Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Can you not see the flaw in that argument? Obviously funding came from 'somewhere', but you seemed to think it was all investigated, documented and known.

    No big deal. You were mistaken, end of story


    No more stupid than what you were asking, (which is why I turned the tables) i.e.
    To be honest that doesn't make sense on a number of levels as clearly in order for anything to collapse, it must lose its structural integrity, whether it be by fire, explosives or being washed away in a flood.


    There could be a number of reasons, it would be pure speculation. The collapse zone was established around midday, well before any fires were even officially reported.

    Maybe he was just told to do it.
    Maybe it was a safety precaution as the other buildings had already collapsed
    Maybe he knew it was going to be demolished

    What is clear is there are gaping holes in the OS and the public should know the truth but I am well aware there are many on here who think it presumptious that us mere 'people' should presume to be audatious enough as to expect to be kept informed when clearly the Govt knows best and decides that we should not be trusted to know other than what they feed us.
     
  2. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    How am I "mistaken?" We know the money came primarily from fundraising. From the exact person or primary persons? We don't really know. If you want an identify, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave most of the money to the hijackers. Where did he get that money? The fundraising.

    Except Nigro knows it was from fire and not from explosives. You're either calling him a liar or you're saying he's incompetent at his job. Take your pick, but if you're going to doubt the man's testimony, then be a man about it and not dance around it.

    Except he wasn't told to do it. He established the collapse zone on his own accord and has said that multiple times. He says he set it up due to its structural integrity being lost thanks to the unfought fires.

    It's funny how you feel that we're defending the OS here. Rather, we're defending logic, reasoning, and critical thinking. We're agreeing with the vast majority of experts in each field. We're agreeing with people who were actually there. All the answers are out there; it just so happens that conspiracy theorists are unhappy with the answers because they don't fit in with what they want to have had happen. They would rather conjure up this looney theories that are supported by nothing more than anomalies and cherry picked evidence. You want a 100%, watertight explanation for what happened, but guess what, you're not going to get one. Why? Because it's humans figuring this stuff out. There are going to be hypothesis that turn out to be untrue. There are going to be holes with information we just don't know. We don't have every single bit of information to satisfy your 100% explanation.

    I think, at the very least, we can agree that 9/11 was a new type of event. Never before had fully loaded jets slammed into two of the largest buildings in the world and never into buildings designed the way the WTC was designed. Are we so arrogant as a species now to think that we know everything about what would happen in a situation that we've never dealt with before?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Why can't you admit you are wrong.
    ,
    it came from fundraising', is not "great information".


    And how would he have known that at the time? That type of knowledge can only be established forensically and after examining "all" known possibilities. Why do you think it took so long for NIST to come up with reports. Reports which were erroneous and had to be seriously amended. Why do all that when 'Nigro knew what happened' before it even happened.

    He may well be a liar. He wouldn't be the first or last official to lie because he was told to. I do not know and all I am saying is there is enough contradictory evidence from witnesses and video evidence to make his account highly implausible.

    So why was the collapse zone established at 12 noon before fires were even officially acknowledged?

    No, you are defending the OS by only acknowledging credibility to those who have official backing. That they are in the majority is neither here nor there when you consider that as soon as any one of them dissents or whistle blows, they lose their jobs, their professional standing and are vilified, gagged and often imprisoned.

    That is your opinion but I assure you it is not what most people who challenge the OS 'want'. It is a very difficult thing to even contemplate that 'the world is not how it is presented'. I therefore understand your resistance to questioning the OS.

    You are right that nothing is 100% but surely you can acknowledge there are gaping holes and huge anomalies that at the very least should be properly investigated.

    Try focussing in on two little things that I mentioned. The inconsistency with Nigro's account and the visual evidence and why they set up a collapse zone around noon when fires where not even reported officially before around 2pm.
    But they were built to specifications and obey the laws of physics and that is why we built them and continue to build them... because they are not supposed to collapse. If it is unclear why they collapsed, how can people design ones that will not collapse? We need to know.
     
  4. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    It answers the question of where the fundraising came from. Since it answers a question, it is great information. Why can't you admit you are wrong?

    Because they assessed the damage. Considering a large section of the building was scooped out and eyewitness accounts of fires on almost every floor, Nigro, on his own accord made the decision to abandon the building and establish the collapse zone. They were privy to information that day that you nor I were privy too.

    You are calling the Chief of the Fire Department of New York a liar. Why not go down to Ten House and call them liars to their faces, too? Man up, son.

    It was actually established at 2:30 PM. More reading comprehension!

    I'm actually acknowledging credibility by those who were there. I'm going with the word of the FDNY. Guys who, without question, ran towards death to make sure they saved as many people as possible. What you're doing is painting this picture that you know more than people who were actually there because you have some pictures and cleverly constructed YouTube videos.

    If you want to pretend invisible black helicopters are following your every move, then who am I to tell you otherwise? Have fun.

    Considering 9/11 is the most researched and investigated event in human history, what else do you want? Don't you think if the movement had any credible points that couldn't be debunked with a simple Google search, that they'd have more traction?

    Again, they didn't establish the collapse zone at noon. How am I supposed to debate you seriously when you can't even get details correct?

    The building did what it was designed to do; withstand the impact of an airplane. If it was just an airplane crash and no fire, then it probably would have been fine. If it was designed to withstand fire? Maybe it would have been fine, too. But withstanding both? Nope.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    There plenty in other posts on the site it still is sketchy and debatable that it would have came down and no explanation for the uniform simultaneous collapse that allowed freefall speeds. They will tell you there Is but just read the posts they just ignore relevant info and slam anyone who doesn't take There side. The facts are there for certain aspects which is great. But other relevant info is claimed to be hogwash or debunked
     
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I'm still confused about how a collapse could happen at anything other than near free-fall speeds?? :confused:
     
  7. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    As confused as me when people say it was a controlled demolition. Where are the loud noises of the charges going off? Where are the flashes of light? Where is the evidence of CD equipment used? etc. etc. etc. etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    It's all been covered in the wtc7 postings guys ur just uninformed right now go thru that post. Although I don't thing the thermite thing has been done over I'm not sure in that case there would be no demolition noises of any kind it would be quiet you can see demonstrations on YouTube
     
  9. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    1. Please work on your grammar. We try to keep a professional decorum here.
    2. Please provide proof that thermite was used in WTC7.
     
  10. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    Referring to posts you haven't read so please read the posts referring to wtc7. You didn't even properly read what I posted when you do and process it then you will understand.
     
  11. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    Can you please quote the posts you're referring to this thread? The burden of proof is on you; it's not up to me to go find it.
     
  12. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    Was comparing the previous post when referring to thermite and saying it hasn't been discussed from what I have seen on the site. And the questions are being discussed on the wtc7 section.
    Thought I would break it down for you since you read and quoted a post already I'm assuming nothing more would come from you reading it again.
     
  13. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    And it is up to you if your the one that doesn't know... This isn't high school go find the info brosef
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    If thermite in WTC7 hasn't been discussed, then start the topic. If you have no evidence to support your claims, then stop making the claim.

    And when you do make the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one who must provide the quotes and evidence; it's not up to me to go find your proof for you, brosef.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Then again that which is asserted without evidence can also be denied without evidence.

    so:
    "WTC was deliberately demolished!"

    "No it wasn't."

    =assertion + complete answer :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    All I'm asking for is evidence to back up the claim. I don't think I'm outright refusing his theory without asking for a reasonable amount of evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I made the mistake of getting involved on a 9/11 truther page on 9/11 and found it's a pointless debate as I just kept getting claims thrown at me about free fall, thermit, CD, missing gold, and continually being told no normal person argues about things like this, how much are they paying me.
     
  18. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I suggest you read the posting guidelines. Who do you think you are; telling people to work on their grammar? Mind your manners and stop being so insulting.

    Also there is a huge difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2013
  19. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Firstly, I am not your son... so cut out the inaccurate, cocky little epithets from behind your keyboard, which although obviously intended to be demeaning, simply reflect badly on you.

    As for the rest of your post... I think it is great. Keep up the good work as it shows the calibre of logical argument and lack of knowledge that many purveyors of the OS aspire to. Having said that I think you would likely be better suited to posting on YT comments for now, rather than entering into more mature debates before you are ready but if you insist on continuing here I suggest you start thinking about what you are going to say and how it reflects on you, before posting.

    Similarly, I suggest it reflects equally badly on those foolish enough to 'like' such posts.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2013
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I can believe that.

    Most people find it strange though, simply on the basis that it has never happened to a high rise steel framed building before 9/11 and then it happened to 3 all in the same day. Not partial collapses but 3 total collapses. Now many experts were also confused, which is why vast amounts of time and energy have since been expended trying to rationalise it. Also it has never happened since. Still confused... not surprised.
     
  21. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    People who bring up the use of thermite don't understand how thermite works. Thermite doesn't attach to an object and then eat away at it. It ignites, burns, and gravity does the rest. Basically if you put thermite on a vertical girder, the thermite won't eat across the vertical girder. It will melt the surface it was attached to, and then fall and eat through the concrete floor next to the beam. The substance is just not that controllable. You have to let it settle on a horizontal surface. Otherwise it just eats its way downwards. Also how exactly did this supposed team of crack demolitionists reach all these beams? You would probably have to break open walls and other messy things which are hard to mask.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    WTC7 was the only thing that really "confused" people. It was not thought at the time that a fire would bring down a building so quickly. Now the situation is a lot better understood.

    Nigro's statements, of course, were based on actual observations of the building during the course of the fires, combined with what they had just observed in WTC 1/2
     
  23. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    As to the noon establishment of a collapse zone

    http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/14703
    Audio of Indira Singh's account. Talks of collapse zone about 10 mins in. First hand account of an EMT worker on 9/11 and the aftermath. Fires burning for months, pollution and safety assurances and much more.

    " pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. .."

    1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini:
    So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down."


    So that is from 12 midday.

    http://911blogger.com/node/6195

     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2013
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's interesting that Truthers view those quotes as evidence for controlled demolition. Shows how preconceptions can skew perception.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    If you notice Mick, "orders came from the top" but the firefighters on the ground wanted to stay.

    There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 8/2002)

    15) Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: "We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, 'Everybody's got to leave the area. We're afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.' The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor."

    Which we know is patently untrue because even NIST say the damage was minimal.

    Also it is often poo pooed that 'Well the only way the building could fall is straight down and not chaotically' but here is a professional who thought very differently and notice he says 'we'.

    We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." (John Norman, "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering, 10/2002)
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." does not mean he expected it to topple over like a tree.

    And of course it DID fall over to the south:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  27. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    They view them as they want to view them. Conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and try to build around it, rather than end with the conclusion after looking at facts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Surely that is speculation. In reality, it should be taken at face value rather than 'interpreted'.

    Is that an attempt to have it all ways? ;)

    He didn't say "We expected it to fall straight down until the last second and then to the south, into the areas we were searching."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It fell as shown in the image above. It tilted a bit towards the south. Perhaps not as much as they thought, but how would they know?
     
  30. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    I'm still confused as to what these quotes are trying to prove for your side. Are you implying the FDNY was "in" on it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I'll try to clarify. As I said before "orders came from the top" but the firefighters on the ground wanted to stay." That shows a discrepancy between how the firefighters on the ground viewed the situation and how the 'fire chiefs' viewed the situation.

    When you are talking about the actions of the FDNY, you are talking about a command structure. The rank and file firefighters will usually do as they are commanded, even when they disagree or are unhappy about it... much the same as troops are conditioned to follow orders. So when you are asking if I am implying the FDNY 'was in on it', that is a loaded and irrelevant question. If they are told to fall back, they are unhappy about doing so but do it anyway, 'they' cannot be in on anything, they are simply doing their level best to do their job at great risk to themselves. So let me be clear, I have nothing but admiration and respect for the firemen and all the first responders who gave their lives or put themselves in danger or suffered injury or long term health problems as a result.

    Now to the issuers of the orders... the fire chiefs and in particular (as per thread), Chief Nigro's statements. I do not know whether he is telling the truth or not other than by looking for corroborating evidence but apparently he said:

    Here he is conflating 7 with 1&2. Whether or not 1&2 should have collapsed as they did is the topic of numerous threads so we should disregard that. 7 collapsed due to office fires and it is suggested by the NIST simulation that it collapsed more uniformly than it would otherwise have done, because of the damage to the south face. NIST state the damage to the south face was not the reason for the collapse and also state that minimal damage to fire insulation occurred.

    This is not in contention by anyone.
    So is he saying this was a reason for the expectation of a collapse... (bad design)?
    This is arguably true although it could be argued that fire fighting was taking place, (particularly on buildings which were burning much more fiercely than 7) but was pretty ineffective due to low water pressure.

    It could also be argued, (and so far this issue hasn't been raised on this forum), that water could have been pumped at great pressure by by fire tender boats, possibly to the fire engines but more importantly to the water risers in 7 which would then have enabled the sprinkler system to douse the fires. Fire riser inlets were on the outside of the building and accessible.

    As for the quotes:
    A quote saying 'someone said', 7 was roaring. But the Pictorial evidence and NIST report refer to normal office fires, 'moving around the building'.
    NIST record first official sightings of fires from around 2pm.

    That is flat out against all evidence.

    Because they had been told to expect the collapse.

    I posted some footage of a camera crew walking around and in the foyer of 7 up to about half an hour before it collapsed. they were totally unconcerned. The fires were localised and normal. There were no unusual creaking sounds that I could here and they certainly did not mention any
     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    From the south WTC7 looked like it was on fire on nearly all floors.
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG]



    How do you know what time the video was at?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  33. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So where is the fire? Fire chiefs know the difference between smoke and fire, as do most people, (apparently not all though :()

    From about 1 min in this shows the extent of the fires in 7



    Badly titled as just before collapse but certainly well after WTC1 collapsed so probably after 11- 11.30 am.



    This video has some debunker stuff prefacing it which states the video shows how badly 7 is damaged and how bad the fires were and well basically it is no wonder it fell down.

    Judge for yourself but it doesn't look anything like 'fully involved or creaking' to me.

    This is half an hour before the collapse and I know this because I posted a video of this reporter, reporting that he left 7 less than half an hour before the collapse.
    Also you can clearly see that the smoke is the cumulative smoke from all the fires in the building funnelled by the prevailing wind and draught.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  34. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    That's why they have chiefs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I think you miss my point - why would anything ever collapse at anything OTHER THAN "near free-fall speed"?

    "Near free fall speed" is often punted up as evidence that "it must have been a demolition". However this presupposes that somehow a non-demolition collapse is appreciably slower - why would that be the case?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    That is pretty well discussed in another thread to be honest and it does seem a bit off topic.

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/

    However, I would ask if you have any examples of a steel framed high rise building which collapsed at freefall acceleration, which were not intentionally demolished or otherwise 'blown up' in some way, i.e. collapsed by fire?

    I am personally unaware of any such examples and would be interested to see them if you have.

    There are very few examples of partial collapse but these do not seem to be comparable due to starkly different circumstances, (not least that they were only partial).

    But history both pre and after 9/11 shows us that fire, even far more intensive and far longer duration, results in a collapse speed of 0 feet per second, i.e. they do not collapse.

    The latest example I believe being:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...per-engulfed-in-flames-does-not-collapse.html

    [​IMG]

    Perhaps TPTB should build a steel framed building that will collapse and then set fire to it and then they will be able to say 'We told you so'. But that's just rambling.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  37. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So the story rests on the evidence of one man, who if he did not say what he was told to say would face the full wrath of the Bush administration and who's career and life would be shattered by the repercussions?

    Also, although by no means conclusive, Chief Nigro's statement is somewhat contradicted by Silverstein's statement:

     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2013
  38. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Why is it nonsense?

    from an elevator mechanic in the WTC on 9.11.01:

    http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm

    These firefighters are also pretty clear in their description.

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110308.PDF

    Firefighter Craig Dunne: We proceeded to go into the lobby of tower one. We got in there. The glass was down in the front. There was a gentleman -- you saw people that were jumping from the building. You had to look up and make sure you didn't get hit by any jumpers or anything. We saw a couple of people that were burnt on the outside of the building. There was a gentleman that was burnt inside when we went in. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110490.PDF


    Firefighter Peter Fallucca: Before we got in, all the elevators were crashed down in the lobby, and we were going to the stairwell. See all the elevators were crashed down, big slabs of marble on the floor, all the ceiling tiles of the dropped ceiling was falling down, wires hanging. You see wires and stuff hanging inside the elevator shafts, because the doors were blown right off the elevators. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html


    FDNY Lieutenant William Walsh: In the center of these two elevator shafts would be the elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That’s where the service [freight] elevator was also. …They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110442.PDF


    As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people. http://www.projo.com/words/st20021016.htm


    Lobby
    Firefighter David Sandvik: We got down to the lobby, and when we got out of the stairwell, the lobby was deserted. Nobody was down there except the people coming out of our stairwell. We were walking through and the elevator doors were blowing [blown?] off. The lobby was just like a complete mess. I remember grabbing the proby that day and we were looking down the elevator bank and I said, man, this would make a hell of a picture. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110375.PDF


    Firefighter John Moribito: I noticed that some of the elevators had been blown out of their shafts. They came down and crashed out of the shaft. They were buckled, and I had noticed that there were people still in the elevators. I believe that they were at that point deceased. Then I saw the lights in both buildings went out, and I heard the rumble. At that point, I didn’t know what was happening, but 2 World Trade Center was collapsing. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110354.PDF [/ex]


    This guy describe elevators crashing down when he got to the lobby (@ :40)





    Any thoughts Grieves?
     
  39. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    How is that contradictory? Silverstein suggested they pull the firefighters out when he was told it might not be saved. looks like he verified it. I would also think that Nigro didn't make the decision on his own.
     
  40. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Elevators are equipped with several independent safety features specifically designed to prevent them from plummeting, even in the event that all the cables are cut. The only time an elevator is at risk of 'plummeting' all the way to a crash at ground level is if the safety features have been specifically disabled by maintenance men. I couldn't find a single instance of a death in a plummeting elevator since 1940. That something happened to the elevators is clear. There are several reports of explosions/balls of fire spewing from the elevator shafts in both towers. Unless the several levels of inherent safety features failed in each elevator, and in each elevator-shaft significant quantities of jet-fuel survived while burning long enough to make the hundred-floor trip down, I'd say the destruction of the elevators is more evidence of explosive involvement, unless there's a reasonable explanation for why the built-in safety-features failed. If you were to cut all the cables in any other elevator in any other building, the result, when that elevator reached ground level, would certainly not be a fiery explosion. Remember, in the video presented above with the young blond firefighter and the older black firefighter discussing the lobby-explosion they experienced, they were already in the process of assembling in the lobby with the intention of commencing a rescue. That puts them well outside the time-frame of an elevator plummeting as a result of the plane-crash severing cables.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.