When was structural damage to WTC7 first reported?

[petgoat]

Did the NYT articles of 9/12 explain that WTC7 fell because of structural damage?

When they evacuated the WTC7 area did they say "the building's going to come
down because there's a 20-story gash in it"?

In the oral histories, who reports the structural damage and in what form?

[Ezlivin]

1. And why did Silverstein say "Pull it" when (supposedly) he meant evacuate

If someone points out that Silverstein said "Pull it", defenders of the Bush administration will rush in to say "But he meant 'pull' the firemen out." Even though he said "it" and not "them".

Sounds fishy to me. If a building is burning and there are people inside, why not say "Evacuate the building"? Why say "Pull it"?

Does anyone really use "pull it" to mean "evacuate"?

I've never heard the term "pull it" used in such a fashion.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Members of the reality-based movement, you meant.

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

[petgoat]

5. The central paragraph of the page, the one under the picture

of the debris pile, is incoherent.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. This paragraph?

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were " did it!..".

What's so mysterious about that?

Are you suggesting that somehow the north face fell before the rest of the building and yet wound up on top?

The north face is obviously on top of everything else, and in normal land, that means it fell after everything else...

...which means...wait for it...

ASYMMETRY! The south side fell before the north side!

I demand symmetry from my symmetrical collapses.

[petgoat]

7. No, the central paragraph in the page, the one starts out

"And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. "

[Bolo Boffin]

9. I just reprinted the paragraph "under" the picture.

Why don't you sully your clipboard and paste the one you're talking about over here, petgoat? Do a little work around here for a change...

[petgoat]

11. I want to talk about the reports of structural damage to the WTC7

Come on all you OCT truth-seekers! When was it reported? The next day? The next week?
During the evacuation warnings?

I'd prefer not to discuss a page so childish it has a factual error in the second paragraph
and then goes on to put "last words" in the mouth of WTC7 " did it!..".

(And what's with the brackets? Is the writer mentally ill or what?)

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Then get your fellow "truthseekers" on the same page.

EzLivin's the one that brought up this line of reasoning, and you're the one that brought up the question of the page, but can't be bothered to contaminate your clipboard with a single "childish" paragraph...

Why the heck should we answer your question about when structural damage was reported? The Internet is out there, me buckeroo! Go do your own research and let us know what you find out.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

20. I don't "got" anyone's tongue.

Other than my own, of course. But why the sudden interest in my dietary habits?

[BuddyYoung]

27. CLOUT. Like comfort food for certain people.

nt

[AZCat]

69. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Care to expand?

[Jazz2006]

34. If you want to know...

why don't you research it?

Why ask others to do it for you?

You know, that whole "truthseeker" thing.

Edit: and why haven't all those "truthseekers" been looking for this vital information over the past four and half years? You know, making phone calls, knocking on doors, interviewing people, etc. instead of relying on the internet years later?

[petgoat]

41. I'm relatively new to this and my resources are limited.

What's wrong with asking for some leads about 9/11 in a 9/11 forum?

[dailykoff]

43. The proper subject of 9/11 forum threads

is idiotic cartoons and links to websites fulminating against "conspiracy theorist."

[Jazz2006]

75. Making phone calls, knocking on doors, interviewing people....

doesn't necessarily take a lot of resources, at least not financial resources. It takes time and commitment, which should be abundant amongst that vast group of "9/11 truthseekers" you claim to be part of.

And it is approaching five years later, after all ~ why haven't any of those self-proclaimed "9/11 truthseekers" done any of that?

To answer your question, there is nothing at all wrong with asking for "leads" in this forum, but you weren’t asking for leads ~ you were specifically calling upon those who disagree with your conspiracy theories to provide you with evidence that none of your fellow travelers have bothered to look for for nearly five years.

Edit to remove unnecessary capitals.

[petgoat]

78. What if I live in Salina? Not saying if I do or don't.

Knocking on NYC doors takes resources.

you were specifically calling upon those who disagree with your conspiracy theories to provide you with evidence that none of your fellow travelers have bothered to look for for nearly five years.

Specifically asking OCTers to provide evidence that supports the OCT.

But I'll take the evidence wherever I can get it. Were there reports in the early
news articles that said the WTC was structurally damaged to the point of collapse?

Many witnesses have said FDNY warned them away from the building because it was going to come
down. Do any of them report that the warnings reported structural damage? Inquiring minds
want to know.

[Jazz2006]

92. What if you live in Kalamazoo?

The question remains the same and your answer remains a dodge.

With your response, you pretend that it all comes down to knocking on doors in NYC, but of course, it doesn't. You have conveniently reduced your reality to the one point that you think makes your dodge believable, but it does not to any discerning reader. Have you no telephone? Have you no email capability? And what makes you think that all of the people with information that could be vital to "truthseekers" are residents of NYC?

I'll repeat, "truthseeking" on a grassroots level does not necessarily take a lot of resources, at least not financial resources.

It takes time and commitment, which should be abundant amongst that vast group of "9/11 truthseekers" you claim to be part of. And now that it is nearly five years after the fact, there is no evidence that "9/11 truthseekers" have done much of anything at all to "seek the truth" other than scour the internet.

That's not real "truthseeking" by any stretch of the imagination.

"Specifically asking OCTers to provide evidence that supports the OCT.

No, that's not what you were asking at all. You were asking others to do the "truthseeking" that the "truthseekers" have not done and should have done years ago if they were actually "seeking the truth".

The rest of your post is just an attempt to divert from the fact that neither you nor any of your fellow self-proclaimed "truthseekers" has done any real groundwork or any "truthseeking" whatsoever beyond google.

Nice attempted dodge, but I doubt that anyone's buying it.

[petgoat]

109. My experience in questioning public officials is that they

ignore my questions, change the subject, and lie to me.

Therefore I prefer to limit my research to the verifiable public record.

I thought someone in this forum might have (for instaance) set aside the
NYT coverage of the week following 9/11 and thus might be able to tell
me if they did or did not report structural damage to WTC7 in the week
following 9/11.

It's looking like I'll need to go to the microfilms.

[petgoat]

55. Ooops, the [ ] brackets were of course eliminated from my post.

The writer I referenced was of course not my estimable DU colleague boloboffin,
but the writer of that childish debunking911 site.

The peculiar "last words" ascribed by debunking911 to WTC7 were

"{this} did it!..."

Such peculiar punctuation I have seen only in illiterate religious tracts.

[BuddyYoung]

82. Larry's PR FLACK said "they pulled US" - not "they pulled IT".

Larry's PR flack knew that Larry had inadvertently(?) spilled the beans and told the truth, so the PR flack went into the SPIN NOW ZONE and tried to cover for Larry.

As soon as I saw that your post was only a link to some Disinfo site, I knew I'd find plenty of "funny stuff" there.

LARRY'S statement was made by Larry, and Larry said "pull IT", and that meant the building, which cooperated by promptly hitting the dirt. Now, OCT'ers may try to pull our legs with all kinds of convolutions, but the bottom line is: either Larry's got more thought power than that guy that moves his computer's cursor by thought or else good ol number 7 got blowed up and came tumbling straight down. And that's a real REALITY fact, Jack.

[petgoat]

173. I'm beginning to suspect that Mr. Silverstein used that language

in a deliberate attempt to stimulate conspiracy theories which could
then be dismissed as anti-semitic.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. And why did you start this thread when you have questions to be answering

in another thread?

[rman]

51. you got to be fucking kidding

[BuddyYoung]

53. It's how they operate. They aren't smart enough to do any better. nt

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Darling rman, this place is happening in real time.

Try to keep up.

[rman]

58. As far as i am concerned you have outlived your usefulness on DU

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Be that as it may, I think I shall stay n/t

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Okay, where to start...

1. I was talking to rman. Darling rman. He was being especially cute in his post to this thread, and I couldn't resist.

2. Calling you gay (if I had) is an insult? You don't even have Seinfeld's "not that there's anything wrong with that" attitude toward it? I don't think of being gay as an insulting condition. I know there are plenty of people who do, but you usually find them on the other end of the political spectrum...which makes that an interesting comment coming from you.

3. Calling you darling (if I had) is calling you gay? What an interesting view into your mind, Buddy.

4. Wow, you certainly got all butch in that post! "Hoss"? "Wimpy"? "Some kind of, well, you know, your kind of bait"? "You and your kind"? That word you are sniffing around there in your title, would it happen to be, dare I say it..."faggoty"?

On edit: Ooo, I missed "shove it". How brutal of you, Buddy. I'm all aquiver thinking about it. It's hard to keep typing with one hand here...

/sarcasm

[mirandapriestly]

138. Surely you can recognize feigned moral indignation

when you see it.

[Jazz2006]

76. Wow.

Just wow.

Homophobe much?

[Jazz2006]

98. Maybe because ....

that's what some posters do when they find themselves backed into a corner of their own making by virtue of their inability to respond meaningfully to questions after having pretended that they could ~ dodge, obfuscate, start a new thread and hope that nobody notices the dodging, obfuscation, and inability to answer the questions that they pretended they could?

Just a guess.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

8. Buddy, all I can say is I can't wait ...

for school to start again and you have something else to occupy your time.

[BuddyYoung]

10. 911 Truth Seekers are vital to some people's income. NOT yours tho.

I guess I'll go ahead and admit that whenever enough people learn the truth that 911 was an inside job, the disinformation industry will likely only face a small dip in business because with BUSHco, there'll always be plenty of nonsense to defend and promote.

[mirandapriestly]

30. funny, that is what I always thought of you guys..

[petgoat]

13. 11/29/01 NYT article claims structural damage to WTC7

http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.html

"Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."



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

12/3/01 Chief Fellini claims structural damage to WTC7:

"When fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors
across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and
the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours
we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building."

[dailykoff]

15. Sounds perfectly plausible.

Five or six hours is about all they'd need to remove or destroy any incriminating evidence.

I'm sure the valuables were removed well before 9/11.

[hack89]

16. Now all you have to do is prove it. nt

[dailykoff]

17. Oh? Why? (n/t)

[hack89]

18. For a pleasant change. nt

[dailykoff]

22. It's not a pleasant subject.

Maybe you should take a little break.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. PrisonPlanet?

Are we allowed to link to PrisonPlanet?

[BuddyYoung]

25. The substance in the article is what counts.

I guess there might be one or two people here that don't realize why someone would try to avoid the substance of an article by attacking the author or where it was first published. That's chickensh--.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Buddy, this isn't Vietnam. There are rules. n/t

[BuddyYoung]

28. Quack, quack. That's the only response we get?

Your response only makes sense to people "in the know".

[mirandapriestly]

29. Why don't you

just push the alert button about ten times and find out. You seem to go up and down the threads seeing what you can get them to delete regardless of content. You wouldn't be trying to get the 911 forum tombstoned now would you? You see, the more you people post, the more passionate we become and the more suspicious others are as to what you are doing. It backfires.

[BuddyYoung]

32. It does backfire....but it seems the wrong people pay the price.

And yes, now that you mention it, that is exactly what is going in, in my opinion. Ouch. It does hurt to know it and be helpless to do anything about it.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. God forbid you actually engage us in a discussion.

No, we post and you get passionate.

And the bunnies that go homeless because of it...




This one had to hide under a pancake to get out of the rain.

Have pity on the bunnies.

[BuddyYoung]

48. God forbid that you prove your Conspiracy Theory instead of

focusing on OCT "opinions" based on the discredited NIST report that doesn't even attempt to explain how four steel buildings all collapsed virtually into their own footprint. Something that has never happened before in history, anywhere.

How could that have happened, bolo? Why don't you try and do that, and leave the "cute" stuff back there in the "sets" department.

Your posts are fluffy, but empty of real substance.

[mirandapriestly]

97. I posted examples of the way you people "engage"

but low and behold, I do believe you had it deleted. If you really wanted to engage in discussion then you would discuss on the more involved threads, but you won't even go near them. You are one trick ponies, the same things over and over again and you make sure they're always at the top.

Where did you get that picture? It is identical to one a poster put up a few months ago and said it was their own pet.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Awwwwwwww.

I didn't have it deleted, but thank you for making me the most dastardly of the dastardly in your mind. Demonization by a CTer in the September 11 Forum - it's the new black.

FFR,it's "lo" and behold. Low is an indication of height, lo is the particle used to attract attention.

I feel no need to engage in the game Six Degrees of Kroll. Why try to refute what no one will ever read?

I make no claims on that bunny.

[mirandapriestly]

175. ful.

Another personality morph, you sure have a lot of them. You did post on that thread , but no one answered you, cuz your posts give people the creeps. Maybe you forgot, or maybe someone else was using your id and didn't tell you.
Also, you wrote a two paragraph post on how you had contacted you close personal friend Skinner, to try to get a post deleted because it might have "piracy" issues. ...so you are the one who gave me the idea about deleted posts. You have to do something with your time I guess, a supposed "democrat" who spends all his/her time arguing with crazy "cters", but doesn't seem to care about anything that George Bush does. We are so much more of a threat to democracy that he is, aren't we? Apparently we're a threat to something...

[Bolo Boffin]

178. minate all you want against me.

If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad.
If it makes you happy, then why the hell are you so sad?

[BuddyYoung]

179. The "all fluff, no stuff" response is what I expected to see, and SEE,

that's exactly what was posted. Why do they hate so many good Americans, yet love GW Bush, his rightwing agenda and the rightwingnuts that help sell it while trying to suppress the truth?

There DOES appear to be a slight widening of a degree or two of separation by the more calm ones from their most obnoxious "bad cops".

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

19. redundancy is a very cool feature

The damage to wtc7 would have to be very significant to explain what's displayed in the video evidence; the probability of debris from the towers piercing wtc7 and taking out the supporting columns is astronomical.. It’s kind of funny this is even debated

Buildings don't collapse from fire or even severe structural damage


edit: broken image link

[hack89]

21. So this building was identical in every respect to the WTC?

or are you saying that differences in design and building materials are irrelevant?

Seems like a pretty sweeping generalization to come to base on a single picture with no amplifying information. Care to elaborate a little bit?

[Jazz2006]

35. Sure... pick an 8 storey building, any 8 storey building....

in any kind of circumstances - none of which are noted by the poster above - and it simply "must" be conclusive about all other buildings in all other circumstances....

or something like that.

[mrgerbik]

37. Kind of like...

how WTC1, 2 & 7 are all conclusive of each other, in regards to their collapsing, even thou WTC7 was constructed differently and at a different time. Why would it fail just as the towers did?

[Jazz2006]

38. Whatever gave you the idea that

1, 2 and 7 are "all inclusive of each other"?

Are what does your post have to do with the premise of the prior posts in the subthread re: the 8 storey building?

[mrgerbik]

39. I don't believe they are inclusive.

You seem to be attempting to point out that the poster is making generalizations about buildings and how they would react to damage of this sort.

I am saying that this is exactly what you are doing by supporting the idea that WTC7 would collapse in the same manner as WTC1 & 2, and for essentially the same reasons (damage and fires). They were different buildings, they were built differently and WTC7 was built some 20 years after the towers.

[Jazz2006]

71. Um, no.

I was simply pointing out that you cannot compare an unspecified 8 storey building in circumstances unknown and without further comment, to any of WTC 1, 2 or 7.

I have no idea how you read so much more into that.

[mrgerbik]

80. neither am I

I am trying to make the point that you criticize someone for using another building as a comparison to WTC7, while you are happy to put 1, 2 & 7 together because in your view they all collapsed due to fire and structural damage. Buildings collapsing this way was unprecedented prior to 9/11.

WTC7's collapse is still officially a mystery, and the circimstances surrounding it are entirely different from the towers - but somehow fire caused all 3 to drop straight down.

Looks like its the same idea applied to entirely different buildings.

[BuddyYoung]

81. A REAL lawyer would be consistent. A FAKE lawyer wouldn't care. nt

nt

[Jazz2006]

87. Buddy, buddy, buddy.... ho hum.

Just whip out that "paid shill" graphic, Buddy, or design a new one that says "Liar!" and save yourself the keystrokes of trying to disparage those who don't buy into the tinhat theories with your transparent false accusations.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

86. You're making leaps that I have never made and assuming things

that I have never said and would, actually, wholly disagree with.

There is a big difference between saying "this 8 storey building is some kind of proof about how all buildings should respond in all circumstances, even though I have provided you absolutely zero information on what this building is, what happened to it, what circumstances were present that caused the damage to it, etc." and saying "more than one building has collapsed due to fire and structural damage".

Your logic is lacking, my friend.

In my view, WTC1, 2 and 7 all collapsed differently. From fire and structural damage, yes, but in different manners.

If you can't understand the difference between positing that a photo of an 8 storey building that did not collapse is indicative of how all buildings of any size in any circumstances should behave in entirely different circumstances, and positing that certain specific buildings in certain specific instances may have collapsed in similar circumstances and different fashions, well, there is nothing I can do about that except to suggest that you work on developing your reading comprehension, logical thinking, critical thinking, and rational thinking skills.

[BuddyYoung]

103. Here's a suggestion for YOU.

Apologize to the DU community for falsely claiming to be a lawyer.

[Jazz2006]

107. That is an out and out lie, Buddy.

I am, in fact, a lawyer.

That you choose not to believe that fact does not alter the truth of that fact one iota.

[petgoat]

112. Since the claimed credentials of anonymous internet posters are

not verifiable, it's silly to claim them at all.

But you knew that, right?

[Jazz2006]

113. That does not detract from the fact that Buddy is making serious

accusations against me that are completely false.

Edit to add: and, by the way, the only reason that my profession came up in this forum at all was in response to specific questions by CTers.

[BuddyYoung]

117. Yes, it IS a serious accusation. See Post #114.

nt

[Jazz2006]

128. I've seen it. See #116 and #122.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

126. lol.. very silly

[Jazz2006]

127. Yeah, it would be if

someone came along offering their credentials for no apparent reason as though the fact of one's profession means anything. But, of course, that is not what happened here. Rather, some CTer asked a specific question and received a specific answer.

Seems kind of silly to ask the question (repeatedly, in the case of certain CTers) for the purpose of pooh poohing the answer.

[mirandapriestly]

136. Real professionals do not use their

credentials to bolster their opinions online. In fact they don't mention anything at all about themselves, since they don't want to compromise their livelihood. Except maybe on a forum shared by other professionals from similar a background, which is probably where a real professional would post.

[Jazz2006]

143. Have you ever noticed that it is only

small minded people who think that answering a question about your line of work makes one suspect?

Have you ever noticed that it is only CTers here who ask for personal information from those who disagree with most of the conspiracy theories?

Have you ever noticed that it is CTers who then try to twist the answer about one's profession into some kind of attempt to "bolster" one's opinions.

I don't understand why anyone would think that the fact that I am a lawyer adds anything to the opinions I express. In fact, given that so many people claim to despise lawyers, I would think that it would have the opposite effect. Yet that, too, seems to escape the small minded.

It's a strange old world in CT-land.

[BuddyYoung]

114. Prove it and I'll apologize if you feel you were insulted.

And btw, I know what the phrase a "lawyer in fact" means, so if you're trying to use that as a defense against the charge that you are NOT a licensed attorney, don't think you're fooling anyone.

What about the being a pilot business? Is that also a lie?

[Jazz2006]

116. You are quite wrong, yet again.

I am a fully licensed practising lawyer, Buddy. A civil and commercial litigator, to be precise.

Try a little reading comprehension.

I never said I was a pilot and have never been a pilot. I have, however, flown large aircraft a few times, as set out in another thread. See the thread about flying airplanes without formal training.

[BuddyYoung]

120. Can you prove it? I don't think so, else you already would have.

nt

[Jazz2006]

123. Yes, I can. See #122.

[BuddyYoung]

129. Saw 'em both. Neither one has any proof, so where is it?

Your posts only add to suspicions about the veracity of your claims re: practicing lawyer, in commercial and civil litigation. Too many things that "don't add up." 90% of the posters here are more skilled in advocacy and not one of them has claimed to be a trial lawyer. At least to my knowledge, none have.

[BuddyYoung]

130. Well, I know you must be embarassed. At least I hope you are.

To save face, I know you can't admit it, but I'm going to drop the matter now. You probably just got carried away in a heated moment and thought maybe that by claiming to be a lawyer, people would take you more seriously. Obviously, you are unable to prove your bona fides, though as I said, since you are a SUPPORTER of Bushco's 911 CT, YOU would have nothing to fear from proving your claim, whereas if you were a 911 Truth Seeker, it might be unwise, in light of what has happened to so many others who are openly anti-Bushco.

Best wishes to you.

[Jazz2006]

139. Oh come on, take me up on it.

It's the least you can do after calling me a liar several times.

I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about.

Go ahead and email the administrators as I have suggested.

[mirandapriestly]

135. You may have some

documentation from a third rate school that anyone could get into , but your demeanor does not ring true in accordance with what I know of professional people. One lawyer I have known since I was a teenager is a partner in an influential Seattle firm. He went to Columbia University in NYC and set the worlds' record for flying around the world in a single engine Cessna with his dad when he was in junior high school in the late 70s. People like him DO exist, but they don't spend from 11 to three each night making histrionic posts on a 9-11 forum. Most of the people in my family, including my husband, are professionals from competitive universities with secondary degrees and they don't behave like the person in your posts. Your mentality, and this has nothing to do with your opinion of who did 911, is more similar to that which might be found in the manufacturing or clerical sector. A partner, or someone trying to make partner in a law firm, would not post for hours on a 911 forum and they would not use their alleged professional expertise to bolster their opinion. I have noticed many OCT's do this. My husband is a real professional and he is MIHOP, not because of his engineering knowledge, but because of the behaviors of our government on that day and after and all the things in the threads that you people never address.

[Jazz2006]

140. Nonsense.

Go ahead, why don't you take me up on what I posted to your pal, Buddy, and email the admins.

You keep forgetting that I didn't come here volunteering the information that I'm a lawyer - rather, it was in response to questions from CTers.

Your posts are sounding a bit desperate.

[mirandapriestly]

133. S/he also claimed to be a nuclear physicist

The post was deleted because of personal attacks, but it's true.

[BuddyYoung]

134. I didn't know that, but I expect we'll hear a loud "THAT'S NOT TRUE"...

s/he has everything to gain by denying having ever made such a claim & since the post was deleted, it can't be proven. Only remembered.

I think they:

* Believe that by making such claims about their alleged occupation, their posts are more credible.

* Try to "blend in" by doing things like the above.

* Simultaneously want to be thought of as "just plain folks" like other DUers, and as experts in various fields.


"Face miles of trials with smiles.
It riles THEM to believe that
We perceive the web they weave,
And keep on thinking free."

[mirandapriestly]

137. Anyone can claim anything they want on these forums

which is why the "good posters" don't divulge much personal or professional info about themselves. People who need to bolster their posts with claims of degrees are suspect.

[Jazz2006]

142. That's just silly.

I've never made such a claim, so there is no way that miranda can "remember" such a thing.

It exists or existed only in someone's fevered imagination.

[Jazz2006]

141. What tripe.

I have zero science background ~ and have never claimed to have any.

You have either confused me with someone else or you're hallucinating.

[petgoat]

144. I have zero science background

Then you'd better quit asserting the official story on the WTC collapses.

It's possible for a person with no science background and an open mind
to understand the official story and the problems with it, but it's
not possible for a person with no science background to reasonably conclude
that the official story is correct.

[Jazz2006]

145. I disagree.

One can read, learn, understand and process information sufficiently, without having a particular background, to come to reasonable conclusions.

[petgoat]

146. One can. But you clearly haven't. And it is not possible

to examine the official story with an open mind and examine the
criticisms with an open mind, and come to the conclusion that
the official story is correct. There is insufficient data to
prove it.

[Jazz2006]

147. One can. And I have. And it is entirely possible to examine

the official story and examine the criticisms with an open mind and come to the conclusion that there are several things lacking in the official story, but that controlled demolitions, missiles, no-planes, extra-planes, holograms, snuff movies, etc. are not the answer.

Most rational people who utilize critical thinking skills seem to agree.

I do not know a single person who thinks that the "official story" is the whole story. I do not know why CTers seem to insist that if one doesn't buy into most of the conspiracy theories touted here in the dungeon, that one must, by default, believe everything about the "official story". This very point has been made numerous times on these boards, but it just seems to never sink in to many CTers.

[petgoat]

148. If you think fires and/or structural damage brought the towers

down, you are buying the official story. There's no way around that.

You're buying it despite the fact that firemen reported exposions in the
buildings, despite the inexplicable molten metal in the basements, and
despite the fact that the official theories of the collapse, FEMA's and
NIST's, completely contradict each other.

[Jazz2006]

149. Your position amounts to, "if you don't agree with the CTers...

you buy the official story" and that is simply inaccurate.

I do, in fact, believe that fires and structural damage brought down the towers, despite CTers repeated attempts to point at a few anomolies or loose ends and cry "conspiracy theory".

My position on the coverup of all manner of ineptitude, negligence, corruption, etc. that has been pulled off by the administration is on record here. That is not "buying the official story".

[petgoat]

150. If you believe the implausible and unproven story that

fires and structural damage caused the towers to collapse,
you are believing the official story about the collapse.

Presumably it is your lack of scientific background that
prevents you from seeing the fatal holes and dishonesty
in the official investigations.

Because of your lack of scientific background and/or your
lack of investigation, you can not honestly believe the
official story of the collapse. Thus your belief in it
must be a dishonest one based on misplaced faith in the
veracity and diligence of the official investigators.

[Jazz2006]

151. Your gratuitous insults notwithstanding,

One need not be a scientist to research, study, consider and draw conclusions from the work of others.
I consult experts on all manner of topics and fields on a regular basis and am more than capable of understanding complex theories, facts, procedures, cause and effect, machinations, issues, etc. and I am quite competent at getting experts to explain complicated matters in a manner that is comprehensible to laypeople, as well.

It does seem odd that even though you are not a scientist yourself, you seem to positing that anyone who is not a scientist is incapable of forming a considered and rational opinion about anything that happened on September 11/01 unless they agree with you and other CTers. Yet, when presented with scientific data and formulas in response to various of your assertions, you refused to read them, consider them or even try to refute them, instead dismissing them out of hand in favour of your faith based assertions in support of various conspiracy theories.

Just because you and other CTers call the collapses "implausible" does not make them so. You may want very much to believe that, but your belief doesn't make it so.

It is not my lack of scientific background that prevents me from buying into most of the conspiracy theories touted here, and your insults come across as rather immature.

I see that you've changed positions from your last post which amounted to "if you don't believe the conspiracy theories, you buy the official story" to your current post which amounts to, essentially, "if you don't believe the conspiracy theories, you're dishonest, incompetent, incapable of understanding anything scientific, and you buy the official story".

You're still wrong ~ you just managed to incorporate a few extra gratuituous insults into the latter post.

[dailykoff]

152. There are no insults in his posts

and if there were they'd be long gone. Incidentally an attorney's purposes in consulting "experts" has nothing to do with objective analysis so your conclusions are not surprising.

[Jazz2006]

154. There is nothing worthy of response in your post. n/t

[petgoat]

153. "One need not be a scientist to research, study, consider

and draw conclusions..."

I didn't say one did.

you seem to positing that anyone who is not a scientist is incapable of forming a considered and rational opinion

I posited nothing of the sort. I posited that open-minded non-scientists were fully capable of
studying the WTC collapses and coming to a reasonable conclusion.

when presented with scientific data and formulas in response to various of your assertions,
you refused to read them

In the courtroom of my mind, unverifiable data is inadmissible evidence. For instance, PY's
photo of alleged WTC damage and Careful's snow-job calculations.

Just because you and other CTers call the collapses "implausible" does not make them so.

Nobody said it did. What makes them implausible is the explosive expulsion of dust, the violation
of the law of conservation of angular momentum, the molten metal in the basements, the molten metal
pouring out of WTC2, the reports of explosions, the rapidity of the collapses, the complete
destruction of the 47 16" x 36" steel core columns, the destruction of evidence, the truncation
of the NIST analysis in space and in time, the contradiction between the NIST theory and the FEMA
theory, the withholding of evidence, the exclusion of investigators from the ground zero site,
the failure to explain the sufidation attack on the steel samples... for starters. These issues
you brush aside as mere conspiracy theories.

your current post... amounts to, essentially "if you don't believe the conspiracy theories, you're dishonest, incompetent, incapable of understanding anything scientific, and you buy the official story".

It amounts to nothing of the sort. I am not criticizing honest agnosticism, which I consider to be
the only dignified position. We just don't know, and only a fool would claim she does. That fool
is you. You choose to believe the unbelievable. That's what I'm criticising.

On a "quality of argument" level the official story of the collapses is extremely poor. You
must know that.

[Jazz2006]

156. No, you're just repeating...

You're just repeating things that you have backed off of previously and repeating the same claims that you haven't been able to support previously.

You're calling the calculations of others "snowjob calculations" even though you couldn't refute them and instead of even making any attempt to do so, criticized the poster on the basis of his city of residence.

You're back to the "explosive expulsion of dust" which you've previously admitted is a non issue, the "violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum" which you've never been able to support, and all the same old, same old unsupported assertions that are the CTer talking points, in what one can only view as ongoing attempts to fool newbies into buying into the conspiracy theories, without ever actually backing up the assertions.

It is rather transparent.

Oh, and you couldn't restrain yourself from tossing in another gratuitous insult. No surprise, there. That seems to be all that the CTers have these days.


And as for the "courtroom of (your) mind....

"In the courtroom of my mind, unverifiable data is inadmissible evidence. For instance, PY's
photo of alleged WTC damage and Careful's snow-job calculations."

I don't know what the courtrooms of your mind look like, but in real courtrooms, experts present their opinions based upon their own work, expertise, study and/or review of the work of others, etc., and what you personally may think is "unverifiable data" is, in fact, admissible evidence from an expert who has been qualified as such in court to give their expert opinion, so it would appear that the courtroom in your mind looks nothing like a real, actual courtroom.

Of course, other experts, similarly qualified as such in court to give their expert opinion, may well disagree and can present their own contrasting opinions.

But yes, they are admissible under the usual rules of evidence.

[petgoat]

159. You are very very confused.

you couldn't refute them

I didn't even have time to read them, let alone refute them.

criticized the poster on the basis of his city of residence

Not so, criticized the poster on the basis of the unverifiability of his city of
residence, as a symbol of the unverifiablity of his expertise.

the "explosive expulsion of dust" which you've previously admitted is a non issue

I never said that was a non issue. I said pulverization was a non-issue. Dust expulsion
is THE issue, because there's no plausible mechanism for it except explosives.

the "violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum" which you've never been
able to support

It supports itself. Things that start rotating, like the top of tower 2, should keep rotating.

what you personally may think is "unverifiable data" is, in fact, admissible evidence from
an expert

PY's picture was sourced from a video he got in a cereal box and could not name. An anonymous
internet poster can not be an expert, because her credentials are not verifiable.

[Jazz2006]

163. No, it is not I who is confused.

That is abundantly apparent to any reasonable reader.

[petgoat]

164. I take it back. You are very very very confused. nt

[Jazz2006]

167. Not at all. And it is more than obvious to

any reasonable person reading these threads.

But nice try.

[Carefulplease]

171. Conservation of angular momentum.

It supports itself. Things that start rotating, like the top of tower 2, should keep rotating.

What makes you think it does not keep rotating?

[petgoat]

172. "What makes you think it does not keep rotating?"

Maybe it does. Perimeter column debris near to Church Street suggests that it did.

But if it did, there is no longer any reasonable explanation for the destruction of the lower
60 floors of the tower, because the rotating top should have simply fallen off.

[Carefulplease]

180. Fallen off?

The block acquired angular momentum because it was subjected to a torque. This torque occurred because the collapse was initiated by the asymmetric sagging of the perimeter wall columns. It is a combination of gravity pulling down on one side while structural elements that have not yet failed still support (push up) the other side. The application such a torque (a combination of vertical forces) does not produce any significant linear momentum. So there is no force that could have caused the base of the rotating upper block to fall any other way than straight down.

Strangely, Jones, who raises this issue, claims that the block "turns into powder in mid air" (when it is actually seen falling *into* the dust cloud) and seems to suggest that this results in the disappearance of its angular momentum. But this is just an incredible thing for a theoretical physicist to suggest.

Also, the upper block does not just start to "topple over". It is clearly seen to be falling down while it is rotating.

[Jazz2006]

157. delete - dupe

[vincent_vega_lives]

47. They didnt

WTC1&2 and WTC7 were constrcted differently, damaged differently, and fell differently.

[DoYouEverWonder]

44. Here's a bigger one

In events like this, partial collapses are to be expected. However total collapse of 3 separate steel buildings from fire is unprecedented. Especially when the fires did not burn throughout the structure, nor did they burn for a significant length of time.

[Jazz2006]

77. Apples and oranges.

There were no prior "events like this".

That's the point.

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. The Madrid Fire and WTC 7 are comparable

Both are tall steel buildings. Madrid = 32 stories, WTC = 47 stories.

Neither one was hit by an airplane.

The fire in Madrid was much more extensive, intense and burned for a much longer period of time, yet the steel structure survived.



Compared to the phantom fires of WTC 7 which were still small at 2 PM, damage from the towers and the fires in the building were not enough by themselves to cause the total failure of the entire building.

[Jazz2006]

84. No, they aren't.

The ground upon which the Madrid Tower stood was not subject to the seismic forces of two 110 storey buildings a block away falling to the ground in cataclysic events as WTC7 was;

the Madrid Tower did not have debris raining down on it causing damage to its structure prior to the fire;

the Madrid Tower did not have the same type of construction as WTC7;

the Madrid Tower did not house anything similar to the Con Ed substation that WTC7 housed;

the Madrid Tower did not have its firefighting capabilities disrupted by the prior collapse of two 110 storey buildings and the resulting failure of watermains and standpipes;

at the Madrid Tower, thousands of people in nearby buildings had not been killed, thousands more injured, and an entire country was not reeling as a result of the fire;

at the Madrid Tower, hundreds of firefighters had not been killed in nearby buildings;

at the Madrid Tower, there was no concomitant massive search and rescue effort to try to find survivors in the rubble of the other buildings to take precedence over the fire in that particular building as there was at WTC7;

etc.

No honest researcher can really look at WTC7 in a vacuum. What occurred there was not an isolated incident. What occurred there was part of the much larger picture, which cannot be ignored.

[petgoat]

90. WTC7

The ground upon which the Madrid Tower stood was not subject to
the seismic forces

FEMA cites no seismic forces in their analysis. None of the other
WTC-area buildings were weakened by this supposed earthquake. You are
making up arguments that have been long ago discredited.

the Madrid Tower did not have debris raining down on it causing damage
to its structure

The evidence that WTC7 did is so unreliable that FEMA ignored it.

[Jazz2006]

95. So what?

Who ever said that the FEMA report was perfect or all inclusive?

Because FEMA didn't include it in its report, the seismic events that actually occurred at the scene are irrelevant to you?

Because FEMA didn't mention the debris damage to WTC7, you think that it was undamaged?

Strange, that.

[petgoat]

100. So FEMA regarded seismic damage and structural damage

as factors not relevant to the collapse of the building.

Even though they couldn't explain the collapse, they didn't cite those
issues.

[Jazz2006]

101. Nonsensical non-responsive response yet again...

No surprise there.

You seem to have a tendency to draw conclusions and state as facts things that you have absolutely no basis for, and the archives indicate that you've been doing that since June 30, 2005.

But, to stay on topic for a moment, if it's not too much trouble, can you get back to the matter at hand?

I.e. that the Madrid Tower fire is not even remotely comparable to the events of September 11, 2001?

That seems to be the subject that you're trying to dodge from most recently, the discussion of which you interrupted with your attempts to derail the discussion, ... I could be wrong about it being your most recent attempt at disruption, but who can keep up with all the dodging and weaving "truthseekers" do these days?

[BuddyYoung]

104. "Physician", heal thyself.

"No surprise there.

You seem to have a tendency to draw conclusions and state as facts things that you have absolutely no basis for, and the archives indicate that you've been doing that since June 30, 2005."


You falsely claimed to be a lawyer. That kind of blatant dishonesty from the OCT'er community has been par for the course, since 911.

Why did you do that? What did you hope to accomplish by falsely claiming to be a lawyer?

[Jazz2006]

108. Why do you continue to tell out and out lies, Buddy?

As stated above, I am, in fact, a lawyer.

That you choose not to believe that fact does not change the truth of it one iota.

[BuddyYoung]

119. If you are, then prove it. As an OCT'er supporter, you don't have to fear

disclosure of your bona fides. NO Bush 911 CT'er has taken an anthrax hit, had they plane zapped etc..
Yet, I'm willing to put myself at risk to prove the point. YOU prove you're a lawyer, and I'll prove every word of the claims I made about my knowledge and associations with lawyers. DEAL?

[Jazz2006]

124. See #122.

[Make7]

88. The Windsor Tower

The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side walls. The structure above ground was characterised by two transition floors at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services.

The typical floor slab construction was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by RC columns on two sides below 17th Floor level.

The transition floors were formed with solid RC slabs and deep beams. The original facade mullions and transoms were fixed to the steel perimeter columns, and a new facade structure had been added to outside of old facade. The perimeter columns in turn were supported by transition structures at 17th and 3rd Floor levels.

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.



http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

-Make7


"[this] did it!..."

[Jazz2006]

96. Thanks, Make7

My recollection was that the Madrid Tower was of very different construction than WTC7 but I couldn't recall the details and while I wanted to say it had a concrete core (and thought of christophera at the time), I didn't have the link or the time to look for it to be sure of the details. So, thank you ~ bookmarked for the future reference now :)

[Carefulplease]

158. The Madrid Windsor building steel structure did NOT survive.

The building had a steel reinforced concrete core and frame (unlike WTC7). Conspiracy sites often forget to mention this. This prevented a global collapse. The building also had a network of perimeter steel columns supporting upper floors. These did collapse. Conspiracy sites always forget to mention this.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Conclusion : Fire can cause steel structures to collapse

[petgoat]

160. You forgot to mention that the Windsor steel was not fireproofed. nt

[Carefulplease]

161. I also forgot to say that no Boeing 767 crashed into it at 500mph.

What does that do to fireproofing?

[BuddyYoung]

162. We'll have to wait until such an event happens, won't we?

It's impossible to say what impact that a crash of a B767 would have until and unless such a thing happens. Your post is logically flawed because there's no credible evidence to support the notion that a B767 crashed at or into any of the WTC buildings. Of course, for supporters of what Bushco says happened on 9/11, credible evidence isn't necessary. Credible evidence is only required for claims made by Progressives/Democrats, right?

[vincent_vega_lives]

45. "Buildings don't collapse from fire or even severe structural damage"

I love it when people speak in absolutes so confidently. It makes them looks so intelligent.

[petgoat]

57. "Buildings don't collapse from fire or even severe structural damage"

Can you name one that did?

Aside from earthquake damage?

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. So already making caveats?

So earthquakes don't result in "severe structural damage"???

As for fires: Multi-story Building Fires with Collapse (4 or more stories)

22 from 1970-2002 (5 on Sept 11, 2001)


http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf#search='building%20collapse%20due%20to%20fire'

[Jazz2006]

73. Can you name a single building that has NOT collapsed

after having a large jetliner deliberately flown into it at, say, 400-500 mph, anywhere between the 78th and 100th floors?

Edit: typo

[petgoat]

79. According to Dr. Thomas Eagar, the architect of the

"zipper/pancake" WTC towers collapse theory that was conventional wisdom
for 3-1/2 years, the effect of the planes was "like a bullet hitting a tree."
In other words, negligible.

NIST said the fireproofing was the problem, and the fires brought the towers down.

And this was after tweaking the computer models from "realistic" damage to
exaggerated.

[Jazz2006]

85. Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the simple question....

Can you name a single building that has NOT collapsed after having a large jetliner deliberately flown into it at, say, 400-500 mph, anywhere between the 78th and 100th floors?

[petgoat]

89. It's not a dodge at all. The official experts do not ascribe the

collapse to structural damage from the planes. According to zipper/pancake
the floors were weakened by fires, and flimsy anchors gave way. According
to NIST the columns were buckled by sagging floors.

I can;'t name any buildings that did not come down after being hit by
airplanes, but then, I can't name any grandmothers whose heads exploded
after they accidentally swallowed half an alka-seltzer pill.

But suppose the nursing home said that's what happened to granny. And when
I got there I found that they'd already cremated the body. I'd find an
expert from one jurisdiction saying that even though she was unable to examine
the body he was sure her head exploded, and an expert from another jurisdiction
insisting that even though she was unable to examine the body she was sure it
IMploded.

And I'd find you standing there saying "There's a first time for everything."

[mrgerbik]

93. Well put n/t

[Jazz2006]

94. It most certainly is a dodge.

As usual.

I find it amusing, though, to watch you twist in the wind when your own tactics are occasionally used against you, as you have here once again.

It's equally amusing to see you revert to your old granny/autopsy/cremation silly analogies ~ which you've been doing for months ~ when you find yourself unable to skate any further and unable to respond in any meaningful fashion to a post from someone who doesn't buy into conspiracy theories, in an effort to deflect from the fact that you could not answer the question in a straightforward manner in the first place.

You did not disappoint.

And if you really need to be reminded, you started this with "Can you name one that did?" with a proviso that was designed to eliminate the fact that yes, there were some that did ~ so your complaining about asking "Can you name one that didn't" with no proviso but for one unique circumstances that actually applied to the scenario at hand ~ seems pretty transparent... and, well, silly.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

111. Buddy, I don't understand why you repeat this lie.

I am, in fact, a lawyer.

Why on earth you continue to falsely accuse me of lying is beyond my comprehension, and frankly, your behaviour is likely a bannable offence.

It won't be me who alerts on you because I have never once done so and won't start now, but you are dangerous ground.

[BuddyYoung]

115. Prove it, and I'll apologize if you feel you were wronged.

As I understand it, you have claimed to also be an airline pilot. Was THAT a misstatement?

[Jazz2006]

118. You're quite wrong again.

See #116.

[BuddyYoung]

121. In other words, NO, you can't prove it because I'm right .

nt

[Jazz2006]

122. Not true. I can prove it.

I can prove it, if the admins allow.
They know my real name, obviously, because I am a donor.
If they don't mind, I can scan and send them documentation to prove that I am a lawyer.

Edit to add: please feel free to email the admins and tell them that you are accusing me of lying and would like them to settle this dispute that you've created in your mind, by accepting documentation from me that establishes that I am telling the truth. Let me know how you make out. If they agree to your request, I will scan and send various and sundry documents showing that I am telling the truth, to the mods, who can then report back to you without disclosing my personal information to you.

[petgoat]

106. So what aspect of the toasted granny analogy is silly, Jazz?

Either a) you think it's silly because if it were your granny the nursing home
had cremated prematurely, you would find that acceptable

or

b) my analogy of prematurely destroyed evidence and contradictory official
pronouncements made without comment on the missing evidence is flawed.

So which is it? Your failure to provide specifics for "b" leads me to believe
it must be "a".

[Jazz2006]

72. No kidding. And as everyone knows, anything that has not

happened in the past cannot possibly happen in the future.

Sheesh.

[gbwarming]

23. NYT 9/12/01 said "could have been caused by a combination of falling"

Available for purchase at
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40715FC395C0C718DDDA00894D9404482
A DAY OF TERROR: THE BUILDINGS; Towers Believed to Be Safe Proved Vulnerable to an Intense Jet Fuel Fire, Experts Say

*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
September 12, 2001, Wednesday
By JAMES GLANZ (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 3, Column 1, 1597 words

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1597 WORDS -The cause of the twin collapse yesterday of the World Trade Center towers in downtown Manhattan was most likely the intense fire fed by thousands of gallons of jet fuel aboard the two jetliners that crashed into the buildings, experts on skyscraper design said. The high temperatures, of perhaps...



also posted in full at http://www.albany.edu/mumford/wtc/jamesglanz.htm
...
The later collapse of the smaller 7 World Trade Center could have been caused by a combination of falling debris and a less intense fire - one not accelerated by jet fuel - lasting several hours, said Brian McIntyre, chief operating officer of Skilling Ward. Such a building is "basically designed to resist heat buildup for three hours," he said.
...

[mirandapriestly]

31. "A Day Of Terror"

bwahahahahaha.
"could have" happened with well place explosives, too.

[dailykoff]

33. "designed to resist heat buildup for three hours"?

What does he think he's designing, Tupperware?

If this clown has an engineeering license it should be revoked.

[Carefulplease]

40. Should his licence be revoked...

Should his license be revoked because he respected
the building code?

Or should he have applied twice the amount
of fireproofing on structural steel that other
similar constructions are required to have
in this jurisdiction?

[dailykoff]

42. No, for criminal cluelessness and/or collusion.

Take your pick.

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. NYC Building Codes Provisions

(Fire Resitance in Hours)

1938: Columns-4 Floors-3
1968*: Columns-4/3, Floors-3/2 (*depends on classification)
2001: Columns-2, Floors-1.5 (Sprinklers required certan buildings)

WTC one and two were designed but not required to meet the 1968 standards.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20III%20-%20Baseline%20Final.pdf#search='wtc%20fire%20rating'

[dailykoff]

49. The codes govern fire resistance. There was no fire

to speak of in building 7, certainly not one involving every column, but every column failed.

Notice that the Skilling guy doesn't mention fire--he says "heat buildup."

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. None to speak of? Based on what?

I've seen photos of 7.

And you claim EVERY column has to be exposed to fire to cause every column to fail? Are you really that weak in the area of structural engineering? I didn't read that "Skilling guy", but I get the gist of the fire-3 hour thing I think he meant.

Regardless the codes are the codes. And how long did WTC7 burn for...?

[dailykoff]

54. Ohhhh you mean THESE photos?

?link


?link

How could I have forgotten!!

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. eh? (n/t)

[dailykoff]

70. That isn't 7 although it's often thought to be.

It's 5 or 5, I forget which.

[Jazz2006]

74. Hee hee

Seems she thought she'd be able to trick you and failed.

No surprise, there.

[QuettaKid]

125. where/when are those photos from? nt.

.

[dailykoff]

131. Links:

The pics are from this 9/11 memorial page:

http://www.chicouniform.com/9-11-01%20MEMORIAL%20%20PAGE.htm

The building is 5 World Trade Center, which burned like a torch on 9/11 but didn't collapse. More info here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

[rman]

52. For all i know, it was here on DU by ehm, someone...

First time a couple of months ago

[petgoat]

60. Second Question:

Was Rudi's Emergency Command Bunker equipped with a smoke machine to protect it from
potential attacks from rockets and RPGs?

[BuddyYoung]

62. Sure does look like it, but ol "Kiss my ring" Rudi was safely outside. nt

nt

[petgoat]

63. Right, but could it have been set off accidentally by some

freak accident of flying debris? Or could it have been set off deliberately
to make it look like the building was burning from head to toe and to cover
up the (assumed) fact that there was only minor structural damage?

[BuddyYoung]

67. COULD conceivably have, but your theory makes the most sense. nt

nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

165. No

There were fires raging in WTC 5 & 6 to create all the smoke they could possibly want.

BTW: WHAT TIME was that picture taken? So far no one has been able to answer this simple question.

[petgoat]

166. The west walls of the WFC are lit up.

You can see the shadow of the south WFC tower on the north WFC tower, which
puts the sun just a little bit west of SW.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm

[Jazz2006]

168. Surely, some CTer will come up with some time that fits whatever

theory they are espousing at any given moment.... no?

[petgoat]

169. The time can be quite precisely fixed by the shadow of the WFC

south tower on the WFC north tower. Since those buildings are both standing,
one can go there on 9/11/06 and find out exactly.

[Jazz2006]

170. So why haven't you?

And why hasn't any other CTer done so for the past four anniversary dates if that's what you're now relying upon?

Why are you just tilting at windmills spouting off "it must be, it is, it can be proven" without a single one of the vast contingent of tinhatters actually doing the simple thing that you say would "prove" it for all these years? Why is it that not a single person in this vast "truth movement" has done such a simple thing? Why is it that not a single self proclaimed "truth seeker" has made any effort whatsoever to put some substance behind the unfounded propositions that you've been spouting for the past four and a half years?

Edit: grammatical error/typo.

[DoYouEverWonder]

181. And the OCTers won't?

It's the OCTers who seem to think this picture proves WTC7 had a raging fire going on one side of the building that no one could see, while the other 3 sides of the building showed no signs of these fires.

[petgoat]

65. Third question: What offices were burning?

What if FDNY got there and found an obvious arson fire in (for instance) the SEC,
and considered it potntially dangerous to try to put it out?

[mirandapriestly]

91. all the SEC floors were reported on fire

(would they have Enron records, for example?)
plus the following according to NIST
west wall of 7, smoke 19-20, fire 23,(was that the "command bunker"?) multiple fires floors numbered 20s and 30s
fire sw corner 10 or 11
6,7,8,21, 30 heavy black smoke coming from south gash
fire on 12; area above covered with smoke, 11-12, moved to west face and progressed to north
fires reported on 14, but pics show east faced fires on 12
fires seen on 12 13 22 29 and 30 vasrious times throughout the day
soon after wtc1 collapsed fires in 7 started


And here are the tenats. there were three or so empty floors



Tower 1 | Tower 2 | Building 4 | Building 5 | Building 6 | Building 7

Building: 7 World Trade Center

Tenant Square Feet Leased Floor Industry
Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND, 1-6,13,18-46 Financial Institutions
Internal Revenue Service Regional Council 90,430 24,25 Government
U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government
American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institutions
Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institutions
Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institutions
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21
First State Management Group, Inc 4,000 21 Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institutions
NAIC Securities 22,50 19 Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Financial Institutions
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt 45,815 23 Government

[petgoat]

132. Thanks, Miranda nt

[Chomp]

155. Every day:

CTers SERVED by Jazz. Just fucking OWNED.

It is a thing of beauty and hilarity to behold.

[mirandapriestly]

174. anyone can be abusive and rude

Is that what you think is "owning" someone? Sounds like the GOP.

[Jazz2006]

182. You should know

since that's what you've been doing ever since I got here back in April.

Edit: Gee, how did I miss this little exchange?

[Norrin Radd]

176. Serves up piping hot disinfo, daily. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

177. Yes, on a regular basis

almost like it was his/her job or something...

[Jazz2006]

184. Pull out the "paid shill" graphic, miranda,

that Sid made for your pal, Americus/Buddy and save yourself the keystrokes.

[Jazz2006]

183. You must be referring to certain CTers

and I'll assume that you misplaced your post.