WTC 7 (Building 7)

[F4Jock]

So you think we perceive facts differently?

I prefer to say you choose to interpret facts, reasoning and conclusions differently than I, and, since I think that MAY be one of the major differences between us I'd like to know why.

 

[hiper]

...insisting the government killed its own citizens is what is dangerous.

You should go work for NIST they also like to disregard historical evidence.

 

[F4Jock]

Originally Posted by JRBids
I see no chance of changing the minds of the truthers here. When they make statements like "The planes were flown by remote control. The exact floor they wanted to hit was of course at a fixed altitude above sea level so flying that exact altitude would be a piece of cake.. just dial in a number on the keyboard really" I know they are left reality far behind.

F4Jock is correct. The truthers are directly responsible for these bombings IMO.


No George, ideas are not dangerous. Continually lying, pot stirring, insisting the government killed its own citizens is what is dangerous. When a passenger jet is brought down, people like Gnarly Carly will have blood on their hands.

IMNTBHO the salient and largely unaddressed and unasked point here is not how but "Why!" We have beaten the "How" to death with no success on either side, I offer that more progress can be made on BOTH parts if we ask each other "Why" and debate it.

Failing to do this, I would then dispute the relevance of further argument.

 

[JRBids]

You should go work for NIST they also like to disregard historical evidence.

Past performance is not indicative of future activity. WHY do you believe our government killed out own citizens? Then you can explain whatever wacky theory it is that you have, be it dustification, remote controlled airplanes or controlled demolition. I find it hard to keep track of everyone. I think you are remote controlled planes. Explain what happened to the passengers on the REAL planes, or were the REAL planes taken over by remote control?

 

[JRBids]

Seems to me . . . NIST and the defenders of NIST's approach are saying . . . we saw the planes fly into the buildings . . . we saw the fires . . . we saw the buildings fall down . . . there is a simple logical progression . . . there is no need to test for other possible causes of the events . . . all other testing and investigation is illogical . . . case closed . . .

Part of the reason the case is closed is because some of the truther theories are too wacky for discussion: remote planes hitting precisely the exact spot then CD? Dr Judy's dustification weapon? How about aliens? Has anyone suggested that? THat's no more wacky than the ideas here.

 

[George B]

IMNTBHO the salient and largely unaddressed and unasked point here is not how but "Why!" We have beaten the "How" to death with no success on either side, I offer that more progress can be made on BOTH parts if we ask each other that question and debate it.

Wow! That is not a new can of worms but is even more heated than the present discussion . . .

 

[JRBids]

Even if the floors pancaked the massive central core could not have disintegrated like it did due to fire.

THe "massive central core?" Which contained stair cases (empty space?) and ELEVATOR SHAFTS? Hiper, had you ever BEEN in the WTC? EVER?

 

[F4Jock]

Wow! That is not a new can of worms but is even more heated than the present discussion . . .

Perhaps George, but IMNTBHO where has the constant flogging of the same dead horse from different sides gotten us? I'm proposing a new tack. Maybe some insight into each other's reasoning and motivation would help? Otherwise, sans such progress can you tell me the purpose of further argument?

 

[George B]

Part of the reason the case is closed is because some of the truther theories are too wacky for discussion: remote planes hitting precisely the exact spot then CD? Dr Judy's dustification weapon? How about aliens? Has anyone suggested that? THat's no more wacky than the ideas here.

For the sake of argument . . . let's say the official story is not correct . . . but no one knows how it was accomplished . . . you would get what you are seeing . . . dozens of theories, pockets of people promoting their pet theories, and thereby each group neutralizing each other in a battle for recognition . . . if I perpetrated the deed it couldn't get any better than this!

 

[F4Jock]

THe "massive central core?" Which contained stair cases (empty space?) and ELEVATOR SHAFTS? Hiper, had you ever BEEN in the WTC? EVER?

You forgot the central lobbies....,,

 

[JRBids]

For the sake of argument . . . let's say the official story is not correct . . . but no one knows how it was accomplished . . . you would get what you are seeing . . . dozens of theories, pockets of people promoting their pet theories, and thereby each group neutralizing each other in a battle for recognition . . . if I perpetrated the deed it couldn't get any better than this!

Would you agree it might be more productive for the truthers to settle on ONE reason? With the amount of time that has passed and the amount of people who have "studied" the issue, one coherant "theory", perhaps with actual WHISTLEBLOWERS, would be more believable.

 

[JRBids]

You forgot the central lobbies....,,

Exactly. I would seriously like to know how many of these theorists were ever in the building. Then we can begin with how many have ever been in NYC or the country for that matter.

 

[George B]

Perhaps George, but IMNTBHO where has the constant flogging of the same dead horse from different sides gotten us? I'm proposing a new tack. Maybe some insight into each other's reasoning and motivation would help? Otherwise, sans such progress can you tell me the purpose of further argument?

OK . . . here may be a few motives to ponder . . .

POLL: What was the motive to bring down the WTC Buildings (1,2 &7)?

Major step in NWO script to gain worldwide control? 40.5% (64)

Pearl Harbor (false flag) event to allow US attacks on Oil rich countries? 24.7% (39)

Muslim extremists revenge Al Qaeda? 13.3% (21)

Major banking houses civil war to control wealth and Stock Markets? 8.2% (13)

Other motive not yet explained . . . please post your thoughts? 7.0% (11)

Government (black hats) need to restrict freedom & declare Martial Law? 6.3% (10)

Blank (View Results)(30)

Non-Blank Votes: 158

Content from External Source

 

[F4Jock]

For the sake of argument . . . let's say the official story is not correct . . . but no one knows how it was accomplished . . . you would get what you are seeing . . . dozens of theories, pockets of people promoting their pet theories, and thereby each group neutralizing each other in a battle for recognition . . . if I perpetrated the deed it couldn't get any better than this!

But using your logic, if there was no validity to ANY of the theories proposed it couldn't be any more as dire a waste of time, could it?

Once again I think that the key to agreement lies in understanding the motivation of the conspiracy theorists and the practicalists.

 

[F4Jock]

OK . . . here may be a few motives to ponder . . .

POLL: What was the motive to bring down the WTC Buildings (1,2 &7)?

Major step in NWO script to gain worldwide control? 40.5% (64)

Pearl Harbor (false flag) event to allow US attacks on Oil rich countries? 24.7% (39)

Muslim extremists revenge Al Qaeda? 13.3% (21)

Major banking houses civil war to control wealth and Stock Markets? 8.2% (13)

Other motive not yet explained . . . please post your thoughts? 7.0% (11)

Government (black hats) need to restrict freedom & declare Martial Law? 6.3% (10)

Blank (View Results)(30)

Non-Blank Votes: 158

Content from External Source

Totally non-scientific. Meaningless. Sorry for being harsh but I know you can understand that.

 

[George B]

Would you agree it might be more productive for the truthers to settle on ONE reason? With the amount of time that has passed and the amount of people who have "studied" the issue, one coherant "theory", perhaps with actual WHISTLEBLOWERS, would be more believable.

I agree . . . but someone hiding motives would try to keep all the possible motives on the table at the same time . . . Misinformation, disinformation, the injured herd animal always is better in the middle of the herd . . .

 

[hiper]

Past performance is not indicative of future activity.

Tell that to the surviving families of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao...
President Al-Assad is trying rather hard to be beat his dad's past performance.

Explain what happened to the passengers on the REAL planes, or were the REAL planes taken over by remote control?

For all I know it were military planes that were part of the government "training exercise" coincidentally scheduled that same day.

But luckily we could rely on the US air force's scrambled jets... oh wait we couldn't.

 

[George B]

Totally non-scientific. Meaningless.

It is just a list . . . if you have a better one be my guest . . . let's see them . . .

 

[hiper]

THe "massive central core?" Which contained stair cases (empty space?) and ELEVATOR SHAFTS? Hiper, had you ever BEEN in the WTC? EVER?

Instead of flooding this thread with one liners maybe take some time setting up a decent post.

 

[George B]

But using your logic, if there was no validity to ANY of the theories proposed it couldn't be any more as dire a waste of time, could it?

Once again I think that the key to agreement lies in understanding the motivation of the conspiracy theorists and the practicalists.

What are the motives then?

 

[F4Jock]

It is just a list . . . if you have a better one be my guest . . . let's see them . . .

Steady. I'm saying that polls are meaningless if one does not have a relevant cross section of the citizenry polled and data concerning those polled as part of of said poll. My list would be just as meaningless under those circumstances. If I make a list it reflects my perceptions which brings me back to my initial point.,,,,

 

[F4Jock]

What are the motives then?

I don't pretend go to know, which is why I proposed asking.

 

[George B]

I don't pretend go to know, which is why I proposed asking.

How are you going to ask and who are you asking . . . ?

 

[Mick West]

NFPA 921 discussion moved to:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1424-N-F-P-A-921-Did-NIST-disregard-it-in-investigating-9-11

 

[F4Jock]

How are you going to ask and who are you asking . . . ?

Simple: Something like "Despite the presentation and explanation of facts to the contrary, why do you think that there is a conspiracy surrounding the fall of the WTC?" and I'd ask anyone posting who disagrees with the "official" explanation.

 

[George B]

Simple: Something like "Despite the presentation and explanation of facts to the contrary, why do you think that there is a conspiracy surrounding the fall of the WTC?" and I'd ask anyone posting who disagrees with the "official" explanation.

I thought you were asking for the reason . . . not the methods . . .

Originally Posted by JRBids

Would you agree it might be more productive for the truthers to settle on ONE reason? With the amount of time that has passed and the amount of people who have "studied" the issue, one coherant "theory", perhaps with actual WHISTLEBLOWERS, would be more believable.

Content from External Source

 

[jomper]

Well, are there any actual pieces of evidence you'd like to discuss?

I'm honestly not sure I can find common ground with someone who doesn't think any of the physical evidence from WTC 7 is relevant to the forensic collapse investigation.

 

[F4Jock]

I'm honestly not sure I can find common ground with someone who doesn't think any of the physical evidence from WTC 7 is relevant to the forensic collapse investigation.

Forgive me but his is too good to pass up: Are you perhaps looking in a mirror?

 

[jomper]

Forgive me but his is too good to pass up

I assume you have missed all this.

 

[Mick West]

I'm honestly not sure I can find common ground with someone who doesn't think any of the physical evidence from WTC 7 is relevant to the forensic collapse investigation.

That's not what I said, is it?

But why don't you try? I'm asking you for the evidence that would point towards a need to perform the tests you want.

 

[jomper]

That's not what I said, is it?

You deny that you said NIST had no reason to test the steel from WTC 7?

 

[Mick West]

You deny that you said NIST had no reason to test the steel from WTC 7?

Why not just quote what you and I said:

Are we to understand from this that you think it is perfectly fine that not even a single piece of physical steel from the building was tested in the investigation, given that steel from the building was available?

Well, that's the same as testing for explosives, isn't it? You need a reason to test the steel in the first place.

I'm honestly not sure I can find common ground with someone who doesn't think any of the physical evidence from WTC 7 is relevant to the forensic collapse investigation.

So you can see right there what I said.

 

[jomper]

OK, so the total collapse of WTC 7 was not enough reason to test the steel.

OK Mick, OK.

I don't think we're going to agree on this.

 

[Mick West]

OK, so the total collapse of WTC 7 was not enough reason to test the steel.

OK Mick, OK.

I don't think we're going to agree on this.

Test it for what? You must have some specific test in mind here, as there are millions of possible tests that could be done.

What do you think they should test it for.

 

[Mick West]

NIST DID want to test the steel to determine what types of steel were used, they just did not have any that was for-sure from WTC7, even the FEMA sample.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf



See also:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05130.pdf

[Edit] Other FEMA samples:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

 

[jomper]

NIST DID want to test the steel to determine what types of steel were used, they just did not have any that was for-sure from WTC7, even the FEMA sample.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Content from External Source

This is the FEMA report. It recommends further testing of the steel. Where is this steel mentioned in the NIST report?

This was confirmed as WTC 7 steel.

You are saying that because there are "millions" of tests that could be carried out on the steel, it's just not worth carrying out... tests.

This is why I don't think we're going to agree.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

You are saying that because there are "millions" of tests that could be carried out on the steel, it's just not worth carrying out... tests.

That's not what I said. I asked WHICH of the millions of tests you were referring to. What tests to you think should be performed?

 

[jomper]

Again, where is the FEMA report mentioned by NIST? The whole FEMA report is here. You see the bit about a hot corrosion attack on the steel by a sulphur-rich liquid? Weird, huh. I think it must've been the gypsum walls from the building that were giving off the sulphur and baking the steel in a super-hot rubble pile... how about you? It's certainly not worth investigating further.

 

[Mick West]

Again, where is the FEMA report mentioned by NIST? The whole FEMA report is here. You see the bit about a hot corrosion attack on the steel by a sulphur-rich liquid? Weird, huh. I think it must've been the gypsum walls from the building that were giving off the sulphur and baking the steel in a super-hot rubble pile... how about you? It's certainly not worth investigating further.

A) It could not be determined which building that piece of steel (Sample 1) came from.
B) neither of the other two pieces of steel that FEMA identified as being from WTC7 had similar effects.

So what exactly do you want NIST to do? And why?

 

[jomper]

So what exactly do you want NIST to do? And why?

I have already shown you verified WTC 7 steel. I would expect an investigation into the total collapse of a building to find and test the structural steel.

So what exactly is your explanation for this omission? And why?