Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A New Theory on WTC 7?

I have to admit I hadn't heard this one before:

While in flight they were informed of the second hijacked plane heading toward New York City. In an interview with ABC News (9/11/2002) Duffy said they flew at supersonic speed. At this rate they could have flown the distance from Otis to New York City in 10 to 12 minutes -- in time to intercept Flight 175. A near interception of the second plane at 9:03 as it was crashing into the South Tower is the best explanation for what happened that day. The fighters fired their missiles -- seconds too late -- hitting the southern face of World Trade Center 7 and the open parking area northwest of the Twin Towers.


Of course this theory ignores that there was no authority to shoot down planes at the time, that nobody saw fighter planes in the vicinity, that nobody died from a missile being fired into WTC 7... you know, all the details that would support this loony conspiracy theory.

82 Comments:

At 24 January, 2007 10:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Well when the government doesn't know, everything is open to possiblity.

But yes, this is perhaps the worst theory yet. Just a tad more crazy than fire and damage causing a complete collapse.

 
At 24 January, 2007 10:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well when the government doesn't know, everything is open to possiblity."


Well when a conspiracy theorist doesn't know, everything is pulled from their ass.

 
At 24 January, 2007 11:16, Blogger James B. said...

Too... stupid... for... words.... brain freezing up... reading this.... can't go on....

 
At 24 January, 2007 11:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why in the heck do you even take tne time to post these crazy ideas?

 
At 24 January, 2007 11:31, Blogger James B. said...

BG, you are right, we should stop posting all of these crazy ideas like thermite,drones, cruise missiles, fake plane crashes, star wars death beams, buildings falliing faster than gravity, massive Jewis conspiracies etc.

Oh great, that leaves us absolutely nothing to say about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Great, you just ruined our blog. Thanks alot.

 
At 24 January, 2007 11:50, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Dam you BG!

 
At 24 January, 2007 12:10, Blogger Dog Town said...

Why in the heck do you even take tne time to post these crazy ideas?

So close, to being on topic!

 
At 24 January, 2007 12:33, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

any theories on what kind of explosive brought down WTC7?

Remember - it's gotta be a quiet one.

 
At 24 January, 2007 12:39, Blogger CHF said...

Note the link: nationalvanguard.org

Why do these neo-Nazi sites keep popping up in Twoofer land?

I know Twoofers don't believe in coincidences, so...

 
At 24 January, 2007 12:43, Blogger 911coverup said...

BG,

Because it helps their cause...

 
At 24 January, 2007 12:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice attempt to trash all WTC7 questions with a ridiculous theory. Nothing new i guess. Keep trying dude.

 
At 24 January, 2007 13:05, Blogger apathoid said...

Why in the heck do you even take tne time to post these crazy ideas?

bg - When debunking 9/11 Truthiness, there is truly no need to create a strawman argument. You people come up with the most insane, idiotic theories all by your selves. If you want to stop being mocked and laughed at:

- quit the Trooof movement and accept reality.
- start weeding out the Fetzers, Jones, Woods, Bowmans, etc, etc, etc...of your movement and at least try to come up with a few coherent, non-mutually exclusive theories that can pass a laugh test.

Until then, any of your movements concentated idiocy is fair game.

 
At 24 January, 2007 13:05, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Worse yet, if a plane fires a missile there would be a record of it. And the pilot would have to account for going up with, say, 4 missiles and coming back with only 3.

Plus, we have not one eyewitness who says, "I saw a military jet fire a missile at one of the WTC flights."

You would think, in NYC, such an event would be witnessed by at least one person. Just one!

 
At 24 January, 2007 13:06, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Nice attempt to trash all WTC7 questions with a ridiculous theory.

The point is that ALL questions about WTC7 are ridiculous theories!

The best one is this missile thingy. I almost spilled my coffee over that one.

 
At 24 January, 2007 14:45, Blogger Richard said...

What a stupid theory. Everyone knows that nanosupertermites were dropped onto ground zero from a B-25. After destroying the buildings the microscopic supertermites aggravated the lungs of workers at ground zero making them sick. This is not up for debate.

 
At 24 January, 2007 14:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who have their doubts about the fighters over NYC take a look at this: flight controller Bob Varcapada claims two F-15s were over NYC moments after the second plane hit WTC 2.

The skies over America:
The air traffic controllers on 9/11 saw the nightmare coming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/

 
At 24 January, 2007 14:53, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man are your sure it wasn't the sonic booms that brought it down?

Hey, like I'm just asking questions.

Hey, what do you call three guys that live in the same house in Oneonta, and make stuff up?

Dylan, Jason, and Korey of course

 
At 24 January, 2007 15:40, Blogger Stevew said...

NEADS promptly ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base, about 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.
At NEADS, the reported hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding General of the First Air Force and the Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold instructed Marr “to go ahead and scramble the airplanes, and we’d get permission later.” General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.
F-15 fighters were ordered scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft: “I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination.” Because the hijackers had turned off the plane’s transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the elusive primary radar return. American 11 impacted the World Trade Center’s North Tower at 8:46:40. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate American 11, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.
Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military air space to “hold as needed.” From 9:08 to 9:13, the Otis fighters were in this holding pattern.
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it impacted the north tower. The nine minutes notice was the most the military would receive that morning of any of the four hijackings.

 
At 24 January, 2007 15:41, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Why in the heck do you even take tne time to post these crazy ideas?

We ask the same question about you on a regular basis.

 
At 24 January, 2007 15:46, Blogger Manny said...

For those who have their doubts about the fighters over NYC take a look at this: flight controller Bob Varcapada claims two F-15s were over NYC moments after the second plane hit WTC 2.

Yes. Piloted by Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy and Maj. Daniel Nash. Which of them would you like to libel today?

 
At 24 January, 2007 15:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And he claims this happened as the second plane hit the second tower?

...when the whole of the U.S. was tuned in to the numerous stations covering the even live?

...and there's no video of this?

Hah!

 
At 24 January, 2007 16:05, Blogger Alex said...

any theories on what kind of explosive brought down WTC7?

Remember - it's gotta be a quiet one.


It was midgets with brown paper bags.

Plus, we have not one eyewitness who says, "I saw a military jet fire a missile at one of the WTC flights."

You would think, in NYC, such an event would be witnessed by at least one person. Just one!


They were stealth planes ofcourse. From area 51. With stealth missiles. Ones with midgets inside of them. With brown paper bags.

What a stupid theory. Everyone knows that nanosupertermites were dropped onto ground zero from a B-25.

Wasn't it a B-52?

With midgets?

And .... oh forget it.

 
At 24 January, 2007 19:50, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

ok swing:

I believe the NIST report, the Interim Report on WTC7.

Please give me an explanation of what you feel happened to WTC7, and the evidence to back it up (I use the NIST report and the implosionworld article as two pieces of evidence for why I believe the official story).

TAM:)

 
At 25 January, 2007 05:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

It was midgets with brown paper bags.


Have you heard the explosion from WTC 7?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
3M47EakvagQ

And again, why did it collapse, yet buildings across the street from 1 and 2 remain standing?

Keep denying fellas!


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [”official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

 
At 25 January, 2007 06:36, Blogger Stevew said...

They stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators and burned for 7hrs under the main load bearing supports.
The other buildings did not have as much damage or a 7 hr inferno. There does not need to be another investigation, only the whaks believe this

 
At 25 January, 2007 07:09, Blogger Gdem2408 said...

Oh yeah little concrete building WTC6 between WTC1 and WTC7 was heavilly damaged, and so was WTC7. "on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building"
Why were firemen pulled out WTC7 in the afternoon ? They couldn't contain the fires and they fear it collapse.
WTC7 was so heavilly damaged, even if it didn't collapsed, they had to destroy it like WTC6.
Waow ! The whole conspiracy theory is now based on that stupid empty WTC7 ! Great job kids.

 
At 25 January, 2007 07:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just so you know, Adri wrote in again today....but so did I!

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/01/25/70454

 
At 25 January, 2007 07:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

More from those raskly midgets making sounds:

Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”

Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01)

Those dam midgets with their paper bags! Someone round 'em up so they stop causing buidlings to collapse!

 
At 25 January, 2007 08:00, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The other buildings did not have as much damage or a 7 hr inferno.

Are you fucking kidding me? Go do your research boy-oh.

 
At 25 January, 2007 08:13, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Oh yeah little concrete building WTC6 between WTC1 and WTC7 was heavilly damaged, and so was WTC7. "on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building"

Please don't compare WTC 7's damage with WTC 6. There is no comparison. Now go do your research boy-oh.

 
At 25 January, 2007 08:29, Blogger Alex said...

Boy-oh? What's that, your new attempt at an insult? That's the best you could come up with?

Find any pictures of those explosive charges yet? Or maybe a video on which you can hear the explosions? Hey, I'm just asking questions!

 
At 25 January, 2007 08:53, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No, no insults needed.

More videos, CNN this time...

http://www.medievalhistory.net/
wtc7blow.wmv

 
At 25 January, 2007 08:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Here is pretty loud one prior to the CD of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

 
At 25 January, 2007 09:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Lets see what the structural engineeer said about his building, WTC 7:

The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

 
At 25 January, 2007 09:37, Blogger Stevew said...

Sd you are bat shit. Of course others were damaged but not as much as 7 when you consider that the damage contributed to the colapse and the fire right under the main truss assy that supports the building. The others were also smaller and the hole in the top of 6 would not likely lead to a collapse

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
History channel had a doc on how # 7 was built, if you have not seen it then all you can do is speculate as usual

 
At 25 January, 2007 09:56, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Hi Tam !

Excellent question. I believe WTC collapsed as a result of an controlled demolition.
I believe that based upon

1. Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building stated the fuel did not cause the collapse.

2. The numerous video's presented in the above posts describing the explosion heard.

3. The numerous first responders who were told the building was going to come down and that it was going to 'blow up'.

4. The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:

It “dropped nearly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;
It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;
“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”, squibs near the top.
“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and
“WTC 7’s rubble was mostly confined to the block on which the building stood.”

5. FEMA and WTC 7: What did the government do to investigate the unprecedented collapse of a steel frame building from fires? It gave FEMA the sole discretion to investigate the collapse, even though FEMA is not an investigative agency.
A BPAT volunteer diligently measures a piece of steel that that FEMA allowed to pass to the Fresh Kills landfill rather than directly to the blast furnaces.

FEMA assembled a team of volunteer engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), to write the World Trade Center Building Performance Study . The engineers were not granted access to the site of the catastrophe. Rather, they were allowed to pick through some pieces of metal that arrived at the Fresh Kills landfill. Most of the steel was never seen by the part-time investigators. It had been sold to scrap metal vendors, and was being shipped out to overseas ports as quickly as the newly constructed infrastructure could handle.

The FEMA/ASCE investigation was not funded by an act of Congress, and given a paultry $600,000 by FEMA. A March 2002 hearing transcript revealed that, just two month before publishing it's final report the BPAT still had not been able to see blueprints for WTC 7 or the Twin Towers since they lacked subpoena power. That alone makes it rather difficult to disprove a controlled demolition scenario.

FEMA's BPAT, the only official organization that reported on Building 7's collapse within two years of the attack, published their Final Report in May of 2002, just after the last building remains had been scrubbed from Ground Zero. The Report was completely indecisive about the cause of Building 7's collapse. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

6. NIST's explanation would have us believe that the failure of a single column near ground level led, first to a vertical progression of failures, causing the collapse of the East Penthouse, followed by a horizontal progression of failures leading the the collapse of all of the building's 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse.
In other words, NIST asserts that WTC 7 collapsed like a house of cards. Source: Project 6: WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. See the initating event slides.

7. Ruble Pile:
A. Its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
B. Its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
C. 48 its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building

What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?
Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features.
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.

8.Virtual media blackout surrounding WTC 7. Why the blackout if it wasn't a controlled demoliton scenario? Especially since only 1 person was killed in that tragedy.
It is amazing that the public heard very little of WTC 7 considering what happened a few hours prior. Treament of indviduals interviewed by the media who have attempted to replay the collapse on live television but were prevented from doing so. Almost 6 years later, a construction engineer from Purdue had never heard about WTC 7 as well as several of my other co-workers.

9. Granted this experiment did not consider minimal damage to the structure (compared with buildings closer to 1 and 2):

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500º C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360º C.Source: http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm

10. At the very least the NIST is considering blast scenarios. Have they carried out that research? To be honest, I have no idea yet. But you would think they would considering they now have the collapses 'like a house of cards' hypothesis to work with.

11. Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:
"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."
"This is controlled demolition."
"A team of experts did this."
"This is professional work, without any doubt."
(And for deniers, the date, name, and location of the building have nothing to do with his professional opinion-his reaction is amazing after being told the name of the building. Too bad all experts could not be presented with the evidence in that fashion. That way all pre-conceieved ideas can be tossed out the window.)

12. Tam, both of our positions are relying on a hypothesis. Until one is completely proven wrong, and one is completely proven right we will have to wait. Remember ignoring evidence of a blast scenario doesn't not prove a blast scenario wrong.

 
At 25 January, 2007 09:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew Are you referring to the storage tank fire or pipe fire?

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:04, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.

But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.

Source: New York Times
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
November 29, 2001
By JAMES GLANZ

Steve batshit w didn't the history channel also have a documentary on the WTC collapsed where all the floors pancaked and strangely enough the core still stood?

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:16, Blogger Stevew said...

Believe all the fantisy you wish there is no Cd company that agrees with you and you have yet to provide a shread of proof to back it up. How mnay CD companies do you have that agree with you? It is so easy for creeps like you to throw out shit like you do when nothing like this has ever happened before
and there are no benchmarks to use as a guide.
Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. This is what you do and you have yet to give one qualification that would let us believe that you are nothing but a blowhard that asks the same stupid questions that have no relivence.

Firefighters knew it was going to collapse because the WTC7 was giving off signs. This is why no one died and there is hardly any media footage or photography on WTC7. "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon,
World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

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." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous.
There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:23, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew Does that make you a blow hard as well?

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:30, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew-this is why no one died and there is hardly any media footage or photography on WTC7.

Liar alert!

Master Special Officer Craig Miller, look that up ya blow hard denier liar!

Stop lying! How can we trust anything you say when you spout lies to support your blow hard comments?
That makes you no better than the President.

I ought not even respond to you, but I have to correct your lies for the readers of this blog.

And again, before you respond to be, do your research, boy-oh.

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:35, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Lets not forget the evaporated steel found there as well..

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

From the same NYTimes article above.

And why did that pile smoke and smolder for months and register hotter than disel fuel and office materials burn according to the satellite photography?

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:46, Blogger Manny said...

Master Special Officer Craig Miller, look that up ya blow hard denier liar!

You are seriously the dumbest motherfucker on the planet. Officer Miller, whose name little shitstains like you should not even be allowed to type, died in the collapse of the main towers during rescue efforts. There were no fatalities as a result of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.

 
At 25 January, 2007 10:58, Blogger Stevew said...

Good god sd
You have been proven wrong so many times it is amazing you can keep all your crap straight.You might concider doing your socalled research with both your open instead of just your left. You just bantrer on and never address anything I or anybody says. Your just in your loop with quotes that have been debunked over and over. Nowhere has there been a claim of evaporated steel, that is just BS propagated by idiots like you and the rest of you whaks and has been totally debunked by the top 2 CD companies. The smoldering has been explained many times, you are the one who should do a little research.
There has never been molten steel in any building demolition because the charges are hi explosives. The force and heat are directed to the girder and disapate quickly. Now they say it was thermite but never say how or when it was planted or why it is never used in building demolition. Thermite burns hot and would have had little effect on the colapse because explosive demolition happens very fast. Thermite is just a buzzword for the whaks because they think it sounds impressive.

Thermite leaves a trace and cools off quickly. It would've been found at day 1.
I love the pik of the core girder that was cut with torches and the cutting residue was clearly shown. The whaks say it was done with thermite as part of the CD. If you look at the girder, it would have had to of had charges on bothsides and a hole in the middle to weaken as is done on all large girders. There were something like 47 in the core. How could this be done and nobody notice? Were the core girders exposed or covered up? Why were these socalled explosives placed on different levels? How did the planes hit the exact spot where they were suposidly planted?
Back up your crap with facts and not opinion. You have yet to prove anything i have said wrong with anything more than your opinion or that of someone elses, no hard facts. I don't give a rats ass if you respond or not, you make yourself look the fool all by yourself.

 
At 25 January, 2007 11:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Manny...shut the fuck up

Craig Miller-

More Than Human: The Network is More Than the Sum of its Parts when Disaster Hits

"Bob Weaver, the Assistant Special Agent in charge of the US Secret Service New York Field Office, which includes the Electronic Crimes Task Force, has been practicing for a long time.

The Secret Service offices were on the 9th and 10th floors of 7 World Trade Center, one of several buildings in the WTC concourse, connected to the complex at the base of the north tower so their windows faced the front of the WTC and looked up at the north tower.

“It was totally unexpected, of course, a complete surprise when it happened. We evacuated – which is easy to say but not easy to do when there are 200-300 people in the building on your floors for whom you’re responsible. We needed to seek all of them out to be sure they left safely. That was a coordinated effort – it wasn’t just me, it was all of us, all of the agents in the office. Heroic things were done that day. Great responsibility was taken at great risk, at great sacrifice. We lost Craig Miller, an employee that we still can’t find. His body has never been recovered. People here are still grief-stricken.” Workshttp://www.thiemeworks.com/
write/archives/
MoreThanHuman.htm

"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building. Yet, despite the devastation, the New York Electronic Crime Task Force has stepped up its operations in credit card fraud and for Osama Bin Laden's money." - Ectaskforce

U.S. HOUSE HONORS CUSTOMS SERVICE, SECRET SERVICE FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE ON 9/11

"The House passed two resolutions today that honor the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Secret Service for their work on September 11th and in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

The resolution honoring the Secret Service notes the “extraordinary performance and commitment to service during and immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001" of the men and women of that agency. It notes that “the United States Secret Service New York field office located in 7 World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, as a result of terrorist attacks”; agents “throughout the day of the attacks and subsequent days...continually and knowingly placed themselves in exceptional danger in their efforts to save life”; and “in selfless dedication to others, Master Special Officer Craig Miller was lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center.” -U.S. House of Representatives

 
At 25 January, 2007 11:48, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew-Nowhere has there been a claim of evaporated steel, that is just BS propagated by idiots like you and the rest of you whaks and has been totally debunked by the top 2 CD companies.

Stevew-Shut the fuck up.

Source: New York Times
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
November 29, 2001
By JAMES GLANZ

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

Firefighters knew it was going to collapse because the WTC7 was giving off signs

So I should ignore firefighters when it comes to explosions at the WTC complex, but I should take it for fact that they are structural engineers who know when a building is about to collapse because of the noise it makes. You accept this but not their testimony regarding explosions?
SteveW-shut the fuck up.

So SteveW, your an expert in thermite and and how to cd a building?
Stevew-shut the fuck up.

 
At 25 January, 2007 12:00, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

dimon lazarus wrote:
Worse yet, if a plane fires a missile there would be a record of it. And the pilot would have to account for going up with, say, 4 missiles and coming back with only 3.

Hey, a government that make entire airliners disappear would have no trouble accounting for a measly missile or two!

The records of those missiles were probably stored on the WTC hard drives, or were in the 2 trillion dollars that the Pentagon lost!

[/CT mode]

 
At 25 January, 2007 12:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Swing, getting your back up quite a bit aren't you? I highly doubt typing "shut the fuck up" will stop anyone from posting on here.

Also, in one of your comments, you claimed to be makign corrections for the readers of this blog. Guess what? The overwhelming majority of us(I don't say all because I know BG loves your work) will never take your word for anything, because you rely on what we think is weak "evidence".

So, keep at it here, because I find your idiotic ramblings to be very amusing.

And I'll even write your response for you..."please don't comment unless you're going to contribute".

 
At 25 January, 2007 12:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Swing, getting your back up quite a bit aren't you? I highly doubt typing "shut the fuck up" will stop anyone from posting on here.

Also, in one of your comments, you claimed to be makign corrections for the readers of this blog. Guess what? The overwhelming majority of us(I don't say all because I know BG loves your work) will never take your word for anything, because you rely on what we think is weak "evidence".

So, keep at it here, because I find your idiotic ramblings to be very amusing.

And I'll even write your response for you..."please don't comment unless you're going to contribute".

 
At 25 January, 2007 12:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Yatesy, of course it won't. I reckon it as a 'slap in the face' gesture in cyberworld.

Two, the evidence, which I highly doubt anyone reads completely is from credible sources, be it the mainstream media, government, etc.
It is exactly those types of sources that lead people to question the offical story. Cause frankly, the official story on so many levels doesn't add up; is a sponge with so many holes, or is an outright lie.


The theories, however, I do point out as exactly that wether it is from team8 or from pilotsfor911truth.org.


I have never supported the beam weapons and no planes CGI stuff. And at one point did change my view on the Silverstein comment. So people can read my sources or ignore them, but they are from the historical record as primary source material.

I'm sad yatesay that you find the cause of death of nearly 3000 people and the reason for 10's of 1000's more to be amusing.

 
At 25 January, 2007 12:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Yatesy, of course it won't. I reckon it as a 'slap in the face' gesture in cyberworld.

Two, the evidence, which I highly doubt anyone reads completely is from credible sources, be it the mainstream media, government, etc.
It is exactly those types of sources that lead people to question the offical story. Cause frankly, the official story on so many levels doesn't add up; is a sponge with so many holes, or is an outright lie.


The theories, however, I do point out as exactly that wether it is from team8 or from pilotsfor911truth.org.


I have never supported the beam weapons and no planes CGI stuff. And at one point did change my view on the Silverstein comment. So people can read my sources or ignore them, but they are from the historical record as primary source material.

I'm sad yatesay that you find the cause of death of nearly 3000 people and the reason for 10's of 1000's more to be amusing.

 
At 25 January, 2007 12:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Sd most of your sources are from toofers, ours come from recognized experts, just because you dissagree with them does not make them false.
There were well over 300 experts in various fields. Now the whaks say the National Geographic, Popular Mechanics, national Geographic, Scientific American and others who have been around for a hunderd years or so and have been some of the primere publications for decades, all of a sudden are liers as well as the NIST, the society of civil engineers.


What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

 
At 25 January, 2007 13:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing-

I find your last comment to be the most amusing of all, because it points to how immature you are.

I'm sad yatesay that you find the cause of death of nearly 3000 people and the reason for 10's of 1000's more to be amusing.

I'm not even going to bother asking you how far up your ass you had to reach to pull that gem out.

I'll say it again, even though I really don't need to, I find YOU amusing. YOUR ramblings, YOUR theories, YOUR constant hinging on articles and sources that practice the exact same type of dishonesty that YOU claim the official story practices. YOU are no better than those you speak out against.

 
At 25 January, 2007 14:00, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

when are you gonna post a link to an engineering report explaining the demolition of WTC7?

This is only the 4th-5th time I've asked.

If you don't have one just be a man and say so.

Fucking coward.

 
At 25 January, 2007 15:40, Blogger Alex said...

He truly does live in his own little world.

 
At 25 January, 2007 16:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf:
"Swing,
when are you gonna post a link to an engineering report explaining the demolition of WTC7?"

well, chf, when are *you* or anyone else defending the official conspiracy going to post an engineering report explaining its 'collapse' ??
And no, sorry, that pile of crap by gravy doesnt count as an engineering report.

 
At 25 January, 2007 16:54, Blogger Richard said...

Burden of proof is on you high speed. If you haven't read the documents related to WTC 7 then your not much of a researcher are you? What, are you only marginally interested in the truth? You think our government killed 3,000 of its own citizens but your to lazy to read a report? I've got news for you. It doesn't matter how you feel about something, It's the evidence that matters.

 
At 25 January, 2007 17:04, Blogger apathoid said...

well, chf, when are *you* or anyone else defending the official conspiracy going to post an engineering report explaining its 'collapse' ??
And no, sorry, that pile of crap by gravy doesnt count as an engineering report.


WTC7 Interim Report

and a few others....

Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp

IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

The Towers Lost and Beyond

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi


Those are our experts, now where are yours?????

 
At 25 January, 2007 17:15, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


12. Tam, both of our positions are relying on a hypothesis. Until one is completely proven wrong, and one is completely proven right we will have to wait. Remember ignoring evidence of a blast scenario doesn't not prove a blast scenario wrong.


I agree. So if NIST comes out and says that the blast scenario is highly unlikely or improbable, and that their original hypothesis is still the most likely mechanism, will you then say it wasnt an inside job?

I Guarantee you this...If NISTs final report on WTC7 declares that the most likely mechanism of collapse of WTC7 involved the intentional use of explosives or blast devices, I will instantly admit that I was wrong on WTC7 and that someone had it come down on purpose. Why is it, i get the feeling that you will not do me the same courtesy if they do not.


TAM

 
At 25 January, 2007 17:32, Blogger Stevew said...

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
http:/scitation.aip.org/emo/

just a few more

 
At 26 January, 2007 02:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the artistic..:
"I agree. So if NIST comes out and says that the blast scenario is highly unlikely or improbable, and that their original hypothesis is still the most likely mechanism, will you then say it wasnt an inside job?"

Ah , ok, so at least you admit that your opinion is totally based on the NIST report, which you trust 100%.
NOT your own thinking and judgement. Ok, so be it.

 
At 26 January, 2007 02:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, quoted the wrong part. here it is:
"Guarantee you this...If NISTs final report on WTC7 declares that the most likely mechanism of collapse of WTC7 involved the intentional use of explosives or blast devices, I will instantly admit that I was wrong on WTC7 and that someone had it come down on purpose."

 
At 26 January, 2007 02:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, you are aware that the NIST model did NOT collapse, so they created a black-box computer-model of the whole situation, which, oh suprprise, *did* collapse. Of course we no zero about that computer model. But to you, its all good and trustworthy.

 
At 26 January, 2007 04:59, Blogger Gdem2408 said...

Do you agree WTC7 was so heavilly damaged it should be destroyed anyway like WTC6 ?

 
At 26 January, 2007 05:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Sd most of your sources are from toofers, ours come from recognized experts,
So now the New York Times, the NIST, FEMA, Seattle Times, CNN, FOX, firefighters, first responders,policemen, FBI, all those folks are now Troofers? Nice logic Stevew. Again why do you even bother arguing with me when everytime you try to critique me, I prove you wrong or you can't respond to by retorts? And in each case you go back to what are your qualifications??? Blah Blah. In which case I can simply ask the same of you and get the same response. So come up with something new or STFU! ;)

Show me where my sources were from troofers? Oh wait you can't because my sources come from the government, mainstream media outlets, media print, the video record of the day, oral histories of the day, etc.
I pointed to one particlar theory at team8 who arrived at their theory by examining information as a result of a FOIA request.

Stevew-please show me where the NIST and/or FEMA tested for explosive residue to rule out the explosive device hypothesis? If you can't, the hypothesis remains valid. This of course should be real easy for you to do. And what were your creditinals again? That is what I thought, so please your appeal to authority fallacy is as bunk as your logic.

TAM-So if NIST comes out and says that the blast scenario is highly unlikely or improbable, and that their original hypothesis is still the most likely mechanism, will you then say it wasnt an inside job?

TAM, in regards to WTC 7 alone they would
1. Have to explain the loud blast preceding the destruction.
2. They would have to show the house of cards theory.
3. They would have to debunk one of the structural engineers who designed the building.
4. They woudl have to test the debris for explosive residue to show no explosives were used.
5. There would have to be a explanation of the squibs near the top of the building, as characteristic of CD. These squibs mind you were at the top of the buiding, not as the possible result of air pressure as some assert at 1 and 2.
6. There would have to be an explanation for the continued temperature that cannot be reached by hydrocarbon fuel fire alone.
7. Evaporated steel would have to be explained.
8. An explanation for the speed of collapse, the manner of collapse, and the initiation of collapse.

Yatesey-So, keep at it here, because I find your idiotic ramblings to be very amusing.

Those ramblings center around the cause of death of 3000+ people and even more. You find those ramblings amusing. I find your sense of humor sick which is as bad as the LC crew laughing about the victims and knife cutters. So explain again, where I pulled my comment out of my ass?

YOUR constant hinging on articles and sources that practice the exact same type of dishonesty that YOU claim the official story practices.


Yate-please so us all a favor and link to the dishonest articles I have used in my position?
If you can't, I must label you as a liar like the others on this blog when trying to counter my points.

You can link to those articles and information, provide the titles to the articles or information, etc.
IF YOU CAN'T, You sir are the liar for stating as such.
I await your non-response, or the list of dishonest articles and information I have provided. If you choose not to respond, I will accept the fact that you are lying about my information by calling it dishonest and you will have to accept being exposed as a fraud on this blog.

FX9, welcome aboard!

 
At 26 January, 2007 06:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Apathoid-nice try, lets examine the opening sentence...

http://www.icivilengineer.com/
News/WTC/Fire.html
The following is an essay on the possible causes of the World Trade Center collapse and possible means to prevent similar occurrences.

And the title of your next source:
INVESTIGATIONS
Research May Never Pinpoint Sequence of Events on 9/11
GREAT! So now were back to square 1 yet again, which leaves explosive devices just as plausible as the other two theories.
I also read a repost of the FEMA report which I have already read.
Which report do you support, Apathoid, FEMA or NIST? Cause we have two official theories, none of which examined the most likely theory of explosive devices used to bring the towers down. (besides this post is about WTC 7, not the 1 and 2, stay on task).

So summary, your articles boil down to two competing theories, possiblities, and we may never know. Great. I have to accept that from the official story when none of that explains evidence pointing to the use of explosive devices to help bring the towers down.

TAM I got to thinking about your statment again. See you placed me in a moral dillema to be honest.
It would be hard for me to accept the NIST report on WTC 7 based upon the nature of their report on WTC 1 and 2 at which point they did not even consider an explosive device hypotheis in the face of all the evidence. I have a hard time accepting what a government agency says anymore based upon the EPA conspiracy and the terrible loss of life that lie is going to cause.

I do find it interesting that you are so uncyncial about the U.S. government after all we have been through up to this point in just the Bush Administration alone. Oh well, maybe that is the difference between a Canadian citizen and a U.S. citizen. Perhaps the Canadian government has not partaken in numerous events that have harmed its own citizens in the past and even today thereby increasing the trust between its citizens and its government. My country was born out of a distrust of government and that thread of skepticism has been found throughout the history of America.

 
At 26 January, 2007 06:36, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 January, 2007 07:11, Blogger Stevew said...

Please
Cherry picking things that support your views does not make them correct.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

Debunking Controlled Demoltion If any one believes the CD theory, just read the PDF written by experts in the CD industry, after reading this and you still believe ther were brought down by CD then there is no hope for you. All you whakos, read this if you dare. All your questions are answered by someone who has been in the business for 20 years
One of the complaints that the 9-11 Deniers raise about the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC7 is that the possibility of controlled demolition was not examined. So Brent Blanchard of Implosion World decided to rectify that with
a paper that demolishes the CD theory http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

 
At 26 January, 2007 09:11, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 January, 2007 10:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing-

This is my non-response: Take the tree out of your ass and enjoy life a little, you might surprise yourself.

I'm sure all your work on thid board makes you the teacher's pet in your high school drama class, but when all is said and done, you'll realize you pissed your good years away being a drama queen and overly passionate about a silly movement.

 
At 26 January, 2007 10:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and Swing? You're still pulling tyhings out of your ass. Just for the record:

You, yourself as a human being amuse me. If I were to take you seriously, my comment would instead be, "I relate you to the truth movement, and I find your ideas and theories sick, twisted and offensive to all those we lost on 9/11"

You should be thankful I don't take you seriously and instead find you amusing. when you get out of Junior High, you might understand what I'm talking about.

 
At 26 January, 2007 10:27, Blogger Alex said...

There's many different ways you can look at him. Personally, I find him rather sad and pathetic. Worthy of at least a bit of sympathy and pity. The key though is not to take him seriously - if you take him seriously you'll doubtless end up wanting to murder the son of a bitch for the way he's shitting on the graves of the victims.

 
At 26 January, 2007 10:29, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

YOUR constant hinging on articles and sources that practice the exact same type of dishonesty that YOU claim the official story practices.

Yate-please so us all a favor and link to the dishonest articles I have used in my position?
If you can't, I must label you as a liar like the others on this blog when trying to counter my points.

-----
As I thought Yatesey...you can't repost dishonset articles that you claim I have used. You have been exposed for exactly who you are: a liar and a fraud. You claim my articles and sources are dishonest, but offer no proof.
You have done exactly as I knew you would: proven yourself a liar and a fraud.

Farewell and like CHF, I will no longer respond to any comments, questions, or statements from you. As you have failed to back up your character attacks with evidence and you have been exposed as a liar in attempt to support the OS by offering only personal attacks.

 
At 26 January, 2007 10:49, Blogger Alex said...

This coming from a proven child molester. Your gall is astounding.

 
At 26 January, 2007 12:39, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

As your explosive expert states, he will not hypothesis about the collapse of WTC 7. I guess that is enough said about his view on WTC 7 which is what this thread is about.

Why not? It was the same reason as 1 and 2, correct? Fire and damage.

The author assumes that a traditional controlled demoltion would be used on a structure of this size and of this construction as it has been used historically, thereby comparing the Twin Towers with other buildings in the analysis which of course can't be done.

If it doesn't look like one, it isn't

Let us entertain a what if scenario.

What if it was an "inside job" and those who did it wanted to use explosives to assist in the destruction of the towers. Would they CD the tower from the bottom as in traditional CD, which points exactly to the scene where the crime was committed of course detracting from the plane/fuel/damage excuse?

Would that arise so much suspicion to lead many to believe that is what occured?

Of course not. Which is why it did not match the historical record for controlled demoltion.





Two, the author is biased in his approach to the use of explosives rather from a balanced viewpoint. Instead his tone is us against conspiracy theorists. That is his perogative, and has minimal impact on his position of course, but very suspicious none the less. He did work for the Federal Government, correct?

Next the author claims the only way to scientificaly test for explosives is to check seismographs. This statement is laughable. He is either not aware or fails to acknowledge that testing of remains could be done to prove if explosive devices were used. This of course did not happen on any official scale.
If enough residue is found present, then that would point to such explosive devices being used. He also discounts all of the rest of the evidence pointing to the use of explosives be it the oral/video/news history as if it doesn't matter or writes it off as could be any number of things EXCEPT explosives. He does not provide any explanation for the sounds whatsoever.

This reads more like a debunking piece of propaganda instead of a investigation into the use of explosives or lack there of. I read several reasons why explosives may not have been used, but nothing to disprove the use. The author explores the molten metal aspect of, albeit unaware of the video of firefighters testifying that metal was running like lava underneath the pile, or accounts of boots melting, or for that matter NASA's thermal imagining. I assume that he realizes that the hydrocarbon fires can not melt steel or burn hot. Again, he essentially tosses out the molten metal evidence much like the baby in the bath water.
Unfortunetly he fails to name most if not all of the sources in his paper as well, hardly something I can accept as part of my own research and investigation. As far as thermite goes the author tries to outline the near impossibility of using the thermite without disproving its use. On the other hand, he allows the possiblity, if and only if numerous requirements are met.

I'm curious if the people he talked to were aware of the numerous eyebeams that have been found with angle cuts on them.

He does make an error in page 7 discussing rescue workers in the demolition process at ground zero. He doesn't specify what is being demolished or if he is referring to what possibly happened. More clarification would help.

And Alex, how do you feel about the EPA lying to the American public and directly causing the deaths of numerous victims? Or would I be pissing on graves if I were discussing that?

 
At 26 January, 2007 13:01, Blogger Alex said...

"eyebeams"? :p Now THAT was funny!

As to your question about the EPA, it has nothing to do with the occurrences of 9/11. Unfortunately, your nutcase theories are only helping ensure that people ignore the legitimate questions about why the EPA claimed the air quality wasn't dangerous.

And as for the logic in the rest of your diatribe, you're just continuing to prove that you are in fact a child molester.

 
At 26 January, 2007 13:22, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex have you ever heard more BS in your life?
What a load of tapdance, BS. This is a perfect example of how these conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw.

Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.

They have yet to explain how the demolition could be done and nobody notice, all we get is some fantisy about radio controlled explosives. You have been watching too many movies.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
I love the pik of the core girder that was cut with torches. The whaks say it was done with thermite as part of the CD. If you look at the girder, it would have had to of had charges on bothsides and a hole in the middle to weaken as is done on all large girders. Why was this not done? There were something like 47 in the core. How could this be done and nobody notice?
Were the core girders exposed or covered up? Why were these socalled explosives placed on different levels? How did the planes hit the exact spot where they were suposidly planted?
Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim? We have over 300, where are yours?

The bottom line is, there are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Anyone could take any disaster and ask a myriad of questions that have no relivence

SD What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

 
At 26 January, 2007 13:56, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

your are the biggest twoofer chicken-shit I've ever seen.

Someone bitch-slaps you and you refuse to talk further.

Pathetic.

 
At 26 January, 2007 15:53, Blogger Richard said...

Radio detonators for explosives is retarded. Though there are a variety of blasting caps most take little energy to detonate. Radio waves can accidentally set off caps if proper protection isn't taken. Those buildings were full of cell phones, wireless networks, bluetooth devices, CCTV's, radios, etc. Not to mention that when the planes hit they could have easily knocked off the transmitters. Imagine going to press the button and only a handful of charges go off. Then it would be completely obvious that there was an attempted CD at ground zero. CD's are hard enough and they have failed before under ideal conditions. Introduce plane impacts and fire to the mix and you just asking for something to go wrong.

 
At 26 January, 2007 20:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

btw, you are aware that the NIST model did NOT collapse, so they created a black-box computer-model of the whole situation, which, oh suprprise, *did* collapse. Of course we no zero about that computer model. But to you, its all good and trustworthy.

BTW, you are aware that you have just demonstrated that you have zero knowledge of computer modelling and in fact just got this bit of nonsense from another raving conspriacy nut who completely misread the reports and their conclusions? But to you, its all good and trustworthy.

 
At 27 January, 2007 12:40, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

You would have to be blind to miss this....
Rather large gash in Number 7

 
At 27 January, 2007 13:05, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

Yes the fuel accelerated the collapse that had a primary cause of the huge physical damage from WTC 1.

Now exactly where does he say it was caused by CD.

By the way SD major structural failures inside 7 would also have made loud explosive sounds, overloaded beams snap, weld break, etc. and this is backed up by the people who were there, Remember them? the firemen who reported a 3 story bulge in the building. They knew this building was coming down but not because of bombs but because the building was falling apart form within.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home