F4Jock
Senior Member.
And after seven hours in an uncontrolled fire theses charges were still extant and detonated how?
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
And after seven hours in an uncontrolled fire theses charges were still extant and detonated how?
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Grieves. . . I completely agree. . . an event which changed this country and the world for the worse deserves much more attention to detail and due diligence than it received . . . no matter what would eventually be discovered or confirmed. . . it is my hope some day that I could again be able to trust my government. . .
Interesting that you and Grieves, having set yourselves up as the final arbiters of what is and is not a proper investigation now, failing to sustain your arguments with facts, proceed to to the next step of fallacious argument, appealing to the emotion (You almost had me looking for a flag to highball!) and possibly the patriotism of those you wish to convince. This cheapens your arguments by suggesting that those who believe differently are not concerned with what "REALLY" happened on that day. It also, at least in my case, pisses me off!
Grieves I don't know you well enough to include you, but George, I've come to expect more of you!
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Re remote detonators: Duh! But not the point I was trying to make.
Hey, maybe they also placed blast mats on top of the charges? And how would they know where fires would be? Are you stating that "they" set them? And why bring that building down at all? The towers were the target... Weren't they enough? Did they plan the WTC 7 debris hit?
Somewhere, sometime the "quite possiblies" and "maybes" have to stop and fact-based rationality has to take over, don't you think?
Grieves
Senior Member
You asked, man.
It seems odd that the collapse of an adjacent structure would result in such widespread interior fires. That being said, I can't say what started the fires. By what method would upper-floor fires reach the sub-levels of a building like that, unless that building burned to the ground? What risk could sub-levels of such a building have of being set ablaze by falling debris? It's the obvious location, both for maximum structural impact and maximum 'safety'/discretion, for any potential 'explosives' scenario in the building 7 collapse. I'm not here to cook up scenarios, though.
Building 7 was a repository of records and place of business for several major insurance brokers, several major banking institutions, the IRS Regional Council, the U.S Secret Service, the CIA, and contained the NYC field office of the FBI. Much of the data they housed was financial in nature. I'd say it's entirely possible that the atrocity of the attack on the twin towers, as well as meant to inflict upon the nation a state of almost universal and exploitable trauma, also served as a cover for the destruction of Building 7, and all the data within.
Being more or less next to one of the world's tallest structures as it violently and rapidly collapses somewhat precludes the possibility of there not being a debris hit.
Right. You've been shown physical evidence of explosive residues found in WTC dust. You've been shown a physical demonstration of how home-made, non-controlled thermate can be used, in relatively modest quantities, to cut steel, even vertical beams, with relative rapidity and a bit of engineering know-how... proving the bold claims that such a scenario is physically impossible entirely and flat-out false. You have the footage of WTC7, which appears to collapse in a way distinctly similar to that of a demolition. You've got many multiple testimonies of explosions being heard/seen/felt. Please, apply some fact-based rationality and explain to me why NIST tested neither dust nor steel for even the possibility of explosive residue, and why that decision was appropriate.
Grieves
Senior Member
I believe in justice, and don't think it's been done in the case of 9/11. I believe there are people who had a hand in it currently living large and under little to no scrutiny as a result, and that pisses me off. You think you have the full and complete story, and that justice has been done. I think you're wrong. It's pretty much as simple as that. If you want to make my statement out to be some sort of uber-patriotic emotional dribble, or that I'm somehow attacking your patriotism by thinking that you're wrong, you go ahead. And keep on about logical fallacies while you're at it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't expect you to believe as I do . . . I voiced my heartfelt sentiments . . . I think 911 is the single most important event to happen in my lifetime . . . it changed my life completely and I am most disappointed in their (my government's) performance on many levels . . . many of which we have not even discussed here . . . sorry you cannot understand that about me . . . my present position and conclusions are not based on an emotional whim . . it is based on the cold hard facts that IMO NIST and thereby the US government did not do their job along with the intelligence apparatus of the administration . . when they correct their lack of due dilligence I might change my mind. . . .
I also feel the greatest loss from 911 is the decline in trust of all governments. . . you can blame this erosion on people like me or you can lay it at the feet of IMO an inept government. . . your choice. . . .
hiper
Active Member
The difference between right & wrong in this matter is the difference between a pseudo-scientific investigation and a scientific one.
That omission was all that mattered because the omission came from NIST the official investigator... the entity that should follow national scientific standards.
Thanks I'm also quite pretty.
You are right.
Action is better than chatting.
I apologize and retract my previous statement...
F4Jock
Senior Member.
All of the above have been, as you well know, been previously and logically answered and the conclusions of your last paragraph, based on cherry-picking and half-facts, have also been well rebutted and shown to be unsupportable in the specific instances and declarative terms you use.
I'll take the time to ask this: You have no proof that ANY classified data existed in WTC 7 worth destruction of an entire entire building. Ever hear of a shredder? An incinerator? Nah! Let's destroy the whole building. More fun!! But I'll humor you. Now, if you assume that the charges you allege we're preset, why not just get the classified crap out of the building instead of sending the time mining the structure? Based on you lugging booze around it'd be a lots easier task wouldn't you say?
If you can't acknowledge the absurdity of that your thesis in that regard the logic of your other arguments becomes highly suspect.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
F4Jock, if you took the classified materials and disposed of them without an excuse how could you explain their destruction? Like NASA explained the degaussing of the videos (or film destruction) of the lunar landings. . . .Oops? It just doesn't sell well . . .
Grieves
Senior Member
What are you talking about...? Please, be specific if you're going to make statements like this.
A criminal assault intending to seize and destroy highly secured documentation by force in a NYC sky-scraper home to an FBI field office (as in host to armed agents) would be an extremely complex operation, and impossible to get away with. A 'heist' style break-in to stealthily destroy highly secured documents has a history of going rather badly in America, and the aftermath would have led to a mountain of suspicion in the direction of those effected by the data destroyed, which would be very difficult to get away with. So how to get rid of specific, well protected and highly secured data, and do so without drawing any suspicion toward those who that information might implicate? Most people don't even know about Building 7, and haven't even seen the collapse. Though the two towers falling were expected viewing every nightly news-hour for years after the event, there was a strange taboo surrounding the building 7 footage, Fox going so far as to refuse to show it while at the same time accusing a Professor of physics of being a terrorist-sympathizer. The 9/11 commission doesn't even mention the building 7 collapse. You don't even think there's anything remotely suspicious about the building 7 collapse, even though that collapse is unusual in the extreme.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Happily accepted with gratitude! And if in the process I've been thoughtless toward you I also apologize.
At the risk of being flagged for going "off topic" let me say this:
I agree that there are deep and fundamental problems that beset our government and I want to help make them better. I want a better country and a better world.
With that in mind I don't think that it matters whether or not you or I are right about WTC 7. In my opinion what we are doing here is engaging in debate that belongs in perspective, after dinner over a beer or a glass of good wine. What becoming obsessed with this and similar subjects does is distract our energies and intellect from the future (Could THIS be a plot?) and, again in my opinion, if we want to demonstrably change things that is where they must be focused.
I'm not suggesting you abandon your feelings and convictions. Believe it or not I respect them. I ask only that you examine the perspective and importance you've assigned them and that you ask yourself if what you are focused on is the best use of your skills to bring about the change we all want.
OK. Time to get off the soapbox. I think things like this need to be said on occasion to help foster reasonable debate and remind each other that we are each and all individual human beings with all of the associated aspirations, strengths and foibles of same, not just anonymous Internet personalities or dupes of some global scheme.
If you and I engage in future debates I hope we can do so as "friends" and I hope you know that, as they said in the Godfather, "It isn't personal!"
God Bless and..... "En Garde!" *Grin*
Jack
MikeC
Closed Account
the NASA videos weer not classified, and they had "an excuse" that was perfectly valid at the time - how were they to know a bunch of morons would subsequently use the action as "proof" of a conspiracy.
And it seems to me your entire post has begged the question - you are asking for reasons for taking an action that you have no evidence was actually carried out....and then using the only reasonable answer ("there is no excuse") as if it were evidence that the action was actualy taken.
It is another way of presenting the "the lack of evidence is evidence of the cover up" nonsense argument.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Addressed that in the past. Kindly read back to find it.
But you claim a criminal assault to mine the building is not only possible but more probable? Please!!!
Remotely suspicious. Remotely is a qualitative term. My engineering background says it's far more logical than destruction by government.
And the Fox reference is a blatant attempt at distraction and misdirection. Beneath you,
F4Jock
Senior Member.
And who would have known they were there, the same people who did't rat out the "demolition?"
And now we didn't land on the moon?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) Didn't say we did not land on the Moon . . . I am quite sure we did . . . I just cannot see how video/film of such monumental historical significance could simply be misplaced and/or destroyed . . .
2) Who knew the documents were there ??. . . the Justice department prosecutors and most likely the attorneys for the accused of the ENRON scandal etc . . . via the legal discovery process they would all have a chain of custody and cataloged as evidence . . . unlike the Moon landing tapes someone would have asked. . .
Grieves
Senior Member
No, sorry, just went through it.
What about this response:
addresses the physical demonstration of home-made thermate cutting through vertical steel beams, a thing which proponents of the official account have often and loudly declared as being physically impossible? How does it address the physical evidence of explosive residue found within samples of WTC dust, something NIST didn't even bother to check for? You made the direct statement that I was speaking half-truths, cherry-picking 'half-facts', and that everything I said had been refuted, rebutted, or was out of context. If you're going to make a claim like that, you have to actually back it up.
Strangers wandering through the building taking away classified documents/accessing restricted networks isn't going to happen unless those strangers are armed and making demands. Otherwise they're going to get arrested / thrown out. Strangers wandering the sub-levels doing 'maintenance work' most people wouldn't think twice about.
Another mistake you guys make. I don't think congress sat down and voted on murdering 3000 people or something.
No, it's an effort to point out to you just how obscure and remote a topic of notice and consideration, outside of venues like this, Building 7 really is. A rather deliberate and proficient job has been done of leaving Building 7 out of the 9/11 Narrative. If there was a massive financial crime which the leveling of that building was meant to cover up, wouldn't that be precisely the desired outcome?
F4Jock
Senior Member.
1) Been in the military? Even if you were staff instead of field you'd know how: Answer: Somebody F'ed up!
2) You misinterpreted what wrote. I meant who of the public. Having some knowledge of how stuff works I contend that those doccs could have been "disappeared" easily enough. It has happened in the past after all.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
2) ? . . ? . . . the point is they wanted the public to NOT know . . . it was probably those pesky Truthers that kept looking under rocks and connecting dots that it came to the public's awareness at all . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
I'm not going to be drawn into the wen of restating past posts of mine and others so you can continue a create a time sink and another circular argument. No facts that unequivocally support anything that you state were found in the analysis of the WTC 7 collapse. Every conclusion pro your position has an equivalent and demonstrated con.
And those removing the doccs had to be "armed strangers"? Suddenly you attribute unimpeachable morals to all the rest working there!? Convenient.
Way too complex a scenario to achieve your postulated result. Akin to swatting a bee from your forehead with the contents of a of a 357.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I was just being cynical about the NASA tapes . . . just an example of bureaucratic ineptitude . . . losing very important and valuable items does (however) beg the question . . . was there a motive . . . I think a natural and logical question to ask . . . possibly they were stolen and sold on the black market for example . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
2) ? . . ? . . . the point is they wanted the public to NOT know . . . it was probably those pesky Truthers that kept looking under rocks and connecting dots that it came to the public's awareness at all . . .
Nothing like a stretch George. If I wanted to remove docs from a classified area AND I had the biliary to do do buy dethroning the entire building I'd use a well-placed mole. Removal and relocation of classified material takes place on a daily basis. I've seen it. Way less obvious and questionable than bringing down an entire building.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ah . . . I have a counter for you . . . what if the WTC 7 opportunity was simply a "crime" of opportunity . . .unexpected windfall . . .
. . . like looting!!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Nope . . . not possible . . . they could move them but could not justify their destruction . . . required an act of God. . .
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Ok, Where did they hire demo experts that could bring down buildings of the size of even WTC7? Enough folks to work quickly? And did they teach them drywall work also.
Your entire 'theory' depends on hiring a crack team of demo experts, that could set non standard charges in a fraction of the time normally needed.
Them or someone else then needs to repair the walls and replace drywall and tape and bed it, and repaint it, so NO ONE noticed it.
Both of those groups have to be sworn to secrecy and NONE of them have revealed anything in over 10 years.
Large amounts of thermite would have had to be bought or made, either way there are more folks that KNOW about it.
Then those charges would have to been fireproofed and ALL the wiring for them, the same.
You would have to figure out how to make sure that a part of the WTC hit the building and started fires.
Please EXPLAIN how that could be done, While you are at it, explain how they made the building bulge?
I will be interested to see what you come up with.
BTW, a test on a small piece of steel, is NOT the same as on a long steel column. Thermite HEATS and that long column is a HUGE heat sink.
Your entire 'theory' depends on hiring a crack team of demo experts, that could set non standard charges in a fraction of the time normally needed.
Them or someone else then needs to repair the walls and replace drywall and tape and bed it, and repaint it, so NO ONE noticed it.
Both of those groups have to be sworn to secrecy and NONE of them have revealed anything in over 10 years.
Large amounts of thermite would have had to be bought or made, either way there are more folks that KNOW about it.
Then those charges would have to been fireproofed and ALL the wiring for them, the same.
You would have to figure out how to make sure that a part of the WTC hit the building and started fires.
Please EXPLAIN how that could be done, While you are at it, explain how they made the building bulge?
I will be interested to see what you come up with.
BTW, a test on a small piece of steel, is NOT the same as on a long steel column. Thermite HEATS and that long column is a HUGE heat sink.
jomper
Inactive Member
The official argument for refusing to release computer modelling data, as supported by Jazzy, is argumentum ad metum (the only way this model can be checked would help the terrorists). Mick prefers the argument from authority (if all these experts don't object, what's the problem?) and Cairenn and F4Jock favour the argument from incredulity (how could it possibly be done?). These are all false arguments.Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process.
Jazzy
Closed Account
You cannot be talking about WTC1 & 2, because the collapses propagated from the points of impact.
Or were these special "ventriloquist" charges, trained to "throw their voice"?
Hey, for the logic there...
And why we are banging on about "placing charges", you make that sound as if it's a total doddle. That vid showed a loony working in his large back garden with just a few clamps in broad daylight. Going beneath floors and into ceiling spaces is messy and time-consuming. "They" couldn't have placed charges* (each time at a future point of impact) in the time claimed available.
And these charges would have had to be really fireproof. They don't make fireproof radio receivers either. And radio isn't reliable within a forest of steel beams.
And then, as Cairenn has said, there's the problem of THE BULGE. How does that figure in your scenario? IT DOESN'T. Yet all buildings showed increasing signs of collapse before they failed.
Ignoring information completely, as you do, for whatever reason, is a SURE sign of the fallacy of your position.
[...]
* Silent, heatproof, tracefree**.
** With an independent test confirming this.
That 'loony'.... managed to do something 'your top scientific brains' said was impossible and they could not do and therefore blows your propagandist OS BS outa the solar system.
That 'loony' shows how absolutely mind blowingly stupid ALL your so called experts are and/or the fact that they are unmitigated liars of the highest order.
But then we already knew that didn't we, we already knew how far people will go to protect the lie. We already knew how they will fight tooth and nail to ridicule the truth and how far they will go in their quest to put political science before physical science; we see it daily on this very forum.
It's all so well documented, the bribery, threats, imprisonment, blackmail and possibly murder.
So let's look again at political science... "It is physically impossible for thermate to cut steel" = known lie and fake science so we move on to the next level "It is impossible for those charges to be placed" = facile lie which is contrary to evidence. So let's move on to "How did they detonate them precisely" which is again facile as it is unimportant that they are detonated at a precise time. All that matters is the key structural supports are sufficiently weakened and then physics will do the rest.
It's like blowing a dam. Charges are laid, they go off, nothing happens visibly but the damage is done and an hour or so later the dam gives way. Voila.
[...]
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Ah . . . I have a counter for you . . . what if the WTC 7 opportunity was simply a "crime" of opportunity . . .unexpected windfall . . .
Then they'd not have had time to set up a demo.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
But once they'd moved them the disbursal and destruction would become far easier. Things, even classified docs, get "lost" all the time. Sometimes it's even "convenient." And it's just as possible, even more so, than destroying an entire building as in your scenario.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Who knows ultimately if demolition was premeditated at WTC 7. . . .the net effect was . . . the building is damaged. . . .the water supply is compromised either through happenstance, design, or omission . . . we decide to not fight the fires to limit loss of life . . . wonderful we have a device to destroy all that pesky evidence we don't want to see the light of day. . . Let it Burn!!!!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry. . . the evidence may well have been moved . . . that is moot. . . the issue is . . . the need for substantial evidence that the "evidence" is destroyed. . . .that conveniently requires the destruction of WTC 7. . .
Did he manage to cut through a column like the WTC1&2 core columns? Or the WTC7 column that failed?
And why exactly did they need to "weaken" the columns? It's been shown they could not support the dynamic load.
Jazzy
Closed Account
They weren't "my" "top scientific brains", they were yours. Just a straw man.
No, it's not "like blowing a dam", because the structures were all seen to deform progressively over time. In the case of the towers, floors were seen to sag and collapse. Within a minute of those detaching floors the initial buckling failure occurred, and the collapse began.
These events are absolutely consistent with progressive fire damage to stability failure. In your scenario they never feature. You never use the word "buckling" when the video demonstrates it straight to your face.
[video=youtube_share;9SSS0DDqfm0]http://youtu.be/9SSS0DDqfm0[/video]
[...]
I'd PREFER the argument from facts and science. I use the argument from authority only for perspective.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Who knows ultimately if demolition was premeditated at WTC 7. . . .the net effect was . . . the building is damaged. . . .the water supply is compromised either through happenstance, design, or omission . . . we decide to not fight the fires to limit loss of life . . . wonderful we have a device to destroy all that pesky evidence we don't want to see the light of day. . . Let it Burn!!!!
Seems that we've been this route before....many times.
I think by now that all concerned should have come to the realization that, right or wrong, a new 9/11 investigation is not going to happen until and unless different and compelling reasons and information can be found that warrant one. Notice I said "different and compelling." By this I mean that restating the same arguments and theories is going to produce no movement in the direction you wish.
So, how do you propose to provide this "different and compelling" information?
In my opinion to do this you'll have to get the backing of some prestigious analytical organization willing to spend its own money on a definitive set of tests that indisputably show the NIST and FEMA analysis and / or omissions of same led to incorrect conclusions in at least one major area.
What say you?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree the present Administration has no stomach to open a new investigation of the events of 911. . . I think what you have suggested to MythBusters (by the way . . . Thanks) is the only thing that might open the door for public pressure to do further research . . . as I have stated several times IMO we have a crisis of TRUST in government and I think they can gain much more than they could lose by sponsoring a reexamination. I will continue to raise my small voice in that manner . . . do yourself a favor "Government" due diligence would be refreshing . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Incredulity? If anything is "incredible" it is the chain of events necessary to support those claiming demolition. All I want to see are facts that support that thesis. So far what has been presented are similarities, possibilities, circular arguments, distrust of just about everything concerned with this event, and inconclusive test results. Facts are lacking.
The collapse methodology of WTC 7 has been supported by detailed engineering analysis. As I wrote to George, unless you can present different and compelling reasons to reexamine this event it's apparent that the present line of logic is not going to accomplish your desired end.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
