Significance of WTC7

Status
Not open for further replies.
[Thread split from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-6#post-68718 ]


I take it we are supposed to believe there is special significance to WTC 7? It isn't the only building which had a structural failure due to fire: "The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire." http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=525

In what way was WTC7's collapse symetrical? Chris Mohr explains in this video that it wasn't : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jomper

Inactive Member
I take it we are supposed to believe there is special significance to WTC 7? It isn't the only building which had a structural failure due to fire: "The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire." http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=525

In what way was WTC7's collapse symetrical? Chris Mohr explains in this video that it wasn't : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM
Did you really just attempt to address reasonable skepticism about the manner in which buildings collapsed at the WTC on 9/11 by invoking the example of a building that collapsed at the WTC on 9/11?
 
Did you really just attempt to address reasonable skepticism about the manner in which buildings collapsed at the WTC on 9/11 by invoking the example of a building that collapsed at the WTC on 9/11?
There is nothing reasonable about the skepticism and your reply highlights that. I invoked the example of WTC 5 which wasn't a total collapse but was indeed a multi-floor fire induced collapse. Are we to believe that secret agents also targeted a few floors within WTC 5 or do we think logically and acknowledge that fires can cause steel to fail and for floors or buildings to collapse?

And as I pointed out, the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed is not accurately described by those insisting we should be skeptical about its collapse. It was not "symmetrical" as the video I linked to in my previous comment showed. WTC 7 caused millions of dollars of damage to surrounding buildings and you could not "walk around the pile" as a conspiracist interviewer falsely told Danny Jowenko and in doing so misled him. That same interviewer also omitted the start of the collapse where we see the penthouse collapse before the rest of the building's exterior.

Fires can and have caused steel framed buildings to collapse. The ‪Kader Toy Factory fire‬ is another example. "the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory_fire

The fact that fire can do that has been known by firemen for years:
"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances." Firehouse.com Sept. 1998

It is really sad that so much energy has been wasted on something so stupid considering firemen were concerned about WTC7 collapsing and had told the media that they were expecting that it too would collapse. See the video "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)"
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Mick, I'd like to reply to the above when I've time but it would clearly drive the specific and technical nature of the discussion on the thread here off-topic. Maybe we could use Representative Press's post here as the start of a new thread? Would "reasonable skepticism about the collapse of WTC7" be OK as a title? I realise this doesn't represent a specific claim of evidence, though.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There is nothing reasonable about the skepticism and your reply highlights that. I invoked the example of WTC 5 which wasn't a total collapse but was indeed a multi-floor fire induced collapse. Are we to believe that secret agents also targeted a few floors within WTC 5 or do we think logically and acknowledge that fires can cause steel to fail and for floors or buildings to collapse?
Please see http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

Are you comparing this small fire



and this total collapse



To this inferno



And this where there is only a partial collapse, mostly, as can clearly be seen by the wreckage, due to structural damage from fallout and not as you stated from fire induced collapse.



Please also notice the firefighters tackling the inferno that is WTC 5 whilst it is stated there was no water to fight the small fires in 7 which were totally ignored.

And as I pointed out, the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed is not accurately described by those insisting we should be skeptical about its collapse. It was not "symmetrical" as the video I linked to in my previous comment showed. WTC 7 caused millions of dollars of damage to surrounding buildings and you could not "walk around the pile" as a conspiracist interviewer falsely told Danny Jowenko and in doing so misled him. That same interviewer also omitted the start of the collapse where we see the penthouse collapse before the rest of the building's exterior.
There is no way to tell accurately what the extent of the penthouse collapse was, other than the fact that there was a minor collapse of an appended construction on the roof of 7 a few seconds prior to a perfectly symmetrical collapse of 7 at near freefall accleration.

It is one thing to say that the collapse was 'not symmetrical' but can you show any footage of a similarly symmetrical, (or even a more symmetrical), collapse of a steel framed building due to fire? In short can you demonstrate a 'symmetrical collapse' and justify it as such?

Fires can and have caused steel framed buildings to collapse. The ‪Kader Toy Factory fire‬ is another example. "the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory_fire
This is not in the least comparable. 'Apples and grapes'. It was a 4 storey factory building with plenty of fuel, uninsulated steel beams and built in Thailand to low standards.

http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vi/d...tem/374-case-study-the-kader-toy-factory-fire

The fact that fire can do that has been known by firemen for years:
"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances." Firehouse.com Sept. 1998
It is really sad that so much energy has been wasted on something so stupid considering firemen were concerned about WTC7 collapsing and had told the media that they were expecting that it too would collapse. See the video "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)"
Have you had a look at the thread https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fdny-chief-daniel-nigros-statement-on-wtc7.2366/ which raises many questions about the validity of the '7 was expected to fall because of fire' scenario?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please see http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

Are you comparing this small fire

The fires were not "small" See: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!

And let's use logic: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire"
You think they would call him and say they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire if it was "small"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I have a lot of respect for your geopolitical observations RP but I do not understand your campaign against Richard Gage. Fires can only be judged in context and 7's fires in context, were very small. I have shown you to be factually wrong on a number of points re your analogies of 7's collapse. i) your claim that 5 collapsed due to fire damage which can clearly be seen that it did not. ii) your comparisons with other building fires are fundamentally flawed. iii) the Nigro thread clearly shows there are serious problems with the 'let it burn because it's gonna collapse' scenario, just to mention a few.

You disputed that 7 was a symmetrical collapse but show nothing that 'was in your opinion a symmetrical collapse' to compare it to. You have ignored the fact that high rise, steel framed buildings do not collapse like the wtc's did due to fire.

I would ask that you take a step back and reappraise the situation and your thinking on this as it appears fatally flawed.

Gerrycan and Boston have made a very technical and logical case for why the NIST report is false. If you wish to challenge it, I would suggest it should be in a similarly technical manner, not by inappropriate comparisons, false generalisations and personal attacks on Richard Gage et al.

And let's use logic: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire"
You think they would call him and say they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire if it was "small"?
Yes, let's use logic. Why were they pumping water onto the blazing inferno of wtc 5 which was hit by massive amounts of 'fallout from 1&2' which collapsed significant portions of 5 making it far more likely a candidate for collapse than 7 could possibly be?

You have ignored the reports, (some as early as 11am and before any fires were seen), that 7 was going to collapse and yet you quote " telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" (which they never tried to do anyway), but the full quote is:

It was not a question of 'they had been fighting it all day and then decided it was going to collapse'. That decision was taken around noon or before.

I support the work you are doing with highlighting the west's, (particularly the U.S's) deeply flawed and IMO reprehensible 'Foreign Policy' but I do not see that as being in any way a preclusion from their (members of the Bush regime) ability/intent, to aid in the destruction of the WTC's. To the contrary, it appears to fit nicely with PNAC as their new Pearl Harbour justification for implementing PNAC into reality.

Perhaps you have missed my post below:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/russia-today-trustworthy.2347/page-2#post-68777
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jomper

Inactive Member
a conspiracist interviewer falsely... misled [Danny Jowenko]
Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition in a later phone interview as I'm sure you know. You should not misrepresent the expert testimony of a dead man here.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition in a later phone interview as I'm sure you know. You should not misrepresent the expert testimony of a dead man here.

So you would agree with him that WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly have been controlled demolitions then? That it was just a gravity driven collapse cause by the impact and fire?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
So you would agree with him that WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly have been controlled demolitions then? That it was just a gravity driven collapse cause by the impact and fire?
As you know, WTC 7 is one of my favourite subjects in the whole wide world. /irony Merely debunking a specific claim of RP's there. If you want to discuss Jowenko's view of the collapse of the towers, maybe we should do that on another thread ;-)
 
Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition in a later phone interview as I'm sure you know. You should not misrepresent the expert testimony of a dead man here.
nothing clarified at all, no indication he was told the truth to correct the lies he was told by the original interview.
What in the world would be the motive or reason for WTC7 to be a "controlled demolition"
Was Jowenko told that firemen were expecting it to collapse? That they heard creaking sounds. That a fireman was saying this: WTC 7's structural integrity and its footprint
 
I have a lot of respect for your geopolitical observations RP but I do not understand your campaign against Richard Gage.
Geopolitics is what it was about. It doesn't even make sense to think WTC7 would be a target!
Because Richard Gage is a con man. Gage has repeatedly deceived audiences about WTC7. Gage has repeatedly deceived audiences about the NIST computer models of WTC 7. He's been pointing to the wrong computer model and complaining that it looks nothing like the real collapse! He is pathetic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM


Truthers got the idea into their heads that fires can't cause steel structures to fail and collapse. So when they learned of WTC7, they doubled down and irrationally insisted that it too was targeted as part of a secret plan. As others have pointed out, it makes no sense to think of WTC7 as a target but understanding that involves understanding why the towers were made a target, The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks explained: "Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples."
I really thought this video in particular would have helped put an end to the BS about WTC7 because of all the firemen's predictions of its collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw‎


I really think that a way to get them to understand reality is to be honest about the full extent of how ugly the entire situation is. And to come to terms with the idea that the embrace of "9/11 truth" didn't happen in a vacuum. There was a ruthless and dominating agenda to suppress the main motive which I think played a role in the misdirection and obsession about "how" the attacks happened and and the preoccupation about buildings that were not important. Case in point is Dan Rather who both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Rueters newswire that day:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn...utu.be&t=3m25s AND he was oddly fascinated with the collapse of WTC7. I suspect that part of the guilt or uncomfortable position of being a person suppressing the motive led him to find other things that day to shift focus to. So the same man that wouldn't read the word "Israel" is the same guy truthers fall over themselves THANKING because he was so fascinated by WTC7's collapse AND Dan Rather is the first person to misidentify the start of the collapse of WTC7, he introduces the video clip then after the collapse has already started he says "NOW we go to video tape of of the collapse of this building" YET they were already were showing it and had shown the penthouse collapsing first. "Amazing, incredible, pick your word, for the 3rd time today …" Well, if he had spent the time talking about the MOTIVE for the event he was covering maybe he wouldn't have felt so self-conscious and felt he needed to be so amazed by the collapse of a building that just happened to be near the targeted towers.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC is another person who both suppressed the main motive AND shifted the focus to "how" (away from "why") So we can see her report from that day where she too omits mention of Israel as she cites the same Rueters newswire AND even shows the news editor who is quoted in that newswire. Yes the very "Arab journalist with access to him" who is quoted in that newswire who says what bin Laden has said, "Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday." Michell reads for that newswire and even shows a video clip of that very same Arab journalist YET omits mention of Israel. She even plays a clip of him saying "I believe the only thing is to revise their policies, to look at what's happening, WHY for example the anti-American sentiment is very high in the Middle East and the Muslim world" BUT RIGHT AFTER that clip, she says "HOW could this happen"! So she suppressed mention of the main motive WHY (anger at US support of Israel) and the very next thing she asks is "HOW" (and not "WHY" which is exactly what the journalist had just said should be asked seconds before!)

I have watched hours of reporting from that day and days after and it is hard to even find a reporter utter the word "motive." Compare that to all these other events including recent high profile shootings even as recently as the Navy Yard shooting.

What I am saying is the abnormal fixation on HOW by many people must, to some degree, have been influenced by mass media pushing that while at the same time suppressing the more normal and relevant question of WHY.
 
I have a lot of respect for your geopolitical observations RP but I do not understand your campaign against Richard Gage. Fires can only be judged in context and 7's fires in context, were very small. I have shown you to be factually wrong on a number of points re your analogies of 7's collapse. i) your claim that 5 collapsed due to fire damage which can clearly be seen that it did not.
First of all the firemen said the fires were large, there is no rational reason to doubt them.
The fires were not being fought and the sprinkler system was compromised so that several floors were not even operable, again there is no logical reason to think the fires would be small. This video shows large and this video:
"your claim that 5 collapsed due to fire damage which can clearly be seen that it did not."
But I did not say WTC 5 collapsed, I posted this: ""The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. "
It says "in" WTC 5. It says "portion of the building" It says "but not other areas of the building"
I wrote "had a structural failure due to fire." I didn't write "WTC 5 collapsed." I know we are talking about a few floors. Another comment I posted before your comment said this "I invoked the example of WTC 5 which wasn't a total collapse but was indeed a multi-floor fire induced collapse. "
I think that is clear and I really don't see how you don't understand that. If you couldn't follow that, then with all do respect, do you think you have the comprehension skills necessary to be competent enough to have a valid opinion about WTC7's fires? No disrespect but this is extremely irritating. We were attacked because of anger at specific US foreign polices, mainly anger at US support of Israel. It is pouring salt in the wounds to have these ridiculously ignorant games played about why a building that just happened to be near the targeted towers collapsed:
"Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples."
See these videos in addition:
"9/11 was to punish U.S. for Israel policy: Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir."
and "The Real 9/11 Conspiracy: Traitorous 9/11 Commissioners Served Israel Agenda"
"9/11 truth" is a very cruel joke. My comment above, which you can also read here: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html points out that the dishonest suppression about WHY we were attacked seems to have planted the seeds of 9/11 truth's wild goose chase. Because so many reporters were unwilling to be honest about why we were attacked, it looks like they manipulated people into unnaturally fixating on the "how."
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
no indication he [Jowenko] was told the truth to correct the lies he was told by the original interview.
Nonsense. Did you listen to the interview? He knows exactly what the implications are of what he's saying: are you attempting to imply he didn't look at the evidence after the original interview was conducted?
let's use logic
Your argument appears to be: firefighters recognised signs that WTC 7 was going to collapse, therefore there's absolutely no reason to ask questions about how it fell -- with a unique degree of symmetry and a unique period of freefall acceleration in the unique total destruction of a steel-framed building "due to fire" -- and also no reason to investigate this event following the court-approved code these same firefighters use to conduct forensic fire investigations in all other cases.

You're proud of that logic, are you?

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks [Sheikh Mohammed]
KSM was tortured 183 times in March 2003 alone. Do you believe torture testimony is credible, in general terms?

Geopolitics is what it was about.
I don't see why you should be allowed to gallop over the specific and technical criticisms of the NIST WTC 7 report that gerrycan has made -- which you are patently unable to address -- when new members like Rod Martin are told not to make even passing references to related events in other threads.

So if you think geopolitics are relevant to WTC 7 then perhaps you would like to address a geopolitical argument for doing more in the investigation of WTC 7 than playing with expensive computers and sticking your fingers in your ears to pretend you can't hear explosions (yet another of my posts that was recently edited for no discernible reason).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
are you attempting to imply he didn't look at the evidence after the original interview was conducted?
Whatever Jowenko was, he actually wasn't an expert on fire-induced collapse.

Your argument appears to be: firefighters recognised signs that WTC 7 was going to collapse
I thought it was that WTC7 wasn't a target.

You're proud of that logic, are you?
And you jealous?

Do you believe torture testimony is credible, in general terms?
No. But might it not be credible in specific terms?

I don't see why you should be allowed to gallop over the specific and technical criticisms of the NIST WTC 7 report that gerrycan has made
I recommend he does, for they are completely without relevance, assuming, as they do that the other end of that beam was some static fixed point. It wasn't, and moved with the building it was in.

If you recall, the building was already leaning, sagging, and bulging.

So what happens to that "fixed point" if a fire occurs the other side of that fixed point? That "fixed" point moves towards the beam you are examining, and that which seemed "impossible" (the beam end overtravel) suddenly becomes quite "definite".

As has already been demonstrated, that whole floor area underwent a much more complex transformation than those simplistic fifth-year calculations touted above.


His and your "work" in this direction is just time-wasting drivel.

So if you think geopolitics are relevant to WTC 7 then perhaps you would like to address
He does. He would like to address YOU.

yet another of my posts that was recently edited for no discernible reason
It's your discernment we are trying to improve.
.
 
Last edited:

jomper

Inactive Member
I observed before logging in you're replying to my posts, Jazzy.

You're abusive as always, which is why I've got you on ignore: but I am curious and perhaps others would be interested to know the "specific terms" by which you would be prepared to accept testimony from someone who has been tortured almost two hundred times in a single month by US interrogators, and the reasons why you would accept it.

Naturally I don't really care if you ignore this dim curiosity of mine, either.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am curious and perhaps others would be interested to know the "specific terms" by which you would be prepared to accept testimony from someone who has been tortured
You are already tightening the specifications from your "general" approach.

In general it is wrong to torture, but I can see circumstances where some tolerance to it might well exist. If you cannot see as far as that, then you are ignorant. If you can, then you're a hypocrite. Go check with a relative of one of the victims if you want to find out which you are.

In my opinion, and in the case of this gentleman, and using hindsight, it wasn't necessary. It would have been different for all concerned at that moment in time.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
"Gerrycan and Boston have made a very technical and logical case for why the NIST report is false. If you wish to challenge it, I would suggest it should be in a similarly technical manner, not by inappropriate comparisons, false generalisations and personal attacks on Richard Gage et al."

I totally agree with this, I think this thread has drifted way off topic. I will be happy to respond to representative press if and when he talks about the content, which would make for a far more productive discussion. With the exception of some of what Mick has contributed I can only see the same tired arguments from people who are after all being confronted with what is new information to them.
 
KSM was tortured 183 times in March 2003 alone. Do you believe torture testimony is credible, in general terms?
Your question assumes that those specific statements were made while being tortured. Do you have any evidence that those specific statements were made during torture or as the result of torture? I have seen nothing to indicate that and common sense tells us that the motive is not something that would hurt al-qaeda (meaning why exactly do you think they would need to torture to get the motive?) I have no reason to think that the statements I quoted were obtained from torture and it makes no sense at all to me that US officials would torture someone to get them to say those statements. The motive stated is very much what US officials have gone out of their way to avoid or suppress or lie about. If KSM was saying, "The Twin Towers were targeted because we hate your freedoms," then there would be something to your assumptions but you're assuming that US officials would try to get him to say his motive was to get "the American people" to "focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." Why exactly would US officials want KSM to say that? You haven't seen a pattern where US officials don't what to talk about why we are being attacked?
See:
Brennan: "I think this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."
Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." - Military Tribunal May Keep 9/11 Motives Hidden
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/06-3

See:
"This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by opposition to American policies - rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy."
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html


Why do you think anyone would need to torture a motive such as the one quoted out of KSM? And for decades this motive has been stated by others including by KSM's nephew Ramzi Yousef who sent a letter to the NYT with NO torture and saying very much the same thing as far as motive for attacking the same targeted towers.:

Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. "Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel.He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/01/1993-world-trade-center-bombing-motive.html

Bin Laden has been saying the same motive for decades too. Abdul Rahman Yasin said in a TV interview that they were saying the same motive to him: Lesley Stahl: So you’re saying that Ramzi Yousef and Mohammed Salameh tried to politicize you. Is that what you're telling us?

Abdul Rahman Yasin: Yes, they tried and I was influenced. They used to tell me that you are an Iraqi and you have seen the destruction in Iraq. And they used to tell me how Arabs suffered a great deal, and that we have to send a message that this is not right. This is to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia. So they talked to me a lot about this.

I see no basis for assuming KSM's explanation of his motive was the result of torture and don't see how assuming such a thing would make any sense.

Also, I have yet to hear anything close to a logical motive for why US secret agents would think it necessary to do a secret controlled demolition of WTC 7 of all buildings.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
You are already tightening the specifications from your "general" approach.

In general it is wrong to torture, but I can see circumstances where some tolerance to it might well exist. If you cannot see as far as that, then you are ignorant. If you can, then you're a hypocrite. Go check with a relative of one of the victims if you want to find out which you are.

In my opinion, and in the case of this gentleman, and using hindsight, it wasn't necessary. It would have been different for all concerned at that moment in time.
Err, no offense, and I know this is off topic, but you're really defending torture?
 
"Gerrycan and Boston have made a very technical and logical case for why the NIST report is false. If you wish to challenge it,
Your very first statement was challenged, you started the thread with this right?: "We produced four short videos at a technical level that would be understandable by most people. If our findings are accurate, they are strong evidence that a new independent investigation is required to determine why WTC7 fell so rapidly and symmetrically. "

Well I think I already addressed that bunk. WTC 7 did not fall "so rapidly" and did not fall "symmetrically." Conspiracists have continually omitted the start of the collapse and the penthouse caving in, so it wasn't so rapid. And I already said it did not fall symmetrically as I showed Chris Mohr explaining in a video I posted link to and showed the debris field and pointed out it caused millions of dollars of damage to surrounding buildings. What exactly do you think there is to debate? I showed the very first two assumptions you made are incorrect.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why you should be allowed to gallop over the specific and technical criticisms of the NIST WTC 7 report
I didn't gallop over the specific and technical criticisms of the NIST WTC 7 report. My comment posted Friday at 7:11 PM directly addressed the very first two false assumptions made about WTC 7 in this thread, the claims that it fell "so rapidly" and that it fell "symmetrically." I wrote:

"And as I pointed out, the manner in which WTC 7 collapsed is not accurately described by those insisting we should be skeptical about its collapse. It was not "symmetrical" as the video I linked to in my previous comment showed. WTC 7 caused millions of dollars of damage to surrounding buildings and you could not "walk around the pile" as a conspiracist interviewer falsely told Danny Jowenko and in doing so misled him. That same interviewer also omitted the start of the collapse where we see the penthouse collapse before the rest of the building's exterior.

Fires can and have caused steel framed buildings to collapse. ..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I won't contribute further to what appears as deliberate astroturfing of this thread. If anyone wishes to equate the small partial collapse of 5, (or any other apples and grapes comparisons), due to it being knocked down from falling sections of 1 & 2, to the total symmetrical collapse of 7, at near freefall acceleration I am happy to challenge that if they would do the right thing and start a thread on the subject.

I think it was a very useful and informative thread up to https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-6#post-68728

IMO, it appears to be site policy that evidence rich CT threads often wind up astroturfed by abusive personal attacks (which are apparently 'not impolite') and off topic gish gallops which result in the thread consigned to rambles where no one can see it. I think that a poor policy if it is true. One rule for 'debunkers' (chuckle) and another for CTists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If anyone wishes to equate the small partial collapse of 5 due to it being knocked down from falling sections of 1 & 2.
What do you base that on? I can see if you want to deny what fire can do to steel structures that you would pretend that the partial collapse was do to impact of sections of the tower 1. "While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. "

"The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that"
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=525

"Buckled beam flange and column on the 8th floor of WTC 5 that was weakened by fire. "

"The steel generally behaved as expected given the fire conditions in WTC 5. Many beams developed catenary action as illustrated in Figure 4-14. Some columns buckled, as shown in Figure 4-17. The one exception is the limited internal structural collapse in WTC 5. The fire-induced failure that led to this collapse was unexpected. As in the rest of the building, the steel beams were expected to deflect significantly, yet carry the load. This was not the case where the beam connections failed. The failure most likely occurred during the heating of the structure because the columns remained straight and freestanding after the collapse."

"This indicates that the fire protection material remained on the steel during the early phase of the fire and may have fallen off relatively later in the fire as the beams twisted, deflected, and buckled. Additional measures for proper adhesion may be required when applying spray-on fire protection to painted steel."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

"Forensic evidence suggests that the collapse occurred during the heating phase of the fire."

"5. Conclusion
The sequentially-coupled, nonlinear thermal-stress modeling capabilities in Abaqus/Standard allowed study of the structural behaviors that led to the internal collapse of WTC 5. The analysis show that this collapse occurred approximately two hours into the heating phase of the fire after the simple span girders deflected enough to tear the connecting bolts out of the webs. It is not the precise time of failure which is aramount, but the fact that the structure failed uncharacteristically during the fire’s heating phase, rather than during the cooling phase when most fire-induced collapses occur.

The fire that caused structural collapse in WTC 5 was a severe, complete burn-out fire. As such, it is not unreasonable that the structure would experience substantial damage."
http://www.engineeringcivil.com/complete-report-on-failure-analysis-of-world-trade-center-5.html

So I see you trying to deny that fires caused it, I also see you trying to undermine my attempts at explaining these facts by trying to push the notion that I am breaking some sort of rules here. Bottom line, you post inaccurate info and are trying to silence me for daring to post accurate information.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It is disappointing to see this thread being allowed to be diverted so blatantly. As for WTC5, it is shown and dealt with here in the videos . Rep, I wish you would deal with the content and the topic of this thread and take the other stuff elsewhere to a new or more appropriate thread, instead of derailing this one. Thanks
 
As for WTC5, it is shown and dealt with here in the videos
Sure, proving you wrong is "derailing" a thread. The video you posted deceptively pushes the notion that fires didn't cause ANY collapse of ANY part of WTC 5. So your video is deceptive. Your video also makes the claim that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds which means it ignorantly ignores the start of the collapse where internal structures collapsed and we can see the penthouse collapse BEFORE we see downward movement of the exterior point which was measured after the collapse sequence had started. How much credibility do you think that video has when it is claiming the building collapsed in 6.6 seconds?

You just don't like the fact that WTC 5 had within it another example of fire-induced collapse of a few floors. It proves the concept that fires can cause steel structures to collapse. You guys want to believe that fire could not cause the towers to collapse so that when you learned of WTC7, you ridiculously then rationalize THAT building as a target too, so you already crossed the line of credibility when you insist wtc7 was also part of some sort of secret plot. I can see why you don't want to argue that secret agents were behind the partial collapse that occurred within WTC5 so that is why I am getting accused of "derailing" the thread rather than simply derailing your poor arguments.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"Gerrycan and Boston have made a very technical and logical case for why the NIST report is false. If you wish to challenge it, I would suggest it should be in a similarly technical manner, not by inappropriate comparisons, false generalisations and personal attacks on Richard Gage et al."
Technical and logical?

"This "case" is completely irrelevant, as it assumes that the other end of the beam in question was some static fixed point. It wasn't, and moved with the building it was in. The building was already leaning, sagging, and bulging. So what happened to that "fixed point" if a fire occurred the other side of that fixed point? That "fixed" point would move towards the beam end you examined, and that which seemed "impossible" (the beam end overtravel) would suddenly have become quite "definite". As has already been demonstrated, that whole floor area underwent a much more complex transformation than those simplistic fifth-year calculations touted above."

That is perfectly technical and to the point, but you have continually ignored it as if it didn't exist, put me on ignore, and hoped I'd go away. That isn't "free debate".

I think this thread has drifted way off topic.
No. It pretended to be "a topic". But it isn't one, because it's irrelevant. There was NO "fixed point" for the column at the other end of that beam. That, and all the internal columns in that fire-affected area, were under varying side forces, varying in intensity and over time, due to the expansion of the floor elements between them. Your thread never engaged with the topic, which is what actually happened at the WTC 7.

I can only see the same tired arguments from people who are after all being confronted with what is new information to them.
That eleven-year olds get up to japes with their childish "calculations" isn't new information at all. Pretending to be grown-ups while avoiding debate isn't actually new to me, either.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
IMO, it appears to be site policy that evidence rich CT threads often wind up astroturfed by abusive personal attacks (which are apparently 'not impolite') and off topic gish gallops which result in the thread consigned to rambles where no one can see it. I think that a poor policy if it is true. One rule for 'debunkers' (chuckle) and another for CTists.
yes, invoke a conspiracy to explain why your favourite conspiracy isn't embraced.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Sure, proving you wrong is "derailing" a thread. The video you posted deceptively pushes the notion that fires didn't cause ANY collapse of ANY part of WTC 5. So your video is deceptive.
WTC5 had much more serious fires than 7. Give me your estimate of what % of each building was on fire please. The video shows the fires in each building and also each building afterwards, and states that 7 had some serious fires. This is not deceptive at all, it is an honest analysis. Find me pictures that support your claim please.
Your video also makes the claim that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds which means it ignorantly ignores the start of the collapse where internal structures collapsed and we can see the penthouse collapse BEFORE we see downward movement of the exterior point which was measured after the collapse sequence had started. How much credibility do you think that video has when it is claiming the building collapsed in 6.6 seconds?
The video says that the building was reduced to a smoking debris pile in 6.6s, this is true, regardless of what was happening internally. Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that it took 14s to collapse, or 14 days if you would rather. No time frame accounts for a period of 2.25s freefall acceleration, and more to the point you have not addressed what the video is claiming re the initiating event being impossible from thermal expansion of the beams to the east of column 79, especially once the stiffener plates are brought into the analysis. We can deal with freefall and 6.6s once you have addressed the initiating event, which is the topic of this thread and the series of videos.
You just don't like the fact that WTC 5 had within it another example of fire-induced collapse of a few floors. It proves the concept that fires can cause steel structures to collapse. You guys want to believe that fire could not cause the towers to collapse so that when you learned of WTC7, you ridiculously then rationalize THAT building as a target too, so you already crossed the line of credibility when you insist wtc7 was also part of some sort of secret plot
'For a few floors' is the big logical fallacy there. Show me those 2 pictures of the 2 buildings afterwards and see if people can spot the difference in what fire induced in each, even if you can't. As for comparison with the 2 towers, nobody, not even NIST is claiming that the fires did the same thing to7 as it did to the towers. Steel sagging in the towers was blamed and steel expanding in 7 due to fire was blamed. These are 2 different things, the latter is what this thread is about, but I would be more than happy to debate the towers with you once we are done discussing 7 here. As for credibility, you need to get yourself some of that by explaining how expansion of 6.25" which takes a temp at which NIST says steel sags and does not push is possible, then how it is possible that the girder between C79 and C44 can fail when the stiffener plates are accounted for in the analysis. NIST are unable to do so, so I look forward to your analysis. And targets?? This video is about NISTs explanation, where do i mention targets?
I can see why you don't want to argue that secret agents were behind the partial collapse that occurred within WTC5 so that is why I am getting accused of "derailing" the thread rather than simply derailing your poor arguments.
I am neither arguing that point, and neither am I accusing you of derailing this thread because of an assertion that I have not made. This is avoidance on your part. I will debate you here, I will debate you live, I will debate you anywhere you like on this topic, but you need to address the points that I am making and the topic of this thread and not drift off into delusions about secret agents etc. This is about engineering and physics, not about fantasies and secret agents. Address the issues.
 

MichaelStox

Member
It doesn't even make sense to think WTC7 would be a target!
 
You really don't have a clue how irrational it is to think secret agents would say, "hey we are going to be killing thousands of people in the Twin Towers in the morning so we can create a pretext for war anyway, why don't we also blow up a nearby building in the late afternoon so we can try to destroy files in order to stop some corporate fraud investigations of some companies? Come on, are you really this crazy? And you think the investigations were really stopped and they would just drop those cases!? You really think that?

Attack Delays Investigations (delays not stops)

"A statement from the commission said that "we are confident that we will not lose any significant investigation or case as a result of the loss of our building in New York. No one whom we have sued or whose conduct we have been investigating should doubt our resolve to continue our pursuit of justice in every such matters."

"But the short-term problems will be immense, said Gregory Joseph of New York's Law Offices of Gregory Joseph.

"Many of the files are backed up in the computer system, but a substantial number of documents are simply gone, said Spencer Lewis, the EEOC district director. Depositions and notes were not scanned into computers and are lost. With depositions and interviews, the agency will be contacting court reporters "and hoping that they've got them so we can reconstruct files," Lewis said. This covers about 45 active cases, including a recent action against Morgan Stanley.

But employment litigators believe the effect here, too, will be transitory."

""The EEOC is decimated as far as office space goes," but any problems are "only short-term," said Michael Weber of the New York office of Littler Mendelson. "They will get back to business." The agencies will be seeking documents from the private law firms and defendants, Weber notes. "My sense is that we will cooperate," he noted. "Our goal is not to take advantage of this catastrophe."

"A lot of their records they'll have online, so they'll just reprint them out," adds Harkins. "The EEOC is in a better position than the SEC, because the SEC has a lot more confidential files."

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917natllawjournal.WTC7SECfiles
 

5forforty

New Member
You really don't have a clue how irrational it is to think secret agents would say, "hey we are going to be killing thousands of people in the Twin Towers in the morning so we can create a pretext for war anyway, why don't we also blow up a nearby building in the late afternoon so we can try to destroy files in order to stop some corporate fraud investigations of some companies?
Yes, that's absolutely insane, so then when other possibilities could there be? Well, I guess you have to start with who has offices there, Export-Import Bank of the US, DoD, IRS, CIA, Secret Service, SEC. Ok, that doesn't help too much, but it's interesting. Well, did anything unprecedented happen that day as a result of the attack, which also hopefully effected at least one office in there? Skyscrapers collapsed because of heat (let's stay preoccupied arguing over the details of that) ...anything else, hmmm...oh the SEC declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. Well i guess you gotta do what you gotta do... AND suspended Rule 15c3...and the GSCC further established the acceptance of blind broker settlements, and this all happened the day of the attack. Wow, well they have to fit together somehow...

its late and I gotta go to sleep, I'll try and finish tomorrow. also, this is not intended to be construed as derogatory towards anyone
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Mick West Debunked: "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media" Quotes Debunked 91
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 127
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Alchemist How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did? 9/11 319
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top