Tuesday, February 27, 2007

CNN Got the Press Release Too!



As you can see, Aaron Brown reported that WTC 7 has either collapsed or is collapsing, when the building was still standing, right behind him!

Labels: , ,

175 Comments:

At 27 February, 2007 10:12, Blogger CHF said...

So that's BBC, CNN, MSNBC, the FDNY....

Wow, this thing is HUGE!

Or could it be that the FDNY's assesment of the WTC7 situation was well known at the time?

What say you twoofers?

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:20, Blogger pomeroo said...

I was glued to the television that entire morning and afternoon. I remember hearing that WTC 7 was going to collapse. But, of course, I'm a well-paid government shill. As are the millions of other viewers who heard exactly what I heard.

And the conspiracy morons are not the least bit embarrassed by this latest idiocy.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:20, Blogger BG said...

In this video, the condition of the building looks almost pristine to me.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:21, Blogger CHF said...

I sure hope BG, Swing, Dylan and the rest of you kids have learned a valuable lesson from this.

Next time you think you've found a "smoking gun"....stop and THINK for a second before charging over the cliff in a fit of euphoria.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:22, Blogger CHF said...

In this video, the condition of the building looks almost pristine to me.

And that's why engineers don't sit around watching videos all day, BG.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:24, Blogger Alex said...

I'd love to be able to go back in time, and shove BG inside that "pristine" building.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:31, Blogger shawn said...

In this video, the condition of the building looks almost pristine to me.

With the big hole in its side and the smoke spewing out.

I'd love to see what your house looks like if that's "pristine".

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:32, Blogger BG said...

remember hearing that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Those of us who think that there was possibly a criminal conspiracy (beyond the govt story) can reasonably speculate that bringing down wtc 7 was part of the plan from the beginning. My guess was that the schedule called for the demo to be performed earlier in the day. I think the plan was to link the collapse of WTC 7 as being part of the overall events of the morning as much as possible.

With the above frame of reference, this point of view is consistent with the comments that you remember hearing that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and all of the other events as reported.

I can't account for what made the CD team wait until 5:20.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that, if this speculation has any merit, why they wouldn't wait until night fall to Demo WTC 7, when it would have been far less likely to be captured in detail.

I don't have a good answer for that.

I not averse to the idea that, by waiting until 5:20, there was some respect shown to avoiding additional injury or loss of human life.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:45, Blogger CHF said...

So BG,

You can't account for the silent CD charges.

You can't account for why the FDNY knew it would collapse if they weren't involved (can you make the case for a CD of WTC7 without implicating the FDNY? Be careful!)

and finally...

You can't account for why they waited until 5:20 to do the deed.

This may sound odd to you...but maybe it wasn't a demolition after all.

 
At 27 February, 2007 11:00, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

And the reason to bring down WTC7 was to distroy some files,

Kind of like burning your house down to get rid of some roaches. But that is consistent with "Truther Logic" Never do anything that makes sense, always do it the hard way.

1. Why just burn remove the files when you can destroy an entire building.

2. Don't destroy the building right when the second tower fell, NO better to do it latter in the day when witnesses and cameras can get good shots of how "Pristine" the building is.

3. Tell everyone who will listen you plan to blow-up the building.

4. Once you have imploded the building deny you did it!!! Sure you could just say "Yes..We imploded the building because it was too far damaged and endangering rescue efforts" and people would believe it.

5. Have the owner of the building spill the beans on national TV.


BG said...
"I don't have a good answer for that."
Seems to be the stock answer of most truthers.

 
At 27 February, 2007 11:01, Blogger PhilBiker said...

Next time you think you've found a "smoking gun"....stop and THINK for a second before charging over the cliff in a fit of euphoria.

Methinks it's the "smoking bong" that puts them in that euphoric state.

 
At 27 February, 2007 11:01, Blogger Stevew said...

Pom
I heard the same thing
Steve Spak, who filmed at Ground Zero on 9/11, has posted some of his WTC7 footage on YouTube. Cue increasingly desperate attempts to pretend all that smoke isn’t actually coming from the building, or that the video is fake (despite the fact that it’s been out for years). Take a look here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

 
At 27 February, 2007 11:18, Blogger debunking911 said...

I was working on this story today as well. This was my responce which I will upload soon.

Responce:

With the lack of even the smallest amount of hard evidence supporting their stories, conspiracy theorists have become more desperate to find anything which could be twisted to support it. Case in point: The WTC 7 was seen in the background of a BBC report while the reporter said the building had already collapsed. The story is that the reporters were given a "script" to say and this reporter stupidly read the lines before the building fell. Plain old common sense can dispatch this conspiracy story.
Why do they choose to believe the more unlikely conspiracy story which suggest at least some reporters of some news orgs were given a script? Especially when the more logical, miscommunication could easily explain the video.

Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a heads up??? Why wouldn't they just blow the building up and let them report the collapse as they would have normally?

What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report by the fire department that building 7 was going to collapse. According to the fire department they knew the building was going to collapse by 2:00PM. Reporters KNEW this well before the event because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporter were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department told reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC it may have simply been misscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers their 9 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just the glaring examples, I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with this. Even your average knuckle dragging, cave dwelling Neanderthal knows this. (My sincerest apologies Geico Neanderthal man...)

The down right absurd conspiracy story: The government told many reporters to report something they would have reported anyway after the building collapsed.
A little critical thinking is all that's needed to debunk this nonsense. Why in the world would they make an already unbelievably massive conspiracy into one involving reporters who would LOVE a scoop like that? "Sept. 9, 2001 - EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS! Government about to murder thousands for oil! We have the script!" Can you imagine the job offerings after a scoop like that? Can you say Pulitzer prize? What a hero! Who would pass that up to help a shadowy government mass murder Americans? This would be MUCH bigger than Watergate! Or maybe this was a planed gaff to expose this plot? Are we to believe this gaff is the only way she could have told us? A method which could easily be dismissed as typical poor reporting?

And here is the kicker... Did they really need even MORE people involved? What was the reason they absolutely needed to tell the reporters this? Why haven't any of the other reporters talked? Are most reporters part of a mass murder scheme? How much can conspiracy theorists swallow?

Do the conspiracy theorist leaders have one shred of REAL evidence of explosives or anything else which could take down the buildings? Air samples with trace explosive chemicals in it? A memo like the downing street memo? A whistleblower who was in on the planning maybe? None of that involves the so called "whisked away steel". They have nothing. They're left to scour the internet for the slightest mistake made by anyone on that horrific, chaotic day. They're left destroying peoples lives by suggesting innocent people are involved in mass murders.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:04, Blogger pomeroo said...

Yes, the clearly damaged bullet that was recovered at Parkland Hospital was described as "pristine" by other liars.

Keep plugging, bg. One day, you might say something that turns out to be accurate.

But not today.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:12, Blogger pomeroo said...

I can help you, bg.

There was no CD team. You and your fellow liars made up all that nonsense. The evidence shows quite convincingly that no explosives were used in any buildings of the WTC complex.

I understand that you don't have a good answer to the very reasonable question, What the hell could bringing down WTC 7 have to do with the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's scheme to launch two wars into order make a few bucks for Dick Cheney's cronies. I'm here to tell you not to worry: NO ONE has a good answer. And that's because it makes absolutely no sense.

I do like your insane fantasy that the mass murderers, having slaughtered three thousand people, didn't want to add another dozen victims or so to their consciences. Jihadists wouldn't have cared.

For someone whose brain doesn't function at all, you're a deep thinker.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:16, Blogger tempestuous said...

Arguably, the press in fact does report from press releases. So your title, "CNN Got the Press Release Too!" is likely quite accurate despite your typical demeaning, atheist slant.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:17, Blogger pomeroo said...

I love the idea that a reporter for the virulently anti-American BBC was given a script to cover up an unprecedented crime committed by the American government.

And these hopeless, pathetic morons believe that their imbecilic ravings constitute a "movement." All together, now: What kind of movement is it, gang?

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:25, Blogger Manny said...

I sure hope BG, Swing, Dylan and the rest of you kids have learned a valuable lesson from this.

Lesson? Oh, that's funny! Lesson. Yeah, that's it, this time they might learn a lesson. And then it's going to rain beer.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:28, Blogger tempestuous said...

Quote:And these hopeless, pathetic morons believe that their imbecilic ravings constitute a "movement." All together, now: What kind of movement is it, gang"

Again, you atheists continue your rampage against proper social discourse. You are very angry individuals...Must be the atheist way.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:30, Blogger Alex said...

A bowel movement?

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:32, Blogger tempestuous said...

The Aaron Brown plausible denial angle really isn't the best. But I'm sure you already know that. If there was a press release (as you say), then it is reasonable to assume that all major press outfits received it. Let's attempt to get a copy of the release instead of the poorly attempted plausible denial attempts.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:34, Blogger Matthew said...

"Arguably, the press in fact does report from press releases."

Press Releases are usually issued in advance for planned events. Media Organisations do not report Breaking News from press releases. On an event like 9/11 they would have reported from a media conference or reported an official staement - or just talked to people on the ground.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:37, Blogger ScottSl said...

The NWO needed a press release to tell them WTC7 fell down? LOL! And this is what the truthers use as evidance? Bah ha ha ha!

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:44, Blogger shawn said...

On a conspiracy board I go to one of the resident morons has picked up on this.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:44, Blogger pomeroo said...

Um, can someone explain this "atheist" business?

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:45, Blogger pomeroo said...

First prize goes to Alex!

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:07, Blogger Alex said...

Thank you, thank you....I'd like to thank the academy...and the NWO...love you guys, couldn't have done it without you....my close friends George Bush and Ariel Sharon, you guys rock....the special effects department at the Pentagon: don't listen to the sheeple, those CGI planes were SUPERB!....oh, and thank you Satan for accepting our sacrifices at the Bohemian Grove! Thank you all, and enjoy the rest of the show!

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:33, Blogger Realist06 said...

So the fire department knew the building was going to collapse at 2:00? What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?

No reason to think that WTC7 was going to collapse that day unless you had prior knowledge of controlled demolition. The fires could have burned all night and that building should not have collaspsed.

All the name-calling this board can muster can't save this one for you.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:37, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Um, can someone explain this "atheist" business?"

Well see the religionist don't like the fact 19 Arab fundamentalist nutjobs committed mass murder in the name of god.

So they want to pin it on godless NWO heathens.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:43, Blogger Jay said...

So the fire department knew the building was going to collapse at 2:00? What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?

I think WTC1 and 2 had already collapsed due to fire, so im guessing they were scared of another building coming down with firefighters in it, due to fire.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:44, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?

Greeeaaaattt... another moron wrapped in an idiot, tied up in an asshole.

I saw a steel framed building collapsed from fire back in 1994 with my own two eyes.

A warehouse containing raw materials for a plastics recycling plant caught fire and the warehouse itself came down. I saw with my own eyes steel support girders warped and bent like ramen noodles all over the space where a huge warehouse once stood. It was like God himself made a plate of spaghetti and then blasted it in a microwave so it came out blackened and burned.

Lie to me again, Mr. "Truth" seeker.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:46, Blogger Jay said...

SWord, the idiot also forgot that WTC1 and 2 had already collapsed due to fire that day, so im guessing they had a pretty good hunch.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:49, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"So the fire department knew the building was going to collapse at 2:00? What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?"

No, but due to the fact the building was heavily damaged by WTC 1.

Had fires that could not be fought or cooled down with water.

The building had developed an ominous looking bulge in it's side and was shaking, creaking and generally sounding like it was going to fall.

I would say only a fool or a truther would stand anywhere near that building.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:50, Blogger Manny said...

SWord, the idiot also forgot that WTC1 and 2 had already collapsed due to fire that day

He didn't forget, any more than he forgot that the north tower fell partially onto 7. It's impossible to forget that many times. He's lying. I just wonder whom he expects to believe his lie.

 
At 27 February, 2007 14:51, Blogger CHF said...

What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?

And no steel framed building had ever had a 100 story building fall on it.

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:03, Blogger Alex said...

What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?

No reason to think that WTC7 was going to collapse that day unless you had prior knowledge of controlled demolition.


Right. As I posted in an earlier thread:

Earlier in the day, several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, the AP reported. Firefighter official Fernando Munilla said the entire building -- which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid -- could collapse.

"If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down," he said.

Emergency crews at the scene said firefighters were waiting for the temperature inside the building to drop, which they said would lessen the danger of collapse.


Clearly a sign of "prior knowledge of controlled demolition", right? Sure. Except they're talking about the Madrid building.

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:04, Blogger mbats said...

With all his claims that debunkers are atheists, maybe tempestuous is owning up to the fact that "9/11 truthseeking" is a religious faith divorced from reason.

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:05, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Here's a goody:

http://archive.worcesternews.co.uk/2006/11/2/434218.html

A MAJOR blaze has completely destroyed a toilet paper warehouse in Malvern... There was very intense heat that buckled the steel girders holding the roof and this caved in.

That's from burning TOILET PAPER!

Care to explain this to us "truth" seeker?

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:10, Blogger BG said...

Video: Review in 18 seconds... just in case anyone has forgotten what we are talking about here.

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:10, Blogger Realist06 said...

"another moron wrapped in an idiot, tied up in an asshole."

Point proven, you guys deal in name calling and not facts. That's about the kind of response I would expect on this forum.

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:14, Blogger CHF said...

realist,

explain to me how the FDNY knew WTC7 building would collapse if it was demolished via controlled demolition.

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:20, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

It's also a lie that WTC7 fell straight down as in an implosion,

Fiterman Hall, located at 30 West Broadway was so heavily damaged by the fact number 7 fell to the southwest,

Gee! unlike a real controlled demolition.

Fiterman Hall may have to be torn down to.

http://tinyurl.com/2qnrj7

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:37, Blogger shawn said...

Point proven, you guys deal in name calling and not facts.

No, you people ignore the facts and then when we get frustrated into name calling you jump in and say "omg u only say mean things, you don't use facts".

 
At 27 February, 2007 15:51, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Point proven, you guys deal in name calling and not facts. That's about the kind of response I would expect on this forum.

I just looked over both my recent posts and it appears you are lying again.

But please... keep crying like a 4 year old girl that I called you a mean name while you try to hide the truth that fire does destroy steel buildings.

 
At 27 February, 2007 16:02, Blogger Stevew said...

realist
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,
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. There was also a 20 story gash 25% of the way into the building

 
At 27 February, 2007 16:20, Blogger debunking911 said...

"So the fire department knew the building was going to collapse at 2:00? What did they base this information on, given the fact that no steel framed building in history had collasped due to fire?"

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This answers most your WTC 7 questions. Not that you'll read it.

 
At 27 February, 2007 16:48, Blogger pomeroo said...

Well, realist (now, that's funny!), some of us get tired of pointing out that real engineers and firemen don't believe the story invented by conspiracy liars that no steel building has ever collapsed as a result of fires. Remember, you and your deranged associates are conspiracy LIARS. Get it?

 
At 27 February, 2007 23:07, Blogger Luke said...

Haha you guys are a riot. The insults are literally the best ammo you got...

Anyway, the important fact here is that THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE to WTC7 after the North Tower collapsed. How do I know? Well, judging by damage to other surrounding buildings, and the fact that WTC 7 is well beyond the visible radius of debris in satellite images, common sense would suggest the building was not damaged.

To confirm this lack of damage, however, you require a greater understanding of 9/11 than you'll find in a 'denier' (or your average 'truther', sad to say). You see, it turns out that the lobby of WTC was used as a triage center after the collapses, and was described as entirely intact by people who went inside. This is important because of WTC7s design, which featured a multi- story atrium directly over the lobby. Debris passing through the lower floors of the southern wall (the only section that wasn't photographed, and therefore the only possible location for this 'phantom damage') would have entered directly into the atrium, falling into the lobby. Clearly this did not take place, and the lobby functioned as a triage center until a number of hours after the second collapse.

On a more general level, however, I also want to say that simply providing an alternate hypothesis does not make any of you kids 'debunkers'. In your twisted minds, the notion of a 911 conspiracy is so absurd that any alternative explanation becomes more plausible to you. However, the inability to overcome this bias completely removes your ability to conduct meaningful scientific analysis. ANY conspiracy will have alternate explanations which don't involve conspiracy. The existence of these theories, however, doesn't change the fact that they are not accurate.

 
At 28 February, 2007 00:21, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Luke, do you ever find it odd that your idea of "meaningful scientific analysis" isn't supported by any qualified scientist in the world? I mean, generally, if I'm looking for information on science, I find that scientists are the best people to go to, rather than gibbering crackpots who believe in alien lizards controlling the world. I know you feel differently, but I just don't find the latter group all that credible.

 
At 28 February, 2007 02:35, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

And yet another poster child for tertiary syphilis rears his rapidly deflating head.

You see, it turns out that the lobby of WTC was used as a triage center after the collapses, and was described as entirely intact by people who went inside. This is important because of WTC7s design, which featured a multi- story atrium directly over the lobby. Debris passing through the lower floors of the southern wall (the only section that wasn't photographed, and therefore the only possible location for this 'phantom damage') would have entered directly into the atrium, falling into the lobby. Clearly this did not take place, and the lobby functioned as a triage center until a number of hours after the second collapse.

Please provide a source for this unmitigated pile of horseshit.

Anyway, the important fact here is that THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE to WTC7 after the North Tower collapsed.

Here's a picture for you to look at:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/91104.jpg

That building getting hit by the multi-thousand ton debris plume is WTC7.

Uhhh... oops?

 
At 28 February, 2007 05:02, Blogger Stevew said...

I wonder how he can explain the 20 story gash in WTC7?

 
At 28 February, 2007 06:08, Blogger CHF said...

THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE to WTC7 after the North Tower collapsed. How do I know? Well, judging by damage to other surrounding buildings, and the fact that WTC 7 is well beyond the visible radius of debris in satellite images, common sense would suggest the building was not damaged.

Gee, who needs witness testimony and FDNY reports when we have Luke and his "common sense?"

 
At 28 February, 2007 06:52, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

From a paramedic on site that day.

"Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much... just flames everywhere and dark smoke... it is entirely possible... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down, because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage."

Perhaps this will clear up the truthers disinfo.

Triage was never set up IN WTC7, As this guy said it was "well, to the east of Building 7"

And even that was moved when it became clear Building 7 was coming down.

Its is possible some on site mistakenly believed a controlled take down of the building was going to happen to make it possible for rescue operations to continue. Some of the firemen may have even thought this not realizing it would have been impossible to do.

 
At 28 February, 2007 07:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

BBC Channel 24 reports states they were told the Solomon Brother's Building has collapsed. This has a time stamp this time. This time at 4:57 pm.

They are told it has collapsed. Being on the scene at ground level, someone was the source for the information. Given that no steel structure in the history of the world had suffered total global collapse from fire, how did they know? Well they knew because it was brought down, that is why.

I agree it could all be an error, however, it seems likely they would all report the same error of a total collapse of a building when they are all on scene reporting from or near ground zero.

How do you error of a collapse 7 hours later and chalk that up to confusion from WTC 1 and 2?

How do you make the mistake of not reconciling the announcment of one of the tallest buildings around with filming it live?



BBC 24 different video with a timestamp.

http://www.mega-file.net/video/view.php?video=
1b2a2daa4332dd157708a14a69df9e25

I was glued to the television that entire morning and afternoon.
So they knew at the latest, of 11:59 am in the morning it was destined for a global collapse? Yeah right. Put the link on there from 10:20 am until 11:59 am to prove that they knew WTC 7 was going to collapse the entire morning.

You can't account for the silent CD charges. Another lie, it was not silet. See clap of thunder, etc.

And the reason to bring down WTC7 was to distroy some files,

Your claiming the reason to deny a CD is the motive?? That makes no sense. For sure, it would be to avoid the costly repairs to replace everything damaged by fire and the debris by the lease holder. Get a brand new building at the expense of the insurance company. A few multinational corporations schnianigans get destroyed and who knows what was in the secret CIA complex there.

He didn't forget, any more than he forgot that the north tower fell partially onto 7
Can you link to pictures showing that the building fell onto WTC 7 or was it debris ejected that far from a supposed 'gravity' driven collapse?


A MAJOR blaze has completely destroyed a toilet paper warehouse in Malvern... There was very intense heat that buckled the steel girders holding the roof and this caved in.
Is that a steel high rise building?
So you want to compare a warehouse fire with a 47 story steel high rise building? Do you have the floor plan and blue prints to compare the two? Nahh I didnt' think so. Try again.

How can you explain asymetrical damage, asysmetrical fires, causing the support collum to fail at the exact same time to cause the building to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint. And please, don't use 'damage to other buildings' to counter the footprint, unless you can show me the pristine condition of those buildings after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. See you can't explain that without CD.

Alex How many floors at WTC 7 collapsed before global collapse? Ahh none, right? So your Madrid 'they knew' comment is incorrect as I pointed out in the earlier thread.

 
At 28 February, 2007 07:18, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Oh, And here is a video for you Luke.

Notice the rather nasty gash in the building, and all that fire produced smoke.

WTC7 Burning

I can see the rescue workers now, "So what building do we use for our triage center?"..... "How about that one over there with all the fires burning in it"

You would have to be a moron to think this would be used a triage center.

 
At 28 February, 2007 07:22, Blogger texasjack said...

Do you ever get the feeling that a troother matches 1 number on their lotto ticket, then tries to turn it in as if they won the jackpot?

 
At 28 February, 2007 07:42, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Swing... Given the fact the building had developed an ominous looking bulge in it's side and was shaking, creaking and generally sounding like it was going to fall. Given it did have a huge gash in the south side, All this backed up by firemen on site who know a dangerous situation when they see it.

Given the fact not one but TWO buildings had collapsed just that morning due to damage and fire.

You get the point?

"How can you explain asymetrical damage, asysmetrical fires, causing the support collum to fail at the exact same time to cause the building to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint"

And as I pointed out and you can look this up yourself, it was NOT a neat "fall into footprint" collapse. If it was then why did the buildings around WTC7 received such heavy damage, Hell 30 Broadway had to be torn down because of damage from WTC7.

I know you are not that smart Swing with all the Chemtrail and other woo woo shit but.. Come On...

 
At 28 February, 2007 07:57, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Your claiming the reason to deny a CD is the motive?? That makes no sense. For sure, it would be to avoid the costly repairs to replace everything damaged by fire and the debris by the lease holder. Get a brand new building at the expense of the insurance company. A few multinational corporations schnianigans get destroyed and who knows what was in the secret CIA complex there."

See Swing this is where you fail to think again and just prove the lackluster intelligence of the average truther.

If the reason to implode the building was for insurance reason then there would be no reason to do it in secret. The NYFD could have have deliberately imploded WTC7 that evening and said it was done for the safety of rescue efforts in the tower ruble. Insurance would still have to pay up and there would be no need to created a cover-up.

See.. Swing... Just think!

Well maybe you can't due to too much mind clogging chemicals from those jets overhead.

 
At 28 February, 2007 08:38, Blogger Alex said...

Not only that, but they wouldn't need to do it immediately. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, WTC5 wasn't demolished until January 2002. So why risk lives trying to blow WTC7 a few hours after it caught fire, and then try to hide the fact that you blew it up? It makes about as much sense as any of the other nonsense that the twoofers spew.

as for this garbage:

Alex How many floors at WTC 7 collapsed before global collapse? Ahh none, right? So your Madrid 'they knew' comment is incorrect as I pointed out in the earlier thread.

That's also garbage. First of all, we don't know if any floors collapsed in WTC7, but that's not important. What you need to know is that the engineers in the madrid towers actually stopped the firefighting efforts before any floors had collapsed, I just picked an article which didn't state this. Here's a quote:

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."


So the engineers and firefighters were aware of the potential for collapse well before any floors actually collapsed.

As to why several floors of the madrid building collapsed without bringing down the entire structure, once again it has to do with design and construction. The madrid building has a concrete structure reinforced with steel. An examination of photographs taken after the fire clearly shows that the only part of the structure still standing at the top of the building is the concrete columns.

So, sorry Swing, but that's another swing and another miss.

 
At 28 February, 2007 09:18, Blogger Stevew said...

Swing has been smokeing too many Chemtrails

 
At 28 February, 2007 10:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

And as I pointed out and you can look this up yourself, it was NOT a neat "fall into footprint" collapse. If it was then why did the buildings around WTC7 received such heavy damage, Hell 30 Broadway had to be torn down because of damage from WTC7.

Again, show me pictures of the surrounding buildings without damage that they suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2.

Two, since they thought it might collapse, that would be the perfect time to CD it to prevent it from toppling completely over on its side INTO other buildings and to bring it down in the safest and most controlled manner possible. Oh wait, it fell straight down with very little resistence from the other floors.

Didn't that start at the bottom as well just ike a CD? Yep!

why risk lives trying to blow WTC7 a few hours after it caught fire, and then try to hide the fact that you blew it up?

What lives were being risked?

If it were my building, I would want the insurance to pay for it by blaming the entire collapse on 'fire'. That is why. $500 million in profit would suit me just fine to put towards a new building with new tenants, etc. Of course none of us know the details of the insurance policy, but I would wonder if the owner of the building destroyed it himself, it would be unlikely to pay out. Hence the need to blame it on fire.

And again, when did firefighting efforts cease?

And when firefighters state the buildings was going to blow up how can that be reconciled with a building that collapses?

We now know the Office of Emergency Management gave the warning to firefighter's in WTC 2 that it was going to collapse even when firefighters didn't think it would. It would make sense that they would issue the press statement to the media.

Alex, how many hours did Madrid burn and how many floors had already collapsed before SE made that assessment? And your using this premise to support the OS in WTC 7 but in the same breath state it is NOT important to know how many floors collapsed in WTC7? I'm not arguing the similarity of the building design of course, I'm arguing the press accounts, warnings of CD, etc..

And read your quote...it was pancake collapse of the FIRE DAMAGED FLOORS. I read the entire article and no where does it state an entire global collapse of the building due to fire damage, only those floors that had been damaged by fire for 11 hours! Come on did you think I wasn't going to read the article linked to at www.debunking911.com? You should know better by now. Again, that tid bit in history does not support the global collapse of a building from fire.Try again, Alex!

And right above that you state WTC 7 collapsing floors don't matter? ROFL your a fucking jokester, aren't you??

Try again, Alex cause you almost had me! Quit making unfounded excuses to support your position. LOL!!

No offense, but when a CD owner's own analysis of the FEMA floor plans and the video, and the statement of the owner, Larry S, combined with the warnings at ground level and arrives at that CD conclusion and there is no history of a high rise steel framed structure collapsing due to fire, then I'm inclined to believe them.

How many SE and experts state WTC 7 was not CD?

I guess we would have to know how many are aware of WTC 7 being demolished.

Lets not confuse the NYFD with imploding the building. They would have been made aware of it, which they were. They aren't experts at controlled demolitions.
Any implosion of a building must first be cleared with the FD before collapse initiation begins of any structure. Don't confuse that with actually CD'ing the building.

Again, when were firefighting operations removed?

Well according to FEMA and your precious Popular Mechanics article,

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC " [Popular Mechanics]

So what the fuck was Larry S. talking about?

Why weren't the fires put out shortly after the collapse of 1 and 2? According to FEMA the electrical generators had not been powered off which would have resulted in electrocution of firefighters...thank goodness for that and for Larry S, those companies under SEC investigation, and whatever else was going on in that building.

You will argue that WTC 1 and 2 wasn't CD because it didn't look like but WTC 7 wasn't CD because it did look like it?? What kind of logic is that?

And all of these press reports of early warnings, and now CNN perhaps that is why it disappared from the MSM reports and why there is no 9/11 Comm investigation of it. Everything is falling into place fellas. Keep lying and denying!

 
At 28 February, 2007 10:06, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Is that a steel high rise building?
So you want to compare a warehouse fire with a 47 story steel high rise building? Do you have the floor plan and blue prints to compare the two? Nahh I didnt' think so. Try again.


Hey asswipe, burning TOILET PAPER ran hot enough to turn steel girders into spaghetti noodles. A steel girder doesn't care if it's standing alone holding a warehouse roof up or if it's working with 50 friends holding up 100 thousand tons of skyscraper above it. All a steel girder knows, is that when the temperature hits 1700+ degrees, that it's calling it quits, packing it in and calling it a day.

Bye bye structural support = bye bye building. Floor plan, type of building, load carried, number of girders, doesn't matter. Only the temperature.

You screwed up and have humiliated yourself yet again. You're an embarrassment to the master race, mien herr.

 
At 28 February, 2007 10:28, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Sword of shit, stick with shit paper big guy. You seem to be full of it.

Bye bye structural support = bye bye building. Floor plan, type of building, load carried, number of girders, doesn't matter. Only the temperature.
Well you forgot about load bearing collums as well!

ROFLMAO...your classic.

Tell that to strutural engineers building engineers, etc.

Better yet, start a new line of buildings that can withstand higher temperatures and fuck all to design and get rich! Dude, I thought Alex was funny but your comment takes the cake.

 
At 28 February, 2007 10:29, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Better yet, dog. You should go inspect every building in the Universe to make sure it is 100% fireproof because in your world, FIRE ALONE BRINGS DOWN STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS!! ROFLMAO!

 
At 28 February, 2007 10:40, Blogger Alex said...

Two, since they thought it might collapse, that would be the perfect time to CD it to prevent it from toppling completely over on its side INTO other buildings and to bring it down in the safest and most controlled manner possible.

IT WAS ON FIRE, YOU FUCKING MORON!!! Who in their right mind would go set EXPLOSIVE CHARGES inside a BURNING BUILDING??? You're so fucking retarded, it's painful to watch.

If it were my building, I would want the insurance to pay for it by blaming the entire collapse on 'fire'. That is why. $500 million in profit would suit me just fine to put towards a new building with new tenants, etc. Of course none of us know the details of the insurance policy, but I would wonder if the owner of the building destroyed it himself, it would be unlikely to pay out.

Congratulations, you can add the Insurance Industry to the list of things you're clueless about. If a building needs to be demolished because of damage sustained in an attack, it's the equivalent of a write-off on your car. You'd have to be an utter retard to think that the insurance company will only pay if the building collapses on it's own.

Moreover, this goes against YOUR OWN CLAIMS. If buildings never collapse because of fire, and insurance companies don't pay out unless the building collapses, then what's the point of having insurance? Do you spend ANY time thinking about these things, or do you just spew out the first bit of nonsense that pops into your head?

After those two brilliant points of yours, I didn't have the patience to read any more of your post, so you'll forgive me if I fail to address anything else. Anyway, these two examples of your idiocy should hopefully be enough to send you scurrying back to you hole.

 
At 28 February, 2007 10:58, Blogger CHF said...

So why were the demolition charges so fucking quiet, Swing?

Will you be the first twoofer to explain this?

 
At 28 February, 2007 11:01, Blogger CHF said...

Tell that to strutural engineers building engineers, etc.

This from Swing - the fucking coward who refuses to contact engineers.

 
At 28 February, 2007 11:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

IT WAS ON FIRE, YOU FUCKING MORON!!! Who in their right mind would go set EXPLOSIVE CHARGES inside a BURNING BUILDING???

Great question. Are you becoming a toofer??

Is the concept of preplanted devices too much to stomach?

Watch the Danny J tape as he explained in perfect detail how it could be accomplished if it was planted during the actual fire. More so around the supporting collums instead of the floors that were on fire. Watch the video from a neutral position.
That might explain the unidentified units in around the area as reported in Firehouse magazine. That might also explain why they decided not to fight the fires when they first broke out and the building was evacuated as early as it was.

You'd have to be an utter retard to think that the insurance company will only pay if the building collapses on it's own

It didn't remember, it was fire alone!!

And to my knowledge if fire destroy's my car, my policy will pay. If I destroy my car on purpose, my policy will not pay.
LOL, you joker you.

So car insurance and building insurance are the same now? ROFL

And now, your an expert on insurance to support the official story! Got to love that!

I will accept your bow out of my comments cause I don't have an explanation either for the comments other than conspiracy.
N'uff said!

Me the first to explain it quiet? Are you the first denier to deny the historical record of what was heard prior to the CD of 7?

Quiet? Apparently you haven't listened to the video tapes and read the eyewitness accounts that I've linked to in the past.
Maybe you can explain why you think they were quiet, or better yet, explain why they were so dam silent that it sounded like a clap of thunder, etc. ?

Let me ask you all of this, why is it such a big deal if the building was demolished through controlled demolition, anyway?

 
At 28 February, 2007 11:29, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Here is another issue...

Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 13

"Jonathan Barnett, PhD: Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:01, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Sieg Hieler, please show us where Dr. Jonathan Barnett stated that explosive demolition caused the collapse of WTC7.

If we are to take his professional opinion as you suggest, then we should know all of it.

Especially the parts you are withholding.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:12, Blogger Fred said...

There is no reason the FDNY would have expected the building to collapse. Somebody told them to move back. Firefighters reported a countdown to collapse was broadcast over the radio, before Guiliani muzzled them. The collapse was textbook controlled demolition.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:17, Blogger Stevew said...

How many times do these stupid questions have to be answered?
All have been debunked by experts over and over. Repeating them over and over and never looking at the real evidence does not make them true.
The toofers think if they keep asking them some body might believe their crap. Instead of asking those same stupid questions.

Hey toofer's. How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?
How about the toofer's giving us some qualifications in building design and destruction?

Sd really got some bad chemtrails. He normally drops a load of crap but this latest really takes the cake. The biggest concern was to search for survivors and get the mess cleaned up as soon as possible.
The madrid building was box step and was only 32 stories with a concrete core and probably half the mass. It did not have a 20 story gash in it.
Because of its odd construction fuel was stored on the lower levels in the middle of the building right under the main truss assy that supports the building, no wonder the colapse started in the middle. I wonder how hot the girders would get with a fire from 40000 gals of fuel underneith them for 6-7hrs. The toofers are just too stupid to understand this.

http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm

The 2 most well known CD companies, Protec and CDI say that CD is nothing but BS

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Sword of Nazi Lovers,
I don't know if he stated it was CD or not CD. My point was they were able to examine any of the evidence to study it, which is strange for a collapse of that nature.
Was he the same Barnett that found molten steel/metal at WTC 7?

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:18, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The 2 most well known CD companies, Protec and CDI say that CD is nothing but BS

Is that in reference to WTC 7 or 1 and 2?

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:26, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

STEVEW
Bullshit meter is on high now! LOL
Before you spout bullshit, you should really read up on the official story.

So your saying that CDI's says that CD is a load of crap, yet they accepted an award to study such an event? Where the hell do you get your stuff...
Your a fucking joker too!

Well holy hell, the NIST is contracting with CD companies to study blast scenarios, but you say they are full of shit. ROFLMAO..

Your like meat on the grill, dog. Done!

ARA is partnering with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) of Waltham, Massachusetts, to conduct the appended tasks, and with Loizeaux Group International (LGI), the consulting services branch of Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland.

SGH is an engineering firm that specializes in design, investigation and retrofit of buildings and structures of all types. SGH has expertise in building structures, materials, and investigations and conducted the thermal-structural response analyses of each WTC tower, as part of their contract for the WTC towers investigation.

Loizeaux Group International (LGI) has expertise in a wide range of demolition, explosion and explosives-associated technology. This includes explosive processes and their direct and collateral effects of blast and resulting vibration, projectiles, and overpressure. They have conducted investigations involving commercial explosives, terrorist devices, commercial gas, and industrial accidents involving dusts, hot metals, and combustion processes.

The specific tasks that ARA will perform with SGH (task 1) and LGI (task 2) include:

1. Identify and analyze hypothetical blast scenarios in three phases, with the results from each phase being used to decide if the analyses in the next phase is required:

1. Identify hypothetical blast scenarios, using analysis and/or experience, to determine conditions that would fail specified column sections by direct attachment of explosive materials.

I wonder if they considered other forms or devices? Cutter charges, etc.?

2. Analyze the overpressure produced by the blast load and determine if the overpressure would have failed windows in WTC 7.

3. Determine if the overpressure would result in sound levels transmitted through intact WTC 7 windows that could be heard outside the building.


http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
wtc_award0539.htm

Sorry to you leave you hanging, but I'm out for the day.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:30, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

There is no reason the FDNY would have expected the building to collapse.

That's not what the FDNY says:

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro, FDNY
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.


Maybe next time you should ask the FDNY what they should have expected instead of just assuming what they would have said without any research?

(The above quotes and links provided by www.911myths.com)

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:32, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

"Sword of shit, stick with shit paper big guy. You seem to be full of it... Sword of Nazi Lovers"

This is the problem with the conspiracy nuts.

All they have is name calling and foul language. They never provide any proof or evidence of their claims.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:37, Blogger Stevew said...

Sd as usual another load of crap. Going out to smoke some more chemtrails?
When the 2 most well known conpanies in CD say there was nothing to indicate it was not CD. I will believe them. Too bad you don't know enough to post something but BS
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.
Where is your list of experts to back up what you say?

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:37, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:46, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

"I don't know if he stated it was CD or not CD. My point was they were able to examine any of the evidence to study it, which is strange for a collapse of that nature.
Was he the same Barnett that found molten steel/metal at WTC 7?"


So in other words, you are refusing to do as I asked and provide us with the full context of Dr. Barnetts remarks?

Your level of faith in your so-called "truth" is revealing.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:48, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

This is a riot. I hope the CTers run with this, because it will make for a better laugh than their usual crap when it turns out to be the shaite sane people know it is.

Keep it up twoofers...run with it...If there is anyway I can help promote this lunacy for you, without having my name attached as believing it, let me know...any way I can make you idiots look like the morons you are to the general public...I am game.

TAM:)

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:15, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Swing is an idiot trying to promote Jonathan Barnett as one of the addled mind truther types.

Of course Barnett does not buy the whole CD bull.

Barnett is interested in "eutectic formations" on steel, a natural process that could explain the molten steel controversy.

...after the fall


Watch out Swing.. This one is WAY over your head.
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:29, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

FYI Also Here

The "Limited Metallurgical Examination"

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:32, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

All I can say is, someone who quoted Fred A Leuchter as a reliable expert calling someone else a Nazi lover is like seeing a perfect dictionary definition of "unbelievable stupidity" play out before your eyes.

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:44, Blogger Fred said...

Indra Singh, an EMT, said that "by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden said "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

Craig Bartmer NYPD said "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

A New Jersey EMT, Mike, has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:47, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

"A New Jersey EMT, Mike, has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded."

The person you describe does not exist. The letter in question was fabricated by an over-zealous twoofer and sent to Dylan Avery (or Dylan himself made it up).

Fake claims by fake people are NOT evidence, Fred.

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:52, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Again, show me pictures of the surrounding buildings without damage that they suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2. "

DUH! Look at a map! 30 Broadway is northeast of WTC7..... AND what is between 30 Broadway and WTC1??? .... WTC7! SO for debris from the second tower to fall to hit 30 Broadway it would have to go right through Building 7!!!!!

Fact is 30 Broadway was damaged by the fall of building 7, and only building 7.

Guess it must have been in WTC7 footprint?

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:54, Blogger CHF said...

Fred,

The collapse was textbook controlled demolition.

Yeah except for the part when the charges go off!

A New Jersey EMT, Mike, has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse.

Ah yes, Dylan's "Mike."

Still waiting for proof of the countdown or some evidence of charges going off.

You know - something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:56, Blogger Gypsy said...

He says it's 11:10 in Jerusalem.

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:57, Blogger Gypsy said...

He says it's 11:10 in Jerusalem.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:00, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"The person you describe does not exist. The letter in question was fabricated by an over-zealous twoofer and sent to Dylan Avery (or Dylan himself made it up).

Fake claims by fake people are NOT evidence, Fred."

Sure.. But now that Fred has gotten this in his head it does not have to be true, Don't you see he is on a mission of truth!!!!! and can't be bothered by mere facts. This is gods work you heathen!!!

Facts are lazy, and Facts are late. Facts all come with points of view, Facts don't do what I want them to.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:02, Blogger Gypsy said...

http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc

do the math

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:05, Blogger Fred said...

"Many other firemen knew there were bombs...but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher ups forbid discussion of this fact...There were definitely bombs in those buildings." –Paul Isaac Jr, FDNY Auxiliary Fire Lieutenant

Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,” Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twentyfourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:11, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Ah yes, Fred A Leuchter

Just saw the movie "Mr. Death: the Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr." the other night after having not seen it in several years. Very interesting in light of the 911 Denial thing.

Errol Morris would have a field day with the truther movement.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:14, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:19, Blogger CHF said...

Anyone have a link to Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:21, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,” Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twentyfourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

And now... the truth about Mr Cacchioli's remarks:

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.


http://911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

Busted again, Freddie.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:24, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”

And what did Mr.Isaac really say?

So the true statement was the that I heard Explosions not bombs as I couldn't tell what the sounds were as I was blocks away and can not confirm what the noise was. As I was aproaching City Hall the North Tower began the collapse I heard what sounded like thunder just prior to the collapse then the Popping as the tower fell. I had my radio scanner and there were reports of explsions within the conplex over the PD and PAPD frequencies. As I made my way closer I could pick up on the FD Handie Talkie frequencies and it sounded like hell. No one new what the was going to happen next but when the second tower began its fall there were what sounded like loud popping coming from the tower as well as a sucking sound like reveres air pressure.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61418

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:26, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Now Freddie... don't you think you owe an apology to Mr. Isaac and Mr. Cacchioli for lying about what they said?

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:30, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Amazing!!!! Someone who is less informed the Swing!!!

Swing has got to love fred,

Fred makes him look like a genius.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:36, Blogger Fred said...

Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: “we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down” (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: "I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down” (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned “pops.” Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)

Timothy Burke said that “the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

Firefighter Edward Cachia said: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:45, Blogger Fred said...

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition

The collapses had features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used.

Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.



Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]



Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture, explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)



Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors somehow produced “global collapse” (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST’s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250°C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that “column failure” occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26]



Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.”[27]

The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”[28]



Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.



Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle’s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]

The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman (2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower’s dust cloud, calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy available.

The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel).

Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman’s words: “You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That’s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.”[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: “[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.”

The importance of King’s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, “it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones.



Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.



Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.[32]



Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:45, Blogger CHF said...

Fred: why is there no FDNY for 9/11 Truth?

Why have twoofers made no effort at following up on these "smoking gun" quotes?

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:47, Blogger CHF said...

Fred, have you found a 9/11 video that looks like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Have you found any demolition pros who agree with your theory?

If so, please present them.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:47, Blogger Stevew said...

People were more afraid of looseing their jobs LOL If that were true and they exposed it, they would be hero's and probably get promotions. The desperation of the toofers gets more pathetic every day

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Many Deniers seem to "forget" the two planes, or the construction style of the buildings. Some even dare compare a concrete building to a steel-frame building.
Explosions can be heard from the towers, therefore they were bombs in the buildings.
Many 9/11 Deniers like to use a large list of firefighter quotes explaining explosions they encountered in the building. Like most evidence from the 9/11 Deniers, it's taken out of context.
Almost anything can cause an explosion. A vacuum of air, fire hitting the fuel, and electrical panels are just some sources that could cause explosions. Even large debris falling onto a floor can produce a loud sharp bang that could be mistaken for an explosion. They are too many factors that go against the theory that the sources of these explosions came from bombs and the 9/11 Deniers refuse to investigate them further.
Here is a video of an electrical transformer causing an explosion. These transformers are commonly found in office buildings. http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
There is an interview with a firefighter, who talks about bright flashes. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/explosions.htm
Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the fireman saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the fireman heard.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Here is a fireman saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
What a transformer explosion looks like...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
These buildings, as most office buildings in America had transformers and other high voltage electrical equipment.
Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.
The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DF1031F937A15754C0A964958260
February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.
Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.
http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm
This is a deceptive quote from a conspiracy theory site...
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Now lets examine what he said in the context he said it. Here is the part conspiracy sites leave out..
"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/
He said "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets" but the conspiracy site removes this important insight. They skipped over the sentence. There is only one reason to do something like that. To mislead the reader by removing all other possibilities for the sounds.
He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.
Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.
"The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
"I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.
"I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me."
The person saying it was an explosion also says bodies hitting the floor sound like explosions. I'm sure they do. I'm sure an acre of concrete floor crashing down onto another acre of concrete floor also sound like explosions

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:51, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Things explode inside burning buildings, Freddie. Fire extinguishers, oxygen tanks and power transformers are just a few things inside a major office tower that will explode when exposed to fire.

Note the even the corrected quotes by Cacchioli and Isaac state that there were explosions inside the WTC.

Not one of the quotes you listed identifies the source of the explosion as a bomb.

You wasted all that time to post zero evidence of a controlled demolition of the WTC.

 
At 28 February, 2007 14:58, Blogger Stevew said...

Drywall turns to dust quite easily.
The NIST and "Pancaking"
The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse.
Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable". Let me make this really easy for them...
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below.

There was a pgm on the history chanel last night, it clearly showed that CD would have been impossible on 3 huge buildings and nobody notice especially on girders in the basemant which are the largest. They have to be cut in the center and charges must be placed on both sides of the "H" section then wired with Primacord to a detonator some where.
Where was the detonator , in or close to the buildings outside?
How would they hide the primacord so they would be at a safe distance?

Vertical motion turns into lateral motion when it hits an obstruction. The outer gitders were bolted together, where there was a joint that broke it would transfer to lateral motion. take a thin stick and press the ends together and see what direction the forces changes to when it bends

 
At 28 February, 2007 15:17, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Watch this and weep, Freddie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

That's your entire religion going up in smoke there buddy.

(thanks to "denier turned debunker" James for the link)

 
At 28 February, 2007 15:33, Blogger Fred said...

"Global collapse was inevitable".

With these four words NIST summarizes the worst building failure in history. No computer models, no finite element analysis, no structural mathmatics, no explanation at all. Only that it was inevitable.

Why no science? Because real analysis would prove the ludicracy of their explanation.

 
At 28 February, 2007 15:36, Blogger Alex said...

Wow. That's WAY to much twoofer bullshit for me to wade through. I get the feeling that I haven't really missed much, though. So I'll just answer the last comment, instead of digging back to where I left off:

Fred, you're a liar. You know full well that an investigation was carried out, and a detailed computer simulation constructed. Don't try passing off your bullshit as truth around here; we're not 15 year old kids and asylum patients like the people on the Loose Change boards.

 
At 28 February, 2007 15:41, Blogger Fred said...

It is quite obvious that NO real investigation was carried out. The 9-11 report reads like a cheap novel because the commission was directed by a Bush crony. NIST and FEMA are laughable science from cover to cover. All conclusions in these reports are predetermined and the information twisted to attempt, unsuccessfully, to prove the authors' desired conclusions. This is known as "bad science".

 
At 28 February, 2007 15:52, Blogger Jay said...

Alex, take a chill pill :)

Just ask Fred a simple question, like can u show me one example of an investigation into a building collapse where they actually researched the event after the collapse innitiated and it was completely on the ground ( The truthers think this is standard procedure, so show me an example). I asked that a week ago on a dutch Blog and i am still waiting for an answer :)

You can also ask them the next questions which they can't answer.

Show me a peer reviewed rebuttal of Bazant and verdures paper of 2006.

Show me one example of a building brought down by thermite

Show me how much thermite was used in WTC1, 2 and 7 to bring the buildings down.

Show me what happened to the four planes that were used in the attacks, since some troofers dont believe the planes were used.

Show me what happened to all the passengers from those four planes, that were never seen again.

Still waiting for those answers to tbh. So maybe someone in here can answer all these questions.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:04, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

It is quite obvious that NO real investigation was carried out. The 9-11 report reads like a cheap novel because the commission was directed by a Bush crony. NIST and FEMA are laughable science from cover to cover. All conclusions in these reports are predetermined and the information twisted to attempt, unsuccessfully, to prove the authors' desired conclusions. This is known as "bad science".

The NIST produced a report that is over 10,000 pages long.

Please list specific examples of where the NIST erred along with the exact page numbers where the errors occur.

For example; "Variable "X" was multiplied by "Y" when it should have been SUBTRACTED instead on page 4,372".

You seem to be knowledgeable about matters of science, this should be easy for you.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:07, Blogger Jay said...

Here you can find a mail coversation between Barnett and a troofer btw where he explains his comments he made right after 9/11. Maybe SD should read this :)

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:16, Blogger Fred said...

Becasue no steel frame structure has ever collapsed except due to CD, it is impossible to compare the WTC to any collapses except CD. When the WTC collapse is compared to CD, the similarites are many.

Bazant assumes temperature of 800C in the core. Even NIST says the steel exhibited maximum temperatures of around 250C. The level of core damage Bazant assumes for his calculations was not existent.

Thermite and plane switches are somebody else's theory.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:22, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

The NIST produced a report that is over 10,000 pages long.

Please list specific examples of where the NIST erred along with the exact page numbers where the errors occur.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:25, Blogger Stevew said...

Fred you are like all the toofers, take one line and make your whole case.
The investigation around 9/11 was the most intensive and comprehensive investigation ever done. It involved 1000's of people who are a lot smarter than you. So please, enlighten us as to what happened and why you think the released version is wrong.
What's wrong about it?
Where did these 1000's of people go wrong?
What did they miss?
Why don't you give a detailed counter explaination with facts and experts to back it up
Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim?
Why have you not answered my questions if you are so smart?
How a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

Why don't you explain the process involved in building demolition?

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?

You have yet to explain how the demolition could be done and nobody notice, all we get is some fantisy about radio controlled explosives.

Do you know how these charges must be placed and why?

Where was the detonator, in or close to the buildings outside?

How would they hide the primacord so they would be at a safe distance?

With all the traffic in the lower floors, how did they manage to wire it?

When did they wire it?

How on earth did anyone place the charges in just the right spots in the trade center with out being caught and no holes in the walls to be seen?
When are you clowns going to give reports by qualified people to back up your claims?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.
Which ones have you worked on?
Tell us about all your experience with building design

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:25, Blogger Jay said...

this is from the Bazant paper.

2. Signi¯cant amount of ¯re insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by °ying debris
(without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural
steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) [the structural steel used loses about
20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, and about 85% at 600±C, NIST 2005; and
exhibits signi¯cant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450± (e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299),
especially in the columns overloaded by load redistribution; the press reports right after
9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Ba·zant
and and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that].

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:32, Blogger Fred said...

The WTC explosives set up scenario is well within the bounds of reason -

Some working numbers:
47 central core columns x 1000 feet of length = 47000 feet of steel column
47000 divided into 30 foot sections = 1500 explosive charges
1500 explosive charges divided by 10 agents is 150 charges each.
150 charges are placed by each agent over the weekend of 9/8-9 when numerous power outages occur rendering security camera and locks useless.

The WTC elevators shafts ran along the central core columns of the WTC and would have provided easy, discreet access to the core. Explosives packages in janitor carts were ferried up the service elevators from the basement to the sky lobbies. From the sky lobbies, individual elevators were temporarily closed and "serviced" with explosives.

The explosive charges are light weight and powerful military grade explosives. Each pre-packaged explosive charge contains a battery and a wireless remote control detonator with a unique serial number. The serial number is printed on a label attached to the package. Magnets are used for quick attachment to steel beams.

As each explosive charge is placed, the location and serial number is recorded into a log. The logged locations are entered into a computer. The computer later sequences the explosions via wireless remote control after the plane impact so the collapse will begin at impact point.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:34, Blogger Jay said...

Well the problem with that Fred is that the core stood longer then the rest of the building after it started collapsing. So nice try but no cigar. Most of the survivors were found inside the core on the stairs.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:39, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Even NIST says the steel exhibited maximum temperatures of around 250C.

You lied again, Fred.* The NIST says the maximum temperature was over 1000 degrees celsius.

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

You lied about what Louis Cacchioli said, you lied about what Paul Isaac said and you lied about NIST's results.

How do you claim to stand for the truth when all you do is lie?

(* Lies are determined to be as such under the "Bush Standard" wherein all comments wich later turn out to be false are automatically assumed to be willful prevarications by those who make them)

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:43, Blogger Richard said...

NIST and FEMA are laughable science from cover to cover.

Really? How? When I notice that things are BS I make specific references and show exactly how wrong they are. This isn't just unique to me, that's just how skeptics work. Truthers just say the same shit over and over without making any real points. One example is your quote above. If you really wanted to prove us wrong you would give an example and show exactly how its wrong.

All conclusions in these reports are predetermined and the information twisted to attempt, unsuccessfully, to prove the authors' desired conclusions. This is known as "bad science."

That about sums up the truth movement right there!

Because no steel frame structure has ever collapsed except due to CD, it is impossible to compare the WTC to any collapses except CD.

Well actually there have been several steel framed buildings that have collapsed because of fire. Your research skills are either piss poor or you eat up all the BS that's spooned to you from conspiracy websites. The fact that you think a building collapse has to be compared to another one to determine the cause only shows how stupid you are. If everything has to be compared to something else how does one prove the baseline? Look at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It was the only bridge of its type to ever collapse because of wind induced resonance. There is no baseline to compare that to so is the science behind that bad? Or perhaps it was a conspiracy?

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:49, Blogger Fred said...

The 1000C steel is a theory, not proven by any evidence.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:52, Blogger Jay said...

The whole truthmovent hangs on the hinges of theories u moron. I never seen any fact from any truther.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:53, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Freddie -

A.) You're lying again. The NIST says that temperatures reached 1000C inside the towers.

B.) Please list specific examples of where the NIST erred along with the exact page numbers where the errors occur.

 
At 28 February, 2007 16:58, Blogger Jay said...

I bet he never even looked at the NIST report. Just like the truthers out here. They come with claims supposedly made by NIST which are even proven wrong in the FAQ from the NIST rapport. They just like to kick at any official story without ever taking the time to actually read the official reports. Theyd rather read the quotemining stuff found on all those fecking twoofer sites or videos they love to watch.

 
At 28 February, 2007 17:08, Blogger Stevew said...

Freddie
Your explanation is a total crock, perhaps you could back up your theories with some facts from qualified people?
Why did you not answer my questions?

Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim?

How a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

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?

You have yet to explain how the demolition could be done and nobody notice, all we get is some fantisy about radio controlled explosives.

Do you know how these charges must be placed and why?

Where was the detonator, in or close to the buildings outside?

Radio controlled explosives for CD is a total fabrication.

How far did the radio's have to be to detonate the explosives
With thousands of people and electronic eqoipment in the buildings, how did they over come all the interference?

With all the traffic in the lower floors, how did they manage to wire it?

When did they wire it?

There was a pgm on the history chanel last night, it clearly showed that CD would have been impossible on 3 huge buildings and nobody notice especially on girders in the basemant which are the largest. They have to be cut in the center and charges must be placed on both sides of the "H" section then wired with Primacord to a detonator some where.

Where was the detonator , in or close to the buildings outside?

 
At 28 February, 2007 17:12, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey freddie
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.

Which crashes did you investigate?

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.

Which ones have you worked on?

Tell us about all your experience with building design

Which ones have you worked on?

 
At 28 February, 2007 19:28, Blogger Alex said...

Man, you guys gotta try this. Download the James Bond theme song, and then read Freddies explanation while listening to it. It rocks!

 
At 28 February, 2007 19:37, Blogger James B. said...

I was thinking more of "Mission Impossible".

 
At 28 February, 2007 19:55, Blogger CHF said...

Fred,

47000 divided into 30 foot sections = 1500 explosive charges

Great. Now show me a video of these 1500 charges going off.

Or at least try to explain why we can't hear them.

 
At 28 February, 2007 20:38, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 February, 2007 20:44, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, Fred, are those seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty laboratories part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy or are they merely intimidated by it? Remember? Their data showed that no explosions occurred at the WTC complex. How inconvenient is that?

How do conspiracy liars get around the FACT that not a single demolition expert in the world thinks that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives?

 
At 28 February, 2007 20:51, Blogger pomeroo said...

Fred, I understand that you're on a mission to prove yourself the least informed conspiracy liar who wastes our time here. So far, you've done well. To remain totally ignorant, you must avoid Dr. Frank Greening's demolition of Jim Hoffman's bogus science. Greening's papers are available on 911myths.com, in the section "Investigations, more." But, not to worry: they are full of that math and science stuff. Even if you stumbled across them, your chance of understanding the arguments they contain is zero.

 
At 28 February, 2007 20:52, Blogger pomeroo said...

A new fraud has joined the club. Hey, Fred, I love the way you dismiss NIST's TEN THOUSAND pages of analysis (none of which you've read). Nah, those two hundred researchers didn't perform any tests and they are ignorant of those basic principles of science that you and your fellow fantasists revere.

Here's a simple question for you and Swing Dumpster. Given that steel is invulnerable to heat and a steel-frame building can't collapse from fire, why is it so important to fireproof steel support columns? Seems like a waste, doesn't it?

 
At 28 February, 2007 21:25, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

SteveW What survivors? Everyone was removed from the building early on not only that moved away from the building. The building was empty at the time it was brought down by controlled demolition. Everyone knows that, duh!

 
At 28 February, 2007 21:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Ronald Wieck
I'm not quite sure where I posted steel was indestructible or invulnerable. If you would please link to that comment, I would be more than happy to entertain your comment.
How hot were those fires again?

Now please move on to debunking Danny Jewenko. Or better yet, go convince CDI it wasn't CD as they got the contract to study that scenario.
You would of thought they would hav said, ahhhh NIST, that isn't CD, , just look at it! That would be just be a great big waste of time! We have other things to blow up than to sit around all day trying to prove to the world that this was CD or wasn't CD.

Move on radio jockey, join the tour guide and enjoy your life.

Or better yet, go watch the historical record..
http://911truth.ning.com/

Hey you never did get to the exact time 'in the morning' that you heard about the global collapse of WTC 7. I guess you and Alex Jones do have something in common.
When was that a.m. time anyway?

And again, what the hell was Larry S. having pulled when there were no firefighting operations going on according to FEMA and Popular Mechanics?

Keep on denying....

 
At 28 February, 2007 22:39, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Oh gawd... take off that retarded "V" avatar.

That was the stupidest gawddamn movie I've seen this century. Three knife-fights, two explosions, Mrs. Darth Vader getting her head shaved and 90 minutes of being told what an awful person you are if you don't vote for the green party.

Big Brother couldn't make a dumber propaganda film.

 
At 28 February, 2007 22:48, Blogger Alex said...

Ok, you win, you're right about the whole thing. Actually Larry came to me on September 9th and he said:

"Alex, your guys are doing a great job wiring up the twin towers, but I'm really worried that people won't realize that it was Da Joos that did it. Why don't we wire up building 7 and make it even more suspicious?"

Well, obviously I thought this was a superb idea. While Pat and James were putting the finishing touches on the WTC 1 & 2 thermite charges (we weren't sure if the Death Beam would be enough by itself), I got Steve to take a crew into WTC7. Those goddamn SS agents got kinda suspicious when they saw us tearing up walls all over the place, but we took 'em out to McDonalds for lunch and sealed the deal with Oreo McFlurries.

So, long story short, come 9/11 we had everything rockin' and good to go. Unfortunately just as our holographic airplane-projecting cruise missiles hit the towers, a fucking chimp fell out of the sky, got hold of the remote control, and fucked off at the high-port. We spent 2 hours chasing that little bastard all over the downtown core while he mocked us and assaulted innocent bystanders with the remote. We could have had a WAY better kill-count if it weren't for his antics, but on the bright side he also made the whole thing MUCH more suspicious. Originally we had planned to demolish the towers right away, but it turns out all those random explosions made for a much more interesting story afterwards.

Ofcourse, by the time we'd caught up with the chimp, firefighters had moved into WTC7 and started wiring it up with their own explosives. Well, we just couldn't have that! They even refused to leave after Larry ordered the fire chief to, and I quote, "Pull your ass out of my building before I circumcise you with a rusty spoon". Eventually we settled it with a quick winner-takes all jacks tournament, the firefighters pulled it, and we blew up the building.

So congratulations, you're the first person to figure out our eeevil plot. Now, whatever you do, please don't change your name, grow a moustache, and move to Mexico. This would make it very difficult for our agents to liquidate you. Just stay right where you are. Thanks.

 
At 01 March, 2007 05:55, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Danny Jewenko has said on Dutch TV that the Twin Towers where NOT a CD.

And only after viewing the one video of WTC7 did he say it looked like that was a CD.

Now he didn't even know the time it went down, he thought it was some days latter and all the other important facts like the damage it received from the tower collapse and the fires.

He never saw the reports with all the technical descriptions of the buildings construction. The reports from engineers on site who examined the structure and the witness testimony from the NYFD who saw that the building was about to fall.

Jewenko most likely thought the building was imploded some days after and is to proud to say he screwed up when he realized it fell that day.

So Swing... which one is Jewwnko wrong about, the towers or WTC7?

 
At 01 March, 2007 06:05, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Oh gawd... take off that retarded "V" avatar.

But the movie is based on FACT!!!!!!

You are right that movie is exactly the kind of mindless pulp the the 20 something armchair anarchist love.

Picture Swing and fred in moms basement, just viewed V for the 12th time and are now all worked up. So off to the computer to save the world for TRUTH.

"L' for Losers, Coming soon to theaters near you.

 
At 01 March, 2007 09:10, Blogger CHF said...

Now please move on to debunking Danny Jewenko.

He doesn't explain why the charges were so quiet.

How's that?

Actually Swing, I think YOU should debunk him. He says the WTC towers were not demolitions, after all.

 
At 01 March, 2007 09:22, Blogger Stevew said...

sd you are dumber than a box of rocks
I never said there were suvivors in #7.
Where is your proof that it was CD and the qualified people to back it up? CDI and Protec dissagree with you.
Did you ever provide us with a list of your experts?

 
At 01 March, 2007 09:33, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Swing fantasises about being V. Just beautiful. Presumably, having been so inspired, he and the rest of the twoof movement are now going to start taking the fight to the people in power, kickin' ass and getting da people on their side? No? They're not? They're going to sit around on the couch in their mom's basement smoking dope? Well, fancy that.

Thanks to the Wachowski brothers for making Alan Moore's book accessible to retards and armchair revolutionaries everywhere!

(Incidentally, I thought Children of Men was an infinitely better dystopian future movie - but V for Vendetta was more dumbed-down and full of self-consciously 'cool' effects and stunts. Besides, some of the twoofers might have been disturbed by the amount of black people in CoM)

 
At 01 March, 2007 10:28, Blogger CHF said...

Children of Men blew V for Vendeta out of the water.

Better and more unique story, less cheesy, not kooky and with much better action scenes.

 
At 01 March, 2007 11:50, Blogger Alex said...

You guys are outta your minds. Children of Men was the most pointless movie I have EVER seen. It makes V for Vendetta seem like a masterpiece. The characters are so 2 dimensional, they may as well have used cardboard cutouts. There's no real plot. It's so bad that it inspired me to sign up for an IMDB.com account, and write my first ever review of a movie, which I shall share with you now:

You would think that somewhere in the process of writing, directing, and producing this unmitigated disaster of a film, someone would have paused and said "hey...guys....what are we doing here exactly?". The characters have absolutely zero depth, the setting is more artificial than a Borg cube, and the storyline....well, I'm still trying to figure out what the storyline IS, exactly.

The basic premise seems to be that nobody in the world can have babies any more. Instead of enjoying the last days of the human race by having as much unprotected sex as humanly possible, all the people of the world decide that Armageddon isn't coming soon enough, and try to help it along by killing each other whenever possible.

In a similar line of logic, one woman finally has a child and instead of rejoicing the whole world seems intent on chasing her down. Also, they seem to think that the best way to keep her baby alive is by pouring massive streams of bullets in her general direction.

The movie ends with no real conclusion, no closure, and no suggestion of what the future is supposed to hold. All in all, I wouldn't watch it again if someone held a gun to my head.


Yes, I know, I'm not exactly Siskel and Ebert, but, DAMN that movie sucked.

 
At 01 March, 2007 11:58, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

I'm a long time sci-fi fan. I used to say that I'd watch any sci fi film once.

Until I saw "Barberella". =P

 
At 01 March, 2007 13:22, Blogger CHF said...

At least Children of Men had some cool battle scenes.

V for Vendetta was just loony left rubbish.

"Buildings are just symbols," poor UK Muslims crushed by the ruthless UK police state, the government launching false terror attacks...

BG could have written the script.

 
At 01 March, 2007 13:31, Blogger Alex said...

I have to admit that the biggest thing that pissed me off about Children of Man was the way they went out of their way to try and simulate the abu-gharib scandal. I almost turned the movie off at that point, but managed to convince myself to suffer through the rest of it, just on the off chance that it might get better at the end.

I suppose the battle scenes were good...for those with no military experience. To me, they were just another source of aggravation.

 
At 01 March, 2007 13:50, Blogger Fred said...

The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did NOT substantiate its conclusions experimentally.

On the contrary, many of NIST's tests contradicted its conclusions.

Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then 'certify' its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST's physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST's conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions.

The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

There were also flaws in NIST's computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal.structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST's subsequent 'scenario pruning' was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to 'pull-in' forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST's theory but not explained or supported by simulation.

How real was the NIST simulation? Not very. It assumes all the fireproofing was blown off the trusses.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/ericdouglas/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

http://rense.com/general74/nist.htm

 
At 01 March, 2007 13:57, Blogger Fred said...

Zdenek P. Bazant sponsors -
Office of Naval Research
Department of Transportation
Army Research Office
Department of Energy
Sandia National Labs
Argonne National Labs

Not much chance of him publishing anything unbiased that would piss off that list of folks.

His kinetic energy analysis seems reasonable. However, he falls back on NIST to explain the initial failure that set the building top in motion. He adds no analysis of that.

 
At 01 March, 2007 14:16, Blogger CHF said...

http://rense.com/general74/nist.htm

Browse the Rense.com homepage sometime, Fred.

- 'The Dirty Work' Of Zionism Is Unfinished

- The 'God' That Serves Elite Jews

- Tucson UFO Estimated To Be One Mile Long

- Ernest Zundel - PRISONER OF ZIONISM

- Chemtrails

- Alien abductions

Yeah, lets go to Rense for engineering reviews, shall we?

 
At 01 March, 2007 14:29, Blogger pomeroo said...

The fraud Swing Dumpster has shoveled another steaming pile.

No demolition experts anywhere believe that the collapses of the Twin Towers look anything like controlled demolitions.
I spoke to Jowenko over the phone for a half-hour. He understands perfectly well that the conspiracy liars are all wet about their laser beams and holograms. He understands that Jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. He does believe, frustratingly, that WTC 7 must have housed sensitive documents that the government did not want the public to know about. He is a courteous and patient man. I have no wish to lump him in with the incredibly stupid, irrational, hate-filled ignoramuses who make up the 9/11 fantasy movement as he rejects their most precious myths completely. But honestly compels me to report that he does believe that WTC 7 was brought down intentionally. Whether the forthcoming NIST report will change his mind remains to be seen.

We know that it won't change yours.

 
At 01 March, 2007 14:31, Blogger pomeroo said...

Fred, here's a radical suggestion. Instead of parroting what a mindless ignoramus says about the NIST Report, why not read some of it for yourself? Your ignorance of NIST's work is near-total. Begin with the FAQ. From there, download the 298-page pdf file, NIST NCSTAR 1.

 
At 01 March, 2007 14:37, Blogger Alex said...

That's too bad. He seems like a very reasonable and intelligent man. It doesn't matter, though, since it's been proven over and over that even very intelligent people can be fooled into believing utter nonsense.

 
At 01 March, 2007 14:39, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Pom
Guess who wrote the report?
Journal of 9/11 Studies LOL
and we know who they are LOL
It simply means that anything in the report is questionable and probably out right lies

 
At 01 March, 2007 15:53, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

You missed one, CHF.

The Strange, Mysterious Eternal
Allure Of Adolf Hitler


Rense is one sick mother____er.

 
At 01 March, 2007 17:16, Blogger FatOllie said...


- 'The Dirty Work' Of Zionism Is Unfinished

- The 'God' That Serves Elite Jews


And now, they're going after the moon. You'd think controlling the entire worlod would satisfy these people.


Jews buy the moon

 
At 01 March, 2007 17:38, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 March, 2007 17:48, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

"The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes,... How real was the NIST simulation? Not very.

You really shot yourself in the foot this time, Freddie.

Simulations confirm that the WTC was @#$%ed.

"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."

Impact damage ALONE almost destroyed the WTC.

 
At 01 March, 2007 18:17, Blogger Fred said...

GW Bush remained at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School for half an hour after 9-11 was obviously a terror attack although he would normally be considered a potential target.

8:46 - Flight 11 hits north tower
9:02 - Flight 175 hits south tower
9:30 - Bush, speaking to the nation from Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack" and "a national tragedy." He would chase down, "those folks who committed this act." Bush also said, "Terrorism against our nation will not stand." It was an echo of "This will not stand," the words his father, George H. W. Bush, had used a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990-in Bush's opinion, one of his father's finest moments.

Bush had his speech all ready!!

PNAC wanted it.
Cheney and Rummy make millions.
Bush (Carlyle) and Silverstein make billions.
You would do it too!

 
At 01 March, 2007 18:24, Blogger Fred said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 March, 2007 18:36, Blogger Fred said...

>>>>>>to test the accuracy of the simulation by using an "impact simulator" to shoot 8-ounce beverage cans at high velocity at steel and concrete targets<<<<

Testing the accuarcy of shooting beverage cans. A fine American traditon!!

Quite high quality science. We did that every Saturday night when I lived in northern Indiana.

 
At 01 March, 2007 20:03, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

You fired beer cans through a pourpose built compressed air gun at samples of steel girders matching those used in the WTC wich were wired with sensors hooked up to a supercomputer for the pourpose of determining the girders ability to absorb kinetic energy from a fluid medium?

 
At 01 March, 2007 21:36, Blogger Alex said...

And Fred fires off the twoofer chaff dispenser!

How 'bout sticking to ONE claim for a change? Or at least admitting you were wrong before jumping to a new topic?

 
At 01 March, 2007 22:20, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

This is the part of the beer cannon story that Freddie deliberately left out:

"We created a mathematical model of the beverage can and its fluid contents the same way we modeled the airplane, and then we tested our assumptions used to formulate the model by comparing the output from the model with that from the experiment," Sozen said.

High-performance computing is essential for the research, Hoffmann said. The computer scientists and engineers have been using the "nano-regatta" computer, an IBM system approximately equivalent to the combined power of 128 personal computers. The computer is operated by Information Technology at Purdue as part of the Network for Computational Nanotechnology, based at Purdue's Discovery Park and supported by the NSF.

Other computations were carried out using computers operated by the Northwest Indiana Computational Grid, a consortium supported by the U.S. Department of Energy involving Purdue, the University of Notre Dame, Purdue University Calumet and the Argonne National Laboratory, as well as computers at Purdue's Robert L. and Terry L. Bowen Civil Engineering Laboratory for Large Scale Research.


Why do do you feel the need to hold back major portions of the truth, Freddie?

 
At 02 March, 2007 06:22, Blogger Stevew said...

freddie sounds a lot like spooked
W was not there for 30 min.
There also was a certain amount of time it would take to get his security gathered, the car, what protocalls have to be observed which he has to abide by. Lets see how many people in the Presidents party? How many vehicles? How many police escorts? Where are the drivers? Now many other little details that have to be set in motion when suddenly the schedule changes?

 
At 02 March, 2007 06:39, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

""Bush had his speech all ready!!""

This is another perfect example of how "truther logic" fall so short.

These dimwits want you to believe that knowing the attacks were going to happen GWB DID NOT chose to remain at the White House where he could appear to be in charge of the country in a time of crisis.

Marketing alone would tell you the best image of the Pres. would be him calmly directing operations from the oval office. White House media people would capture the whole thing in picture and sound. Hell! he would even refuse to go to the bunker preferring to stand and fight the terrorist toe to toe.

BUT NO!!!! you are supposed to believe he chose instead to be caught in a stupid little chair in front of a bunch of children reading fairy tales. AND THEN instead of retuning to Washington he fly off to hide until it's safe!!!!

Is this an example of your stellar reasoning skills fred? We know you can cut and paste, but can you think on you own fred.

Ah... earth to fred.... Come on buddy rub two brain cell together and try and make a spark.

 
At 02 March, 2007 06:50, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Stevew said...
"There also was a certain amount of time it would take to get his security gathered,"

Sure you would have to consider things like. Would the motorcade be a target, Truck bomb? Armed ambush? What route to take to Air Force One? Is Air Force One a target? Where do you go if it is?

But if Bush did leave right away truther would turn it around and say Bush left so fast because he knew he was in no danger. He Knew!

 
At 02 March, 2007 08:24, Blogger Stevew said...

good additional points 911
Thanks

 
At 02 March, 2007 12:16, Blogger pomeroo said...

Geez, Fred, you are a dimwit.

 
At 02 March, 2007 14:35, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Two additional points before this thread gets dropped into archive purgatory:

1.) 170 posts! Holey hell! If ever you needed proof that WTC7 was the holiest site in the truthseeker religion, this is it. Anytime a WTC7 topic pops up, the whack-job cultists go bugnutz.

2.) Fred has still not responded to my request: Please list specific examples of where the NIST erred along with the exact page numbers where the errors occur.

 
At 02 March, 2007 23:46, Blogger Erik said...

Thanks to Screw Loose Change for helping expose the public to the fact that it was being reported WTC7 was going to collapse due to being weakend by fire; a "theory" that was never promoted before 9/11, had never happened before 9/11, and hasn't happened since, either in the real world or in tests. Sure, point to the Windsor Tower in Madrid, that partially collapsed after burning 24 hours, like that's a comparison.

 
At 03 March, 2007 10:26, Blogger pomeroo said...

Thanks for chiming in, Erik. Swing Dumpster predictably failed to respond to my request for an explanation of the necessity of fireproofing on steel beams. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at it?

I'll get you started: Real architects and structural engineers don't buy the fabrications of conspiracy liars about the impossibility of steel-frame buildings collapsing as the result of fire.

 
At 05 March, 2007 08:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Of coure fireproofing is a necessity and two, you didn't link to where I suggested that steel was invulnerable that which of course displays your fradulent comments in order to support the OS. Back to the radio, kid.
Assymetrical damage to cause a symmetrical initiation of collaspe. Gotcha.

The evidence shows quite convincingly that no explosives were used in any buildings of the WTC complex.

What evidence are you referring to?
Cause I have a shit load of primary source material pointing to the use of explosives. What kind? No idea. Where, in the sublevels and along the core of the structure and near the impact point.
So what blew up in the sublevels in 1993? Was that a transformer, soda machine, or people jumping?

www.911truth.ning.com
in the video section.

The problem is you ignore such evidence because it doesn't fit the official story. I'm inclined to believe the vast number of people who witnessed or were injured due to those explosives, the video testimony, the written testimony, past attempts by terrorists, and the list goes on. I believe you arrive at your conclusion because the NIST told you so.

Real architects and structural engineers don't buy the fabrications of conspiracy liars about the impossibility of steel-frame buildings collapsing as the result of fire.

Please provide a list of all architects and structural engineers who have examined primary source material supporting the use of explosive devices, who have gained access to the data and the computer models of the NIST, examine the manipulatd data NIST used to arrive at their conclusion,
fact checked the NIST for errors, and arrived at the conclusion that no explosive devices were used at the WTC complex. If you can do that, I will never mention it again. Or to make it easier, list 2 firms that have met the above critieria.

The explosive device issue isn't a conspiracy at all. They were used. The conspiracy theory begins when you begin to examine who used them.

Now did you ever respond to what time in the morning you heard that WTC 7 was going to collapse?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home