al Qaeda

(17)Downing Street Memo

(18)Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger.

(19)Bush pressured his cronies in the CIA to come up with “evidence” of WMD’s. There were no WMD’s, as many predicted.

(20) When Saddam said he would allow UN inspectors into the country unconditionally, Bush Admin. said they 'didn't believe him'

(21)Bush diverted the military from Afghanistan to Iraq.

if you still think the 'war on terrorism' is about terrorism, I imagine you still believe in the Easter Bunny too.

 
At 18 June, 2006 05:36, Blogger telescopemerc said...

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.

That is a very foolish statement. To make it demonstrates a massive ingorance beyond the pale.

The rest of your comments are just assertions that have been debunked or are just claims requiring a level of Engineering skill you obviously do not posess.

 
At 18 June, 2006 07:11, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, as it's impossible to fall straight down faster than free fall speeds (unless the debris had rockets attached to them), it's pretty hilarious statement. Hell, they buildings didn't even match free fall speeds, let alone surpass them.

 
At 18 June, 2006 08:03, Blogger Alex said...

Momma also use to beat me with a rubber hose and call me a retard.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm just surprised she let you live. You must have been a REALLY strong baby to crawl out of the abortion bucket like that...

I posted a lot of the real evidence on this blog just 2 weeks ago, complete with sources, but all those threads have 'conveniently' disappeared.

Now we know you're a liar. Posts don't dissapear around here.

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.

Prrof positive that the CIA used a special satelite based gravity laser to temporarily distort the gravitational field around WTC7. Good job man! Now if you can track down that satelite for us, we can take it down with slingshots and spitballs.

 
At 18 June, 2006 08:17, Blogger undense said...

the building fell straight down FASTER than freefall speed.

LOL. How was this accomplished? Did the the BushCo. Cabal, Inc. use their supa-dupa, uber-sekrit gravity enhancement generators underneath the buildings?

You CTs are a riot. You should have paid some attention in physics class too, assuming you ever even took such a class, which is highly unlikely in your case.

 
At 18 June, 2006 08:47, Blogger undense said...

(1) Bush Admin. had been warned, and had supressed FBI investigations

The Bush Admin had not been warned. Someone brought up the possibility of hijacking planes, but that's kind of like saying "You might be involved in a car accident." If you subsequently get in an accident, do I have the right to say "I told you so."?

Also, it was the Clinton admin that suppressed FBI investigations (Able Danger), not the Bush admin. So you're wrong on point 1.

(2)Bush's inaction on 9/11, which was explained as not wanting to “upset the children”

What was Bush supposed to do? Jump into a telephone booth and come out flying in his superhero costume?

Point number 2 is a classic red herring, as Bush really couldn't do anything until they received information on what was actually happening. Maybe you're one to run headlong into something without first ascertaining the situation (as your points thus far have demonstrated), but the Secret Service is not going to make a move until they know what's going on and can formulate a plan.

(3)Jets, when finally scrambled, flew at 1/3 of maximum speed
Proof? And real proof too. Not some wild-eyed claim from some obscure website.

(4)General Ahmad of ISI was meeting with Porter Goss and Colin Powell on Sept. 11th, talking about “terrorism from Afghanistan,” and had been having intense parleys with him over the past month, which had raised eyebrows.

Wrong. He met with Goss and Bob Graham. He met with Colin Powell the next day. Why is it that the details of your facts are so frequently wrong?

(5)General Ahmad of ISI had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker
Once again you get the details wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/ga9bj

See, this is why you guys have no credibility. You can't even get your facts straight.

(6) Reinforcment (with Kevlar netting, etc.) of the section of the Pentagon that Flight 77 hit, which was completed ON 9/11

Meaningless. You're trying to make an issue out of coincidence again.

(7)War games on 9/11

Again, meaningless.

(8)Israeli Mossad Agents caught filming the Towers, while wearing Sheikh outfits and carrying box cutters, and celebrating when the Towers collapsed

Wow. Embellish much? Once again, your details are wrong.

(9)Silverstein’s unprecedented privatization of the entire WTC complex and his connections with Israel

WTF are you talking about? Silverstein was leasing the WTC complex from the Port Authority.

(10)Marvin Bush, his cousin, and Stratesec, and the evacuations of WTC Towers in weeks prior to the attacks

This fallacy has been pointed out numerous times in here.

And it's pointless responding any further. You're obviously another CT who tries to pretend they know what their talking about by C&P-ing talking points they read about on some nutjob's website. But that nutjob got a lot of details wrong and now your regurgitating those incorrect details, and doing so oblivously.

Do some real research instead of blindly accepting this garbage as fact. Once you begin to see all the massively glaring holes in their claims, and see that they have zero in the way of any hard evidence, maybe you'll come to your senses.

Then again, you sound like yet another gullible dupe with Bush Derangement Syndrome who is eagerly willing to believe the CT lies because it feeds your appetite of hate.

 
At 18 June, 2006 09:46, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm just surprised she let you live. You must have been a REALLY strong baby to crawl out of the abortion bucket like that...

That's why I'm missing haft my face and most of my arms and legs!

 
At 18 June, 2006 09:47, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Now we know you're a liar. Posts don't dissapear around here.

I have seen a few of mine disappear.

 
At 18 June, 2006 09:50, Blogger CHF said...

insidejob, you moron!

FASTER that freefall speed???

Do you just make this stuff up on the spot?

NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AGREE WITH YOU! NONE!

THINK about that for a second. Let it sink in.

"(1) Bush Admin. had been warned, and had supressed FBI investigations"

They were warned of their OWN plot?

As for Bush's reaction at the school, if he carried out 9/11 don't you think he would have jumped up and taken charge of the situation? Instead he sat there - like many people that day - in shock.

Seriously, dude, do you think ANY of your bullshit would stand up in a court of law?

 
At 18 June, 2006 10:10, Blogger telescopemerc said...

LOL. How was this accomplished? Did the the BushCo. Cabal, Inc. use their supa-dupa, uber-sekrit gravity enhancement generators underneath the buildings?

Haven't you figured it out? Gravity is a conspiracy to keep us down.

 
At 18 June, 2006 10:26, Blogger Alex said...

congratulations, you win the "pun of the month" award :)

 
At 18 June, 2006 10:27, Blogger jackhanyes said...

The Bush Admin had not been warned. Someone brought up the possibility of hijacking planes, but that's kind of like saying "You might be involved in a car accident." If you subsequently get in an accident, do I have the right to say "I told you so."?

Also, it was the Clinton admin that suppressed FBI investigations (Able Danger), not the Bush admin. So you're wrong on point 1.


The report he received was more like “your brakes are failing and useless you do something about it you're going to have car accident in the next few weeks.”

Also do you know about John O'Neil? Top FBI investigator of Al Qaeda hot on the trail of Bin Laden pushed out of the FBI for personal reason (the trail was leading to the white house) who took a job 9/8 at the WTC, and then went missing for the weekend only to be found dead at ground zero; neatly placed on a pile of rumble - perfectly intact.

What was Bush supposed to do? Jump into a telephone booth and come out flying in his superhero costume?

Point number 2 is a classic red herring, as Bush really couldn't do anything until they received information on what was actually happening. Maybe you're one to run headlong into something without first ascertaining the situation (as your points thus far have demonstrated), but the Secret Service is not going to make a move until they know what's going on and can formulate a plan.


Anything but sit there like a deer staring into headlights thinking "What do I do now master?"

Proof? And real proof too. Not some wild-eyed claim from some obscure website.

Check the 9/11 Omission report.

Wrong. He met with Goss and Bob Graham. He met with Colin Powell the next day. Why is it that the details of your facts are so frequently wrong?

So you confirm that he did indeed met with Goss and Powell, just not on the same day? Insidejob, you are so wrong. So wrong.

Once again you get the details wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/ga9bj

See, this is why you guys have no credibility. You can't even get your facts straight.


More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad resigned from his position. Indian news outlets reported the FBI was investigating the possiblity that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta, while most Western media outlets only reported his connections to the Taliban as the reason for his departure.

Sounds like he hit on the head. The Gen quits a month after when the transfer is discovered, news looks into it. Nothing is heard about. Just another day. And by the way, I bet Ahmad doesn't even wipe his own ass, why would he do the transfer himself?


Meaningless. You're trying to make an issue out of coincidence again.

Nothing like a real world test to prove you done good work.

(7)War games on 9/11
Again, meaningless.


“In the cloud of confusion, the level head completes his goal.” - Old Chinese proverb

(8)Israeli Mossad Agents caught filming the Towers, while wearing Sheikh outfits and carrying box cutters, and celebrating when the Towers collapsed

Wow. Embellish much? Once again, your details are wrong.


And you ain't backing up your statements.

(9)Silverstein’s unprecedented privatization of the entire WTC complex and his connections with Israel

WTF are you talking about? Silverstein was leasing the WTC complex from the Port Authority.


Very few property is owned by anyone but the banks. If you have a mortgage,you are just leasing you house from the bank.

The connection is the Jews had the most to gain. You have to remember that most the "leader" and powerful people in the world belong to secert groups that you don't know much about.

(10)Marvin Bush, his cousin, and Stratesec, and the evacuations of WTC Towers in weeks prior to the attacks

This fallacy has been pointed out numerous times in here.


And you don't see the connection between the two. The real world work differently then what you think.


And it's pointless responding any further.

Damn it!! I was just getting started! He had 11 other points that were hard hitting that I was hoping to beat you over the head with!!!

Were you just too yellow to take them on?

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:00, Blogger Alex said...

The report he received was more like “your brakes are failing and useless you do something about it you're going to have car accident in the next few weeks.”

Yeah, meanwhile 5 other mechanics are saying "nope, everything's fine", while another 50 are advising you of 50 other potential problems.

Anything but sit there like a deer staring into headlights thinking "What do I do now master?"

That's the difference between me and you, and I've seen good examples of this throughout my military career. Some people will hear of a disaster, will carry on with their current task, and wait for more intel before acting. Others will immedately jump up, abandon whatever they were working on, and run in circles like chickens with their heads cut off, making stupid assumptions, debating rumours, and otherwise getting nothing at all done. We've even got a saying for it:

When in Danger
When in Doubt
Run in Circles
Scream! And Shout!

Frankly I'm very glad Bush didn't fall into that category. It doesn't surprise me at all that you do.

The Gen quits a month after when the transfer is discovered, news looks into it. Nothing is heard about. Just another day. And by the way, I bet Ahmad doesn't even wipe his own ass, why would he do the transfer himself?

Ah, the old "he had the opportunity, so he MUST have done it" argument. Right. Good luck with that one.


The connection is the Jews had the most to gain. You have to remember that most the "leader" and powerful people in the world belong to secert groups that you don't know much about.


:D

Oooook buddy. That's enough beer for you. Time to go home.

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:05, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:12, Blogger shawn said...

And you don't see the connection between the two. The real world work differently then what you think.

No, pal, it works different than what you think. You conspiracy theorists are such children you can't understand that the world isn't orderly. There aren't these governmental groups planning these dastardly deeds so the whole order of things falls into place and history is created in some bubble. Life is chaos. The world is chaos.

In the words of Penn: "Don't the conspiracy nuts realize that sometimes something simple, and small, and crazy, and mean can destroy something big and beautiful?"

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:40, Blogger undense said...

The report he received was more like “your brakes are failing and useless you do something about it you're going to have car accident in the next few weeks.”

Ever heard of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Stories of the possibility of planes being crashed into something, though no specifics of any sort were known, had been circulating in the intelligence agencies for years; as early as 1994. So if we knew that for so long previously, why didn't Clinton build a big catcher's mitt in front of the World Trade Center? He did nothing for over 6 years about the issue. Yet Bush was suppose to somehow change all Clinton's lack of planning and implement a new plan for a continually reported threat that never came to fruitiion previously?

Don't be ignorant.

Also do you know about John O'Neil? Top FBI investigator of Al Qaeda hot on the trail of Bin Laden pushed out of the FBI for personal reason (the trail was leading to the white house) who took a job 9/8 at the WTC, and then went missing for the weekend only to be found dead at ground zero; neatly placed on a pile of rumble - perfectly intact.

And? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that doesn't involve jamming your tongue in your cheek?

Have you ever read all of the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy? Does that somehow imply that Lincoln shot Kennedy, or vice versa? Of course not, just as your coincidences don't prove a thing either.

,b>Anything but sit there like a deer staring into headlights thinking "What do I do now master?",/b>

iow, you're a Bush Derangement Syndrome victim. You can't say what he should have done, but he should have done something. Brilliant?

btw, I don't like Bush either, but I don't allow partisanship to color logical thought. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for you.

Check the 9/11 Omission report.

There is no such report. If you meant the 9/11 Commission Report, please tell me where that information exists in the report, because I've read the report a number of times and have never seen anything that speaks of the speed of the jets that were scrambled.

So you confirm that he did indeed met with Goss and Powell, just not on the same day? Insidejob, you are so wrong. So wrong.

Excuse me. But you nutjobs obsess over the slightest details, often making up crap where nothing exists, but you dismiss it when your own make mistakes on dates? Wow, how hypocritical of you.

Sounds like he hit on the head.

No, he didn't. He claimed General Ahmad wired the money. He did not. It's another error in the details that he got wrong. But way to cheerlead and apologize for his mistake. Do you have some CT pom-poms too?

Nothing like a real world test to prove you done good work.

Please try and make sense when you comment.

“In the cloud of confusion, the level head completes his goal.” - Old Chinese proverb

"A dish of carrot hastily cooked may still has soil uncleaned off the vegetable." - Old Chinese Proverb.

And you ain't backing up your statements.

Neither are you.

Very few property is owned by anyone but the banks. If you have a mortgage,you are just leasing you house from the bank.


Please tell me you're not really that stupid? Do you have any concept of equity, titles, deeds, or any of the numerous legal implications that define the difference of ownership vs. leasing?

And you don't see the connection between the two. The real world work differently then what you think.

So if your cousin is an NBA star, that instantly makes you an NBA star as well?

All that's proven is that Marvin Bush is related to George W. Bush. The implication of guilt by association is nothing but vapor.

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:12, Blogger telescopemerc said...

So if we knew that for so long previously, why didn't Clinton build a big catcher's mitt in front of the World Trade Center?

He did. The dang thing was recruited by George Steinbrenner and went five seasons with the Yankees.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:38, Blogger shawn said...

He did. The dang thing was recruited by George Steinbrenner and went five seasons with the Yankees.

The devil wears pinstripes.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:41, Blogger James B. said...

Hmm... I heard that FBI insider John O'Neill and Yankee outfielder Paul O'Neill were cousins...

 
At 18 June, 2006 15:23, Blogger insidejob said...

So you confirm that he did indeed met with Goss and Powell, just not on the same day? Insidejob, you are so wrong. So wrong.

excuse me? I said that he DID meet with Powell and Goss on the morning of the attacks, and was meeting with him over the past month:

"General Ahmad of ISI was meeting with Porter Goss and Colin Powell on Sept. 11th, talking about “terrorism from Afghanistan,” and had been having intense parleys with him over the past month, which had raised eyebrows."

and yes, Bob Graham was also there.

you guys respond to every single point in the following ways: by qubbling on words (i.e. the WTC wasn't privatized but was leased to an individual for 99 years, which in my book is quibbling); by making claims that 'details' are wrong, without pointing out what it is that is allegedly wrong; completely ignoring points; claiming that something is merely a 'coincidence,' after having basically ignored all the other extraordinary 'coincidences'; making a flood of patently fallacious arguments that would take an hour to respond to in all, but can easily be refuted individually.

so, since these are your tactics, let's go one at a time.

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

now let's see, I'll pick one (you guys pick next. we can take turns.)

(8)Israeli Mossad Agents caught filming the Towers, while wearing Sheikh outfits and carrying box cutters, and celebrating when the Towers collapsed.

it was claimed that my "details" were wrong on this, and that I was embellishing. not only does this completely ignore the fact of the matter, but it is also flatly wrong:

here's the transcript of the 911 call from NBC News:

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab.

"A woman who was in the building above the lot testified that she saw them smiling and exchanging high-fives. She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on the truck. They copied and reported the license plates."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/03/WTC/spies10.html

 
At 18 June, 2006 19:07, Blogger shawn said...

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

Uh that's not how demolitions work. They don't set one large bomb in the middle and set it off (which is how you'd cause any type of vaccum).

And do you know how fast something falls in a vacuum?

That's right, professor - free fall!

 
At 19 June, 2006 00:07, Blogger jackhanyes said...

No, pal, it works different than what you think. You conspiracy theorists are such children you can't understand that the world isn't orderly. There aren't these governmental groups planning these dastardly deeds so the whole order of things falls into place and history is created in some bubble. Life is chaos. The world is chaos.

In the words of Penn: "Don't the conspiracy nuts realize that sometimes something simple, and small, and crazy, and mean can destroy something big and beautiful?"


Oh, Mr. Logical Fallacy, how little do you know. They do say ignorance is blissed.

In a world of choas,
your life is structured
as you hold on to
what is dear to your heart.
To accept anything out of your order,
would be to upset your order.
In a world of choas,
you find your order.
That order is simple and small.

You reject things that disagree with your order,
Denying things exists that you can't connect.
Rejecting things you can't perceive,
Refusing to look at things your eyes can't see.
Ever learning, but never having knowledge.

In your fight against God,
You have become a slave.
Slave to the power that has molded your mind.

If there are only two things I know; they would be:
1) The world is choas.
2) The surface is only a fraction of the whole.

 
At 19 June, 2006 00:18, Blogger jackhanyes said...

What all of this boils down to is, like it or not, what happened on 9/11 lead us to war and a lost of our freedoms.

The question is:

1) Did neocons thirsting for power and control did it.

OR

2) A small group of crazies did it.


Considering that Bush said something along the lines of "catching Osama isn't important" should make you question number 2 and start looking at number one, because the evidence is pointing to number 1 being far more likely.

Until you consider 1, you are a slave to the power that be.

 
At 19 June, 2006 03:51, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Until you consider 1, you are a slave to the power that be.

We've (or at least I've) considered '1' but have rejected it since its a house of cards. It requires rejection of scientific and engineering principles, is supported by quotes taken out of context, and is wishful thinking on the part of CTers who want there to be a sinister powere controlling their lives.

I loathe Bush, but I am not about to abandon centuries of science and engineering just to blame him for something he is too clumsy to have pulled off.

Consider this: Have you considered #2 or the posibillity that you are completely wrong about there being a conspiracy? If not than you are a slave to your political stripes.

 
At 19 June, 2006 05:46, Blogger Alex said...

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

:D

Why are we're arguing with this clown again? This is the first time I've heard someone claim that explosives IMplode instead of EXploding. I guess from now on I'll be refering to my C4 charges as "implosives". Thanks inside. Your parent's really did a job with ya....

 
At 19 June, 2006 08:20, Blogger shawn said...

What all of this boils down to is, like it or not, what happened on 9/11 lead us to war and a lost of our freedoms.

Where did we lose freedoms? I can still assemble, I can say whatever I want, the press can write what it wants. I've lost no freedoms. Or are you going to talk about those people who forfeited rights on the battlefield?

1) Did neocons thirsting for power and control did it.

Do you know how ridiculous it is to claim in nine months they could pull off the largest terrorist attack in history?

Considering that Bush said something along the lines of "catching Osama isn't important" should make you question number 2 and start looking at number one, because the evidence is pointing to number 1 being far more likely.

You don't even think al-Qaeda did it, so why do you care? You morons should be consistent. And no, it isn't "far more likely" only an irrational person would say that. The utter ridiculousness of just say "omg the neocons wanted power" as your SOLE evidence (and yes it is) isn't good enough.

2) A small group of crazies did it.

Like I said, you children are too scared to live in a world where you might be snuffed out in the next minute by a religious fanatic with a bomb strapped to himself. You need an ordered world where the big bad government is behind everything and there's structure everywhere.


And quoting song lyrics won't get you anywhere.

 
At 19 June, 2006 09:37, Blogger telescopemerc said...

well, first let me point out that WTC7 DID fall faster than freefall speed, because the implosions of the demolition sucked the successive floors downward.

Demolition charges do not 'suck'. The vacuum created when explosives detonate is tiny, and the force of pressure is miniscule in comparison to the effect of the expanding gasses, etc. It takes nuclear levels of explosives to see any such 'vacuum fill' effect and the detonation of such a device would be rather noticable.

This is unbelievebaly bad science on your part.

 
At 19 June, 2006 09:54, Blogger nesNYC said...

I loathe Bush, but I am not about to abandon centuries of science and engineering just to blame him for something he is too clumsy to have pulled off.

Well then, this is you main obstacle to seeing this for what it is. Bush was in no way shape or form the mastermind that pulled this off. He was simply put in place to react the way he did because of his stupidity.

So apply those "centuries of science and engineering" to figure out who really did this deed. It surely wasn't the fictional "1Al Qaeda."

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:07, Blogger telescopemerc said...

So apply those "centuries of science and engineering" to figure out who really did this deed. It surely wasn't the fictional "1Al Qaeda."

None of the evidence obtained via science & engineering points to anything else. The claim that

Proof by bald assertion doesn't impress me. Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:15, Blogger CHF said...

jack,

please name one thing you used to be able to do (pre-911) that you can no longer do.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger Alex said...

Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

The idea is to make the CT as complicated as possible, so that no matter what points are debunked, you've got 5 million more to fall back on. Idealy, if you make it complex enough, your opponents won't even know where to start and will simply give up in disgust, allowing you to claim that they're somehow inferior because they "won't discuss things logicaly".

That's certainly how insync operates. If he's having trouble backing up his conspiracy theory, he simply blames yet another overnment organization, or some secret jewish documents, or zionist CIA space aliens trying to take over the world.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger Alex said...

Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

The idea is to make the CT as complicated as possible, so that no matter what points are debunked, you've got 5 million more to fall back on. Idealy, if you make it complex enough, your opponents won't even know where to start and will simply give up in disgust, allowing you to claim that they're somehow inferior because they "won't discuss things logicaly".

That's certainly how insync operates. If he's having trouble backing up his conspiracy theory, he simply blames yet another overnment organization, or some secret jewish documents, or zionist CIA space aliens trying to take over the world.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

Proof by bald assertion doesn't impress me. Tossing on more and more conspiracy theories does not improve your poor situation.

The "Al Qaeda" did it IS the conspiracy theory in that there is no solid evidence that they were involved. Funny thing is, YOU BELIEVE THAT FAIRY TALE! It would be comical if this situation wasn't so serious. I absolutely awed how the Government can get away with straight up lying to you guys and how easily you guys fall for it. Not only that, but then try to draw rationalizations built on those lie. Talk about Cognitive dissonance!!!!

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Again, all assertions, no evidence. What a surprise.

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:22, Blogger Alex said...

Yep, passports found in the wreckage, video surveilance evidence of them boarding the aircraft, voice recordings of arabs in the cockpits, flight school records, DNA evidence from a hotel room, and a confession by Bin Laden....none of that is good enough for our insync.

Israelis on a van though? DA JOOOOOOS DID IT!

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:15, Blogger insidejob said...

as I've already explained, it is possible for a building to fall faster than freefall speed when successive demolition implosions suck floors downward. and building 7 definitely fell VERY CLOSE to freefall speed, if not faster than. this is impossible with mere 'progressive' collapse, which has never happened outside of 9-11. and don't even think about giving the examples of Ronan Point and L'Ambience Plaza. I've already debunked those.

you guys love to use anything to make members of the truth movement look stupid. if you are a person of honor, you will post this explanation along with your claim that I am 'stupid.' you took what I said out of context in order to make me look stupid to people who didn't see the original discussion. very, very sneaky.

 
At 19 June, 2006 13:01, Blogger insidejob said...

building 7 fell at or very close to freefall speed. impossible without controlled demolition. period. very bad science on your part, and on the part of NIST.

you guys completely IGNORED the sources I gave PROVING the correctness of what I said about the Mossad agents, the 'details' of which were dishonestly said to be wrong.

 
At 19 June, 2006 18:14, Blogger telescopemerc said...

as I've already explained, it is possible for a building to fall faster than freefall speed when successive demolition implosions suck floors downward.

No, they cannot! This is physical impossibility. No demolition project has ever fallen faster than Freefall. It does not happen.

You've made this assertion three times now, it is simply and completely untrue and there is no physics to support it even in theory. You claim to 'explain' it, but with no backing at all whatsoever beyond your asserting it multiple times.

 
At 19 June, 2006 18:56, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Where did we lose freedoms? I can still assemble, I can say whatever I want, the press can write what it wants. I've lost no freedoms. Or are you going to talk about those people who forfeited rights on the battlefield?

Frog doesn't know the water is boiling until it's dead.

Try protesting sometime. How you right to privacy? What about search and seriure? Right to a speedy trial? How about personaly property rights? Do want me to go on?

Do you know how ridiculous it is to claim in nine months they could pull off the largest terrorist attack in history?

Did they give birth or something? Were did the nine months come from?

From what I have read in the past, Rumsfield and company talked about a 9/11 attack as excuse to wage war since the early 70's.

Your thinking is so one year old.

If you really want to know what I'm claiming, I'm claiming the plan for a one world government has been around since the birth of this nation. 9/11 was just one big step towards it.



Considering that Bush said something along the lines of "catching Osama isn't important" should make you question number 2 and start looking at number one, because the evidence is pointing to number 1 being far more likely.

You don't even think al-Qaeda did it, so why do you care? You morons should be consistent. And no, it isn't "far more likely" only an irrational person would say that. The utter ridiculousness of just say "omg the neocons wanted power" as your SOLE evidence (and yes it is) isn't good enough.


Ah shucks. Looky at what you did. You didn't address my statement, but mocked it. And it it was a quick statement, not a long draw out statement so I gave only one "evidence" because of this fact. But hey, I could write a book about it.

I personaly think Al-CIA-Duh did it.

Like I said, you children are too scared to live in a world where you might be snuffed out in the next minute by a religious fanatic with a bomb strapped to himself. You need an ordered world where the big bad government is behind everything and there's structure everywhere.

Dude. You are such a block head. First you're trying to attack but you're coming across as a fool. If you knew anything about me, you would realize that there is almost zero structure in my life. I live in a world of disorder and believe that the only order comes from above.

And that sir, is something I wish you could understand.

And quoting song lyrics won't get you anywhere.

Thanks, bud! But that's a logical Fallacy! You conlusion IS COMPLETELY WRONG! I wrote "the song quote" from the top of my head. The only thing I have quoted was the rubber hose quote from Waiting.

That was:

"Momma always said i was as stupid as stupid does. Momma also use to beat me with a rubber hose and call me a retard."

 
At 19 June, 2006 22:47, Blogger shawn said...

The "Al Qaeda" did it IS the conspiracy theory in that there is no solid evidence that they were involved. Funny thing is, YOU BELIEVE THAT FAIRY TALE!

Yeah, only a boatload of confessions. One from the mastermind of the attack itself.

Did they give birth or something? Were did the nine months come from?

Hmm because the neocons were in power for nine months? Are you really this stupid?

Try protesting sometime.

Just went to an antiwar protest in Boston. Third one I've been to in the past year. You do realize they happen all the time, right?

If you really want to know what I'm claiming, I'm claiming the plan for a one world government has been around since the birth of this nation.

And you'd be wrong. You know most of these secret socities are really just frats for grown males, right?

I personaly think Al-CIA-Duh did it.

Then you're both wrong and you statement about Osama holds absolutely zero water.

And that sir, is something I wish you could understand.

I'd understand it if you could understand how the world actually worked.

Thanks, bud! But that's a logical Fallacy! You conlusion IS COMPLETELY WRONG!

Being wrong isn't a logical fallacy. So you wrote a poem to me? Oh, I'm flattered.

 
At 30 July, 2006 05:25, Blogger BrainWorld said...


The evidence clearly supports a controlled demolition, and it is my experience that the liars and fabricators of any online argument can be identified by their foul language and personal attacks on others. Thus the truth is clear here despite the deniers.

 
At 30 July, 2006 19:16, Blogger Bob said...

I agree.As I put in a previous post,even if the steel beems were fatigued,and started to bend,or broke,the building would of swayed,and fell side ways.This is pure logic.I say to you James,the only way those building came straight down like that is by a controled demo.HOW LONG it took them to fall does not matter,it's HOW they fell that is the true evidence,Eveidence that is undisputable!

 
At 30 July, 2006 21:14, Blogger Bob said...

I'll bet you both still live with mommy and daddy,and let me guess, they bought both of you a brand new shiney car for your 16th birthday,am I wrong.Because you both sound like a couple of snot nosed rich kids that think the world revolves around you,and you should always be the center of attention,and if someone disagrees with either of you,fits insue.My suggestion to both of you is to grow up alot more,then start thinking for yourselves,instead of what your parents tell you you should think,then sart a blog.I think you will get alot more respect and positive feed back.This probably will not make it to the thread,but by god I hope you read it first before you delete it.Good luck guys!

 
At 04 August, 2006 00:07, Blogger PerpetualYnquisitive said...

Update: Here is a picture that was posted on Democratic Underground that purports to be a vidcap of what appears to be a San Francisco Bay Area TV station's coverage of the disaster. This picture certainly seems to match up with the other photos we've seen. If you're a WTC 7 person, this would appear to be the holy grail:

Seeing as I posted that pic at DU, I will vouch that it came from a screenshot of footage from September 11, 2001. Read the rest of the thread at DU and you can get the footage and verify it for yourself.

 
At 06 August, 2006 11:23, Blogger Emily said...

The "relative damage" chart shows 30 W Broadway as having suffered "no damage," yet one of the images appearing in this entry is of extensive damage to that building?

 
At 09 August, 2006 15:11, Blogger bhoyal said...

first of all I would like to say after reading all the comments on this page it is quite pathetic how human beings interact, it makes it all that much easier for weak power hungry people to control us.


second of all, who ever repsonds to the CT people craftily never answered the question about there being sulfate found on the steel.

Thurmate was found by SCIENTISTS on the steel, the scholars symposium on C-SPAN revealed this information. This is not a couple of crazed CT nutcases hiding in an alley plotting to overthrow the goverment this is the American Scholars of OUR universities and challenge you to debunk that.

perhaps it is you non-believers that have a screw loose

 
At 16 August, 2006 23:38, Blogger Pat said...

Thermate was not found on the steel. What Jones claims is that residue of elements consistent with Thermate was found on the steel. And Jones did not say anything about Thermate on WTC 7 steel, for the very simple reason that he has no idea which building his steel sample came from.

 
At 20 August, 2006 17:57, Blogger H. N. Stone said...

I'm amazed at how blind people can be. First let me touch on the points made on this blog individually.

1) The damage to the right side of WTC 7 would not cause the entire building to come crashing down simultaneously. Remember that the left side of the building fell in perfect unison with the right side. Not to mention the central section of the building crimping downward right before the rest of the building fell.

2) WTC 7 DID fall into it's own footprint. That is evident by the rubble of building 7 and by the video footage of the collapse. The photos you show of surrounding buildings with structural damage does not proove that the damage was caused by WTC 7. In fact it is more plausable that the collapse of the towers is what caused the damage to the surrounding buildings of WTC 7 just like the towers caused damage to WTC 7.

3) It is mentioned in this blog that none of the WTC buildings remained standing. This is true. Now lets bear this in mind, there were buildings completely surrounding the collapse area yet the only buildings to collapse or be damaged beyond repair were the WTC complex that coincidentally were ALL owned by Larry Silverstein who had just purchased the entire WTC complex in July of 2001 (he had already owned building 7) and he took out a huge insurance policy on the complex which also specifically covered acts of terrorism. Yes I realize the towers were expensive and had been bombed before so it is logical to take out a large insurance policy on them. But keep this in mind, NO OTHER BUILDINGS surrounding the WTC complex collapsed that day due to fires or structural damage from the collapsing towers. You show clear photographic evidence of severe structural damage to other buildings that were around the towers yet they didn't fall. I wonder why. Maybe because they were not owned by Larry Silverstein and didn't have the terrorism insurance policy totaling 3.3 Billion dollars in coverage.

4) It is mentioned also that Larry Silverstein did rebuild building 7 after he claimed his insurance money. Yes he did. However, the amount of money it cost to rebuild building 7 was considerably less than the 2.2 billion dollars he was awarded by his insurance company.

5) Larry Silverstein himself went on telelvision after September 11th and was quoted as saying, "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and uh we watched the building come down." Take that quote into consideration. "THEY MADE THE DECISION to PULL". The word PULL is a term used in controlled demolition which specifically describes the taking down of a building. Here is a link to Google video where you can see and hear Larry Silverstein quoting what I just said:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=larry+silverstein&hl=en

Here is a link to a Google video of the people who demolished the remaining buildings of the WTC complex that didn't completely collapse from the towers falling. In this video clip you hear a demolition expert answer his cell phone and say, "We're about to PULL building 6."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6227966981786417824&q=wtc+pull&hl=en

Another thing to bear in mind is that the other WTC buildings 3-6 did not completely collapse even though they had the major part of the towers collapse directly onto them. Yet building 7 which only had a small amount of damage repectively to the other 4 buildings, did completely collapsed.

6) You can also see in the first video footage I just posted the collapse of building 7. It is mentioned in this blog that building 7 collapsed in 18 seconds. That is a COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE! Watch the building come down and time it with a stop watch if you want. The building comes down in 7 seconds. It begins collapsing at 16 seconds into the video and completes it's collapse at 23 seconds when the video ends. That is a total of 7 seconds. Even if you added an additional 2 or 3 seconds to it it's still only 10 seconds. The 18 second claim is a deliberate lie and attempt at misinformation to try and trick the people of this country (or at least those who read this blog) into believing that 9/11 was what the government claimed it was, an act of terrorists from an Islamic land based on religious differences. What a crock.

7) It is mentioned in this blog that there were structures that were farther away from building 7 that received structural damage as well. Again I will ask, if all buildings that receive structural damge from the collapse of the towers are supposed to collapse, then why didn't they? And why has a steel structural building never collapsed before 9/11 or after due to fires or structural damage? The Millenium Hilton hotel that was directly accross the street from the South Tower had debris fall directly on top of it and all around it. It contained limited amounts of damage true but it did not collapse not to mention a number of other buildings damaged by the tower's collapse that did not themselves collapse. Only buildings owned by Larry Silverstein collapsed that day or were damaged beyond repair. Coincidence? I think not.

In my opinion the "Screw Loose Change" crew are either part of the globalist propaganda media, unable to accept the truth or just plain ignorant. You decide. But don't buy this propaganda garbage they are trying to spew to you. It's just as sad as the official 9/11 Commission Report which by the way DID NOT EVEN MENTION the collapse of WTC 7.

Regards,
H. N. Stone

 
At 23 August, 2006 16:59, Blogger stevenwarran said...

I’ve been studying this for a while now, and I’ve never seen that photo credited to the New York City Police Department, 2001 All Rights Reserved before, the one looking down at WTC#7 with a whole corner of the building’s base gouged out, and with all that purple spectral light surrounding it. It sure looks Photoshopped to me, and if it is faked, it would constitute a smoking gun implicating your side of the debate, and be a real stupid mistake on such an obviously well-funded web effort.

 
At 24 August, 2006 23:56, Blogger fraser24gt said...

After reading some of these comments by Jack and insidejob, I couldn't help but add my own two cents. I am a Mechanical Engineering major at Georgia Tech. I have taken 2 physics courses, statics (determining forces in trusses, frames, etc.), deformable bodies (has to do with failure and stresses), materials science (deals with atomic structure and design considerations when using different materials), heat transfer, thermodynamics, dynamics of rigid bodies, etc. All I can say is that their arguments are obviously flawed beyond practical reason. I wish people like you would come on campus and preach this stuff because people would just laugh at you. It is so hard to actually take you seriously. If you are going to weigh in on topics like failure of steel beams, at least have enough sense to do some basic research. I can tell you that fire does indeed weaken steel. *GASP* And no, I don't mean fire at "melting temperatures." You have to take into account the loadings on the beam itself in addition to the added heat. Even then, to do a true analysis would require considering any kind of structural damage from impact of the planes.

Try this experiment to help you understand what really happened:

1) uncurl and straighten a paperclip and bend it or twist it a few times to simulate any kind of impact damage (weakening of the beam).
2) place the paperclip in two clamps (on either side) and apply generous force. Realistically, you can't apply enough force by hand, but try your best.
3) turn on a heat source (grill, stove, or something else that produces considerable heat).

Tell me if the paperclip retains its original properties. WOW! You just disproved your own theories in your own home!

 
At 28 August, 2006 23:51, Blogger Pat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 28 August, 2006 23:56, Blogger Pat said...

Stone, to refute your points in the order presented:

1. WTC 7 did not fall from one cause but from two--debris damage and fire. The fire was particularly devastating, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that was pumped to the building when the power went out.

2. Damage to the Verizon Building shown was on the east face of that building, i.e., the side that the WTC 7 would have hit, but that WTC 1 would be unlikely to, except a glancing blow. 30 West Broadway was likewise damaged on the side facing WTC 7. WTC 7 did generally fall to the south (the weak side) but it was not into its own footprint.

3. Silverstein did not OWN the WTC except for WTC 7. He owned a leasehold interest in WTC 1-6, which is not quite the same thing.

4. Nonsense, it was well-reported that he received about $861 million in insurance money for WTC 7. If you can present evidence that the amount awarded was $2.2 billion I'd be very impressed, but I don't expect it to happen.

5. I know about the video. It's in the post. That's all you're left with, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. Read the post before replying.

6. Read Judy Wood's billiard ball analogy. Read the 9-11 Commission Report. Check the seismic record. All sources give 18 seconds or so as the time of collapse.

7. What about Deutsche Bank, finally slated for demolition? What about St. Nicholas' church? Nobody says that every building that was close to the WTC was destroyed, but a hell of a lot more of them were destroyed or heavily damaged than you think.

 
At 02 September, 2006 13:29, Blogger mp3hound said...

Great work, SLC!

 
At 06 September, 2006 12:39, Blogger stevenwarran said...

Hi-- I just noticed, the photo credited to the New York City Police Department, 2001 All Rights Reserved, the one looking down at WTC#7 with a whole corner of the building’s base gouged out, that is the south-east corner, not the SW as marked, and it then doesn't correspond to steve spak's photo, or your diagram. Perhaps the police printed the negative in mirror image, but I'm just trying to be charitable. Best...

 
At 08 September, 2006 11:34, Blogger jjamieson said...

One comment I find funny, and I see repeated all the time: "Well, how come the building fell so suddenly?"

Umm. Hmm. Well, how do you suppose a building should fall down? Do you think each floor should drop on top of one another like the video game BurgerTime?

These buildings are a big scructure of interconnected steel and concrete. If the building is going to fall, it will fall on itself. It won't tip over because the rest of the steel and other material holds it back. So, the collapse happens inwards, which pulls down the rest of the building in a chain reaction.

As soon as something significant enough gives out, the entire structure will fall and it will fall into itself.

I don't see how that's a difficult thing to understand, even for a layperson.

 
At 10 September, 2006 22:10, Blogger john williams said...

I'd like to respond to the comment about what rights have you lost since 911?

All of us have lost the right to look at formerly publicly available right-to-know information about what toxic and cancer-causing chemicals are being stored at the factory across the street, and to see whether that factory has an adequate response plan in case of a fire or explosion.

My buddies lost the right to sail a boat in public waters, without being stopped by the local sheriff, to see whether a pulp mill will discharging excessive amounts of water pollution.

My friend lost the right to send a letter complaining about an obnoxious development project, without being visited by an FBI agent.

 
At 10 September, 2006 22:14, Blogger john williams said...

Some one asked what rights we have lost since 911.

We have lost the right to look at previously public "Risk Management Plans" that told us what kinds of cancer-causing chemicals are being stored at the factory down the street.

My buddies got stopped by the sheriff after they sailed a boat past a paper mill where they discovered the mill's illegal water pollution.

A friend of mine get visited by the FBI after he sent in a letter critical about a commercial development.

 
At 11 September, 2006 04:46, Blogger The Parallax View said...

That was f@#king INCREDIBLE!! I certainly am impressed with that Herculean effort. You really "debunked" the crap out of that myth. You have restored my faith in the veracity of our government's conduct. Besides, every sane and reasonably well-read individual knows that if there were any irregularities surrounding the events of 911, the "relentless" media of ours would have surely reported it. A truly stultifying piece of work you have produced! If you please excuse me, my head is now going to explode.



"What is it that men cannot be made to believe?"~Thomas Jefferson

 
At 17 September, 2006 20:56, Blogger austinobserver said...

Its amazing to see people from both sides, but predominantly from the anti-conspiracy crowd use childish attacks. Also, someone makes a point, from either side, and the opposition doesnt even address the point directly.

"What was Bush supposed to do? Jump into a telephone booth and come out flying in his superhero costume?"

What kind of response is this? Does the poster even think that is what people expected?

"Oooook buddy. That's enough beer for you. Time to go home."

What kind of response is this too? At least give a reason why the idea is wrong other than you think its cooky... Why do you think its cooky? Any real reason? And dont just say that sounds dumb or crazy. Why does it? Agree or not, give a reason behind the statement.

"All that's proven is that Marvin Bush is related to George W. Bush. The implication of guilt by association is nothing but vapor."

Well ordinarily I would agree with this assessment, especially with the Paul O'Neill association. I laughed at that one. However, the association in this regard is more than trivial. George is the president. His cousin was in charge of security in the buildings that collapsed. Once again its an idle and weak comeback that does little to add to the debate.

There are some good points by both sides and both sides dodge points by the other, but the name calling and saying "ook whatever" gets old as well. It sounds like you dont have any real response. And just saying its a fallacy or its been debunked has lost meaning. You gotta support it.

One question that must be asked is who stands to gain from all of this? What events have happened since the attack and who has benefitted from those events? Who has made money off of this? These are important questions. Who was accused? Why were they accused? Who was attacked and why? Did the reasons fit the actions?

 
At 17 September, 2006 22:36, Blogger s101comment said...

Lack of Motive for WTC 7 great evidence that CT for Towers is wrong.

Not many people know about WTC 7 because in the grand scheme of things, it didn't matter.

Remove WTC 7 entirely from the events of September 11 and the impact of the destruction of the twin towers and the pentagon would not be lessened by one iota.

Think about it. You've decided to destroy the twin towers by explosives and you say ... oh, by the way, let's also destroy WTC 7 even though no one cares about that building?

We're going to time the collapse of the building so that it occurs many hours after the towers come down. That way no one will die from the collapse.


Does that make any sense?

As for claims that Larry Silverstein was involved, there's zero evidence or logic behind this.
WTC 7 wasn't really part of the WTC. Silverstein bought the land and put up the building in 1987. It wasn't part of the WTC lease.

As for any claims that Silverstein made a profit on the insurance on this building --- which was totally separate from the WTC insurance, I don't think there's the slightest amount of evidence for this.

As for the tenants, there were a number of government tenants --- so the CT would have to include the possible gratuitous killng of these people. And as for any important records in the building, since the building didn't come down for hours, presumably some of the most sensitive may have been rescued.

So, if there is zero motive for WTC 7 then this helps make clear that the collapse of WTC 7 was the result of impact and fire. So large steel buildings can be destroyed by sufficient impact and fire.

And if WTC 7 collapsed this way, then why can't the towers?

Contrary to the CT claims, the collapse of WTC 7 is very strong evidence that the towers didn't collapse due to explosives or laser beams or death rays.

 
At 18 September, 2006 06:57, Blogger stevenwarran said...

The interview with Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22 does provide damn good evidence of major structural damage to Building #7, and it even supports "pull it" to reference pulling the firefighting operation. It's just unfortunate for Screwers that it front loads with this juicy tidbit:

"We were there, I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow
up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody
just said run...."

Oh well, nothing's perfect.

 
At 18 September, 2006 08:59, Blogger stevenwarran said...

A great 20-minute radio interview with Devon Coburg, a 9/11 editor at Popular Mechanics, is on "The Charles Goyette Show." Mr. Coburg mentions the photographic evidence credited to the NYC Police Department, showing structural damage to WTC #7, saying that while PM editors were allowed to see the evidence, they were not allowed to publish it, which sounds strange. I’m glad you acquired a copy of at least one picture, however unclear the details. Are there more photos of WTC #7, and could you post them as a public service please?

 
At 26 September, 2006 23:16, Blogger Pat said...

Stevewarran, I'm not holding back any cards here. These are the photos I could find other than the one linked to at Debunking911, which I'm respecting his right to an exclusive on.

As for the explosion there were several; I have seen the short video of the firemen calling their families, with the rather dramatic and loud explosion. I suspect a transformer in that particular instance.

 
At 28 December, 2006 21:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets not forget that the term "Pull"
has nothing to do with explosive demolition. It's a so called "term" made up by the conspiracy theorist. They literally Pulled this one out of their asses.

In fact if you look at info on building implosions written before all the truthers hype you will see the proper term use in the implosion industry is...DROP. These people knock out the legs out from under a building and let it DROP.

You can not find any reference to "Pull" being synonymous with controlled explosive demolition BEFORE 9/11. NONE.

Now if Silverstein has said "Drop It" you may have something.

 
At 28 December, 2006 21:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that people heard "explosions" from a building that was falling apart from the inside is no big surprise.

As structural steel heats and expands or bends rivets and bolts will fail. welds will pop. This is big stuff here and it will make lots of noise, explosive noise.

Ever hear a car crash? Sounds like a bomb going off but no explosive there either.

 
At 01 January, 2007 10:10, Blogger muckers said...

^^^ +1

Not to mention the fact that the building was on fire.

Fires aren't quiet affairs, as any firefighter will tell you.

The assumption of 'sounds of explosions = bombs' is infuriating to say the least.

 
At 24 January, 2007 22:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did I miss something? What about the PBS vidoe of Larry Steinberg admitting he "pulled the building"(WTC7?
http://www.pullitlarry.com/

 
At 24 January, 2007 22:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops..I meant Silverstein-Larry Silverstein.

 
At 18 April, 2007 10:37, Blogger kensmindmovie said...

You say there is damage to the south side? You then show a NIST photo showing a scoop to a corner. However, other photos taken that day show NO SCOOP. I believe the NIST photo is photoshopped to support a lie. Sort of like the lie that DEVOUT Muslims were found getting drunk in a strip bar... before going off to meet their maker... an obvious lie about Muslims. If there's one lie, why not two, why not three and some photoshop? The lies begin to pile up. Lies about cool fire temps being able to "weaken" hardened steel in hours. Lies about no motive and yet we all know money and power ARE a motive, especially in light of Operation Northwoods, which suggests the government carry out fake terrorist attacks and then LIE TO US. So give me a bit of authenticity. Why is the NIST photo NOT photoshopped? Why is the new video of this gash NOT a work of digital trickery? If all you have is your word and the word of the government, who already have been caught in numerous lies then aren't you just someone gullible enough to believe this round of lies?

 
At 24 June, 2007 21:30, Blogger MAGNET32 said...

If it was damaged on the lower side as you illustrate in that simulation then logically wouldn't it have fallen to the side instead of directly down into the path of MOST resistance as is seen time and again in demolitions..?? Why does it not seem odd to you that the building fell in this manner? Is anyone who thinks that it fell for unknown reason(s) and would want it seriously investigated and corroborated a "NUT"? Also if you're theory is so sound, why didn't you give the 911 whitewash.. I mean the 911 commission the evidence? what do you know that they don't?
The commission stated in their report that it fell for unknown reasons...and that even their best summations were UNPROBABLE??

 
At 24 June, 2007 21:31, Blogger MAGNET32 said...

Hey, I have a question. If it was damaged on the lower side as you illustrate in that simulation then logically wouldn't it have fallen to the side instead of directly down into the path of MOST resistance as is seen time and again in demolitions..?? Why does it not seem odd to you that the building fell in this manner? Is anyone who thinks that it fell for unknown reason(s) and would want it seriously investigated and corroborated a "NUT"? Also if you're theory is so sound, why didn't you give the 911 whitewash.. I mean the 911 commission the evidence? what do you know that they don't?
The commission stated in their report that it fell for unknown reasons...and that even their best summations were UNPROBABLE??

 
At 21 May, 2008 21:50, Blogger Geezer Power said...

Fox News shoots themselves in the foot with a smoking gun..G:

 
At 04 September, 2008 22:17, Blogger James said...

I like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for the time and expense you have devoted to this informative and interesting blog. Getting both sides of an issue is always helpful and many times vitally necessary if the truth is ever to be known.

Along this same line I have a question that would, for me anyway, and I'm sure many others, clear up this whole controversy once and for all.

I will attempt to keep this as simple and as short as possible.

Fact #1. The first WTC building hit was struck, more or less “head on”, by a large aircraft with lots of fuel.

Fact #2. The second WTC building was hit, more or less, at an angle, towards a corner of the building (demonstrated by the flames that shot out the other side of that corner) by a large aircraft with lots of fuel.

Fact #3. WTC 7, a building that in no way resembling the first 2 buildings in architecture or engineering, was damaged by debris and fire thrown off when the first 2 buildings fell.

Fact #4. WTC 1, 2 & 7 fell into their own footprint.

Conclusion: Hurling enough flaming debris, with sufficient force, into most any concrete & steel building in the New York area, will cause that building to eventually fall into it's own footprint.

Please, take a few minutes and straighten this out. I'm sure that after u post the links to the dozens of other building that have fallen in this matter we can stop hearing about all this left-wing conspiracy crap and move on with our lives.

BTW, those folks that were asking u about the “odds” on something like this occurring. I looked it up, and your absolutely right. Odds only work for things in the future. So, let me re-phrase.

The governments explanation is fraught with cover-ups, lies, inconsistencies, scientific improbabilities, dozens of coincidences, 1,000's of ignored questions and ten's of millions of disbelievers.

On the other hand u have folks that can think for themselves, that know a little bit about our history, are familiar with the governments overriding imperative: That the ends always justify the means. They understand that this was their government doing what it is they do best.....

So, what are the odds you guys can take the white house & continue the neocon agenda without murdering thousands more men, woman and children on the US Homeland?

 
At 05 March, 2009 05:59, Blogger DaveG said...

alright, listen folks... in the so-called "kook" sites you mention, they tend not to refer to their opposition as being "retarded", such derissions are childish... What makes this site so legitamate that it can't fall under the label of "kook site" itself? I've noticed that *the most convincing arguements* are gleened over- such arguements include, but are not limited to: The haet at which hardened structural steel melts vs. the temperatures at which both jet-fuel and deisel burn, the *facts* that many buildings of a lesser-quality design have withstood raging top-to-bottom infernos that decimated the building in total- and *still survived and were able to be rebuilt using the ORIGINAL STILL-STANDING STEEL FRAME!*, and this pages comments about the narrative in 'Loose Change' being "snippy" is entirely hypocritical considering that you routinely refer to 9-11 truthers in highly derogatory and insulting terms either through insinuations like "Loosers" (losers) or directly by just calling them nuts, kooks, etc... you'll kindly notice that most REAL 9/11 truthers do NOT use such derissions when refering to skeptics because we want to win their minds through FACTS rather than through *intimidation*... thanx for your time, have fun with your derivative Grade School counter-comments to my post ; )

 
At 01 June, 2009 13:06, Blogger James said...

Yay! War!

 
At 01 June, 2009 13:07, Blogger James said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2009 19:26, Blogger huyuni said...

A study last yearnike tn, the author in the essay read NIKE , a reporter at the Shanghai headquarters in an interview, nike chaussuressee a pr in high school to read a league plans, employees interviewed told reporters in Beijing's streets, they children to interview, the children said, "truly understand them." tn chaussures These words, if the author touches product function, brand spirit and culture is to become part of the consumer of two basic methods

 
At 09 July, 2009 19:28, Blogger huyuni said...

Charlestoncheap columbia jackets. turned a pair of double plays to do the trick. spyder jacketsThe had at least one runner on in every inning but the first and outhit the RiverDogs by a 12-6 margin Lawal should be a focal point of the Yellow cheap polo shirts along with highly touted newcomer, 6-9 Derrick Favors, rated as the No. 1 power forward on the ESPNU 100. The Yellow Jackets

 
At 09 July, 2009 19:28, Blogger huyuni said...

Cheap Brand Jeans ShopMen Jeans - True Religion Jeans, burberry polo shirtsGUCCI Jeans, Levi's Jeans, D&G Jeans, RED MONKEY Jeans, Cheap JeansArmani Jeans, Diesel Jeans, Ed hardy Jeans, Evisu Jeans, Women JeansJack&Jones Jeans...Lacoste Polo Shirts, , Burberry Polo Shirts.wholesale Lacoste polo shirts and cheap polo shirtswith great price. clothingol.com offers lot of 10 lacoste polo shirts and lot of 20 cheap polo shirts. clothingol.com offers classic fit polo shirts. polo clothing

 
At 09 July, 2009 19:29, Blogger huyuni said...

nike shoes & Puma Shoes Online- tn nike,puma shoes,puma cat, baskets cheap nike shox, air max.cheap nike shox r4 torch, cheap nike air, nike running shoes air max, puma speed and more. Paypal payment.nike running shoes Enjoy your shopping experience on Nike & Puma Shoes Online Store.

 
At 21 August, 2009 22:20, Blogger Sheldon said...

Had Privilege to listen to Craig presentation as to why it wasn't explosives OR thermite/thermate.

Amongst reasons, NO, none explosive type injury to ANYONE. No explosive type damage to ANYTHING. Thermite/thermate doesn't work because analyzed samples did not have any type of oxidizer.

But back to WTC 7. Afterward, had discussion of one of my favorites with some CTers.

What's the motive that links WTC1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. CTers didn't seem to understand.

There has to be a single motive for controlled demolition of all 3 buildings. You've got to pick a primary target.

If WTC1 and/or WTC2 or specific people/offices in WTC 1 and/or WTC 2 real target, why bother with WTC 7?

If WTC7 or people/offices in WTC 7 then why bother with WTC1 and WTC7?
This one could be we want to hide that our primary target is WTC 7.
But that's an extraordinary amount of work to do.

It's possible there was a common motive for all 3 buildings -- but I've never heard of one.


The reason WTC7 is important to CTers is this: If WTC 7 isn't demolition then there's proof that at least one building can be brought down by physical damage and fire.

 
At 14 September, 2009 01:28, Blogger poston said...

http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-natural-crystal-wholesale-18_961 crystal jewelry
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-natural-crystal-wholesale-18_961 wholesale crystal jewelry
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-jewelry-wholesale-18 wholesale jewelry
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-jewelry-wholesale-18 jewelry wholesale
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-jewelry-wholesale-18 cheap jewelry
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-gemstone-jewelry-wholesale-18_1016 wholesale gemstone jewelry
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-natural-crystal-wholesale-18_961 crystal wholesale
http://www.crazypurchase.com/cheap-natural-crystal-wholesale-18_961 rock crystal

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home