WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you think this official NIST bunk is not depicting an implosion?

Again you are getting hung up on the meaning and significance of a word. Focus on what actually happened, not if it fits some arbitrary definition of a word.

If you DO want to discuss if it fits a definition, then PROVIDE THE DEFINITION YOU ARE USING.

I think the word "collapse" is perfectly accurate. The buildings collapsed.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Again you are getting hung up on the meaning and significance of a word. Focus on what actually happened, not if it fits some arbitrary definition of a word.

If you DO want to discuss if it fits a definition, then PROVIDE THE DEFINITION YOU ARE USING.

I think the word "collapse" is perfectly accurate. The buildings collapsed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implosion

Now apparently, this is too difficult for anyone but 'real experts', (whoever they are but apparently they do not include covert teams as they do not have the experience or expertise), to achieve this and even if 'real experts' were involved in 7, it would be too difficult to do)... but we should be unsurprised that exactly the same result occurs on 9/11 because that was a special day when lots and lots of unique events happened, inc a perfect representation of an implosion event on 7, caused by random damage and random fires.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implosion

Now apparently, this is too difficult for anyone but 'real experts', (whoever they are but apparently they do not include covert teams as they do not have the experience or expertise), to achieve this and even if 'real experts' were involved in 7, it would be too difficult to do)... but we should be unsurprised that exactly the same result occurs on 9/11 because that was a special day when lots and lots of unique events happened, inc a perfect representation of an implosion event on 7, caused by random damage and random fires.

To carry out a task of this size would difficult even if stealth was not a consideration. As discussed at length, the challenges are many, including the required preparation work, which is increadibly destrctive by itelf, the logistics of getting the required about of charges into the buildings, accessing the framework columns, the connection of all the charges, the management of the increadibly dull yet real RF hazard and then the method of initiation.

Please correct me if I am wrong Oxy, but I get the impression that you have this image of 4-5 guys, with covert earpieces in dressed as maintenace men dashing about with backpacks and pulling out black boxes, erecting small antennas with a LED flashing on it, gluing them to bits of building with double sided sticky tape and then slipping off into the night. Then, an hour or more after the planes crash, someone then decided "I think they have burned enough now, blow the silent charges, but make sure you only blow the ones along the impact point..." and a switch is flipped and we are all fooled.

Or similarly you have the Thermite theory, which again it is suggested that a few guys can get into crawl spaces, drop off some 'super-thermate' charges and retreat back with no-one spotting them.

How far off am I, and if I hve misunderstood your position, how do you think it was rigged?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implosion

Now apparently, this is too difficult for anyone but 'real experts', (whoever they are but apparently they do not include covert teams as they do not have the experience or expertise), to achieve this and even if 'real experts' were involved in 7, it would be too difficult to do)... but we should be unsurprised that exactly the same result occurs on 9/11 because that was a special day when lots and lots of unique events happened, inc a perfect representation of an implosion event on 7, caused by random damage and random fires.

As you were well aware, many people were surprised that WTC7 collapsed from fire. That's partly why there was such a detailed investigation to find out why it collapsed.

Yes it look initially surprising when you see it, not knowing anything about what is happening. But when you actually look into it. When you study the fires, how they spread, the fire load, the building structure, the type of connections used, the difference between a seated and a moment resisting frame, how the exterior was moment resisting, but the interior was not, and the way in which it was observed to collapse, then eventually you will understand why it collapsed. And then it's not surprising, it's just what happened.
 

Pete

Member
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implosion

Now apparently, this is too difficult for anyone but 'real experts', (whoever they are but apparently they do not include covert teams as they do not have the experience or expertise), to achieve this and even if 'real experts' were involved in 7, it would be too difficult to do)... but we should be unsurprised that exactly the same result occurs on 9/11 because that was a special day when lots and lots of unique events happened, inc a perfect representation of an implosion event on 7, caused by random damage and random fires.

I'm not sure what you're arguing now? Sounds almost like you agree that it wasn't a conspiracy but just have your knickers in a twist about the definition of 'implosion'. At the end of the day, with enough fire damage to some of the main supporting beams, it collapsed, and it did so via implosion due to the design of the building.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
To carry out a task of this size would difficult even if stealth was not a consideration. As discussed at length, the challenges are many, including the required preparation work, which is increadibly destrctive by itelf, the logistics of getting the required about of charges into the buildings, accessing the framework columns, the connection of all the charges, the management of the increadibly dull yet real RF hazard and then the method of initiation.

Please correct me if I am wrong Oxy, but I get the impression that you have this image of 4-5 guys, with covert earpieces in dressed as maintenace men dashing about with backpacks and pulling out black boxes, erecting small antennas with a LED flashing on it, gluing them to bits of building with double sided sticky tape and then slipping off into the night. Then, an hour or more after the planes crash, someone then decided "I think they have burned enough now, blow the silent charges, but make sure you only blow the ones along the impact point..." and a switch is flipped and we are all fooled.

Or similarly you have the Thermite theory, which again it is suggested that a few guys can get into crawl spaces, drop off some 'super-thermate' charges and retreat back with no-one spotting them.

How far off am I, and if I hve misunderstood your position, how do you think it was rigged?

I have made my position pretty clear I think. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it that it is entirely too difficult to bring about such an implosion without months of preparation and tons of explosives, sited at exactly the right positions on exactly the right beams and columns by the elite of explosive experts and set off at exactly the right split second timing... and then claim.... 'But it is perfectly reasonable that random fires did it!'

How can you possibly rationalise two such juxtaposed positions?

It is like claiming, it would take a genius artist months to conceive of and paint the Mona Lisa unless it was done by a blind 2 year old on Ritalin in 10 minutes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have made my position pretty clear I think. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it that it is entirely too difficult to bring about such an implosion without months of preparation and tons of explosives, sited at exactly the right positions on exactly the right beams and columns by the elite of explosive experts and set off at exactly the right split second timing... and then claim.... 'But it is perfectly reasonable that random fires did it!'

How can you possibly rationalise two such juxtaposed positions?

It is like claiming, it would take a genius artist months to conceive of and paint the Mona Lisa unless it was done by a blind 2 year old on Ritalin in 10 minutes.

When a building is demolished with explosives,a lot of thought and planning has to go into placement, quantity and timing of explosives in order for the building to be brought down in a controlled manner.

But WTC was not brought down in a controlled manner. It just fell. The way it fell was determined by which columns failed, and the strength of the moment resisting exterior.

Have a look at what is considered "implosion", there's a huge range of possibilities.

Here's some, for example:




They look (and sound) nothing like WTC7. If WTC7 actually were a deliberate non-covert implosion, then it would not look like it did. The exterior would have been much more broken up to prevent sheets of it from falling away from the building.

The bottom line though is that if you examine the evidence, the actual observed collapse fits that evidence. You don't need to add bombs into the mix if the fire explains it.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It is like claiming, it would take a genius artist months to conceive of and paint the Mona Lisa unless it was done by a blind 2 year old on Ritalin in 10 minutes.
No it isn't.

Destruction isn't creation. Fire isn't creative. It proceeds randomly, and in the case of this building was bound to destroy it in time.

What are the odds that you will get any specific hand when you are dealt five cards? Hugely against, but you still get dealt a hand.

Similarly, that uncontrolled fire was eventually going to cause the building to collapse. The particular order of that collapse had only to do with the direction the fire took.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
A detailed investigation? Didn't the 911 Commission omit any reference to WTC 7? I think the only reason a sorta investigation of WTC 7 was done is because so many people were harping about it. What about witnesses like Barry Jennings who worked there and had to be rescued because of an explosion in the lobby before the collapses? Its amazing that about 80% of the responders stated that they heard..saw explosions yet various peoples want to believe the official govt story & treat firemen like they're stupid chumps. They hear explosions probably quite often, I think they know what explosions sound like. They were there, NIST, 911 Commission weren;t there. Theres videos showing an explosion upon collapse. Some responders walked out of the 911 Commissions hearings because they were being treated like chumps.

Being the steel weakened..collapsed, why did the BP burn for a day and a 1/2 before collapsing on a continous fire burn?
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
I thought I read somewhere that the way WTC 7 collapsed all the support beams would of had to all gone out simultaneously. I don't remember the site.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
A detailed investigation? Didn't the 911 Commission omit any reference to WTC 7?
They did originally because they could see it was struck accidentally by WTC1. Had there been a different wind direction, then some other building would have been struck, and WTC 7 would have escaped.

I think the only reason a sorta investigation of WTC 7 was done is because so many people were harping about it.
These "harpers" were unable to see the accidental nature of WTC7's calamity.

What about witnesses like Barry Jennings who worked there and had to be rescued because of an explosion in the lobby before the collapses? Its amazing that about 80% of the responders stated that they heard..saw explosions yet various peoples want to believe the official govt story & treat firemen like they're stupid chumps. They hear explosions probably quite often, I think they know what explosions sound like. They were there, NIST, 911 Commission weren;t there. Theres videos showing an explosion upon collapse. Some responders walked out of the 911 Commissions hearings because they were being treated like chumps.
All explosions sound alike. They are blast events. You can't tell a bursting tank or pipe from a bomb. Many objects can explode in a fire*. You'll agree there was a fire?

Being the steel weakened..collapsed, why did the BP burn for a day and a 1/2 before collapsing on a continous fire burn?
Because the construction was entirely different.

I guess you're referring before the collapse.
If I knew who you were talking to I could answer that.

What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?
They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

I thought I read somewhere that the way WTC 7 collapsed all the support beams would of had to all gone out simultaneously. I don't remember the site.
The internal columns stood on a bridge beam. Once that was dislodged (by falling floors piling up on it) they did all fall.

* Fire extinguishers, for instance.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All explosions sound alike. They are blast events. You can't tell a bursting tank or pipe from a bomb. Many objects can explode in a fire*. You'll agree there was a fire?

[...]

* Fire extinguishers, for instance.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All explosions do not sound alike. Some sound like a shotgun, tires make a high pitch noise when they explode, and there are the big bomb explosions.

That exploding fire extinguisher sure sounded like a bomb going off.

Even a pumpkin dropping 100 feet gives a bit of a bang:


Imagine objects being dropped from 1000 feet?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That exploding fire extinguisher sure sounded like a bomb going off.

Even a pumpkin dropping 100 feet gives a bit of a bang:

Imagine objects being dropped from 1000 feet?

Yep amazing how these 'fire extinguishers' and 'pumpkins' sound like explosives... but no one heard anything.... must be deaf from all the explosions going off.... debunked!

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Yep amazing how these 'fire extinguishers' and 'pumpkins' sound like explosives... but no one heard anything.... must be deaf from all the explosions going off.... debunked!
Exactly how many sealed pipes and tanks, and fire extinguishers existed in WTC7? How many of them were present in the sixteen fire-affected floors?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yep amazing how these 'fire extinguishers' and 'pumpkins' sound like explosives... but no one heard anything.... must be deaf from all the explosions going off.... debunked!


They sound like explosives, but relatively small ones, so they sound like explosives to people relatively near them, but not to people half a mile further away.

It's curious that no other video recorded the audio of the "explosion" in the video above.

It's also curious it's subtitled "seven is exploding", when he actually says "shit is exploding".
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
A detailed investigation?

It wasn't an investigation as much as it was the simulation of an investigation. That's why you hear this logic: "What are the chances of it happening? Why bother with that? We already know how it happened. So here is how I'm imagining and simulating that it did. And now we just proved it. QED!" Etc. This is the pseudo-science and logic typical to charlatans.

Meanwhile, the actual investigation apparently looked something like this:
Giuliani brought in Controlled Demolition, the same highly suspect firm which had finished the demolition of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and which had disposed of the evidence there in the process. This contract was let surreptitiously just eleven days after 9/11, and empowered Controlled Demolition to recycle the steel of the World Trade Center. Giuliani has not a word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices for the steel; the priority was to make it disappear fast. .... Now Controlled Demolition would eradicate any chance of using the abundant physical evidence present in “the pile,” as the mass of twisted rubble of the WTC quickly came to be called. It was a scene out of Kafka–it was impossible to find out which officials were superintending the destruction of the evidence, to save a myth that was being used to set in motion a world war.
During one of his visits to the WTC site, the Mayor noticed that many visitors were taking pictures of the site. Because there was so much to hide, he found this troubling: “I noticed a disturbing phenomenon–hundreds of people carrying disposable cameras and handheld video cameras. I understood the impulse–this was a historic event, and experiencing it up close had a tremendous impact. At the same time, this was a crime scene, and a dangerous one. I did not want anyone to get hurt, or to damage evidence as they scouted out the best angle for their snapshots. If we didn’t do something about it immediately, it would soon be out of control, a voyeur’s paradise, and we risked the site developing a distasteful freak show aspect.” (Giuliani 49) An independent photographic documentation of the crime scene, one the FBI would not be able to confiscate? Horrors! Giuliani promulgated his infamous order that all photos were illegal in the area around the WTC complex. Those who risked a snapshot also risked going to jail.
When it was a question of preventing public scrutiny, Giuliani considered the WTC pile a crime scene where there was evidence that had to be preserved. But when it was a question of sending the crucial evidence to the other end of the world, Giuliani’s motto became “scoop and dump”–with the help of Controlled Demolition.
(9/11 Synthetic Terror by Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12))
After all... why have an actual investigation, when you can just simulate one and rely on pseudo-science and charlatanism later?

What about witnesses like Barry Jennings who worked there and had to be rescued because of an explosion in the lobby before the collapses?

There were many more than that.

Its amazing that about 80% of the responders stated that they heard..saw explosions yet various peoples want to believe the official govt story & treat firemen like they're stupid chumps.

Well, they were "dumb" enough to run into buildings and so forth when no one should have been surprised that they were going to collapse.

They hear explosions probably quite often, I think they know what explosions sound like.

They're probably not experts in explosions, though. But I'd imagine that if they were experts that lost their sense of hearing from hearing too many so that they didn't hear any on 911, then they'd be real experts.

Some responders walked out of the 911 Commissions hearings because they were being treated like chumps.

The bitter irony, it's probably worse than that. They are chumps. And just like the March of the Bonus Army and so forth... they won't get anywhere. Auxiliaries drawn from "the base" and so forth are almost invariably outsmarted by psychopaths, provoked... divided and conquered. That's what history shows, time and again.

Possibly what happened in this case too:
The firemen, we must remember, were those who knew most about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and they were also the group most likely to tell what they knew. In this sense, the firemen posed perhaps the greatest immediate threat to the 9/11 myth upon which the oligarchy had staked so much. The obvious campaign of psychological warfare against the firemen, therefore, was of world-historical importance. ....
On October 31, Halloween, Giuliani decreed without any meaningful consultation that there would be an upper limit of 25 firefighters on each shift at the WTC pile, along with 25 New York City policemen and 25 Port Authority patrolmen. Soon “the rescue workers were up in arms. Stories went around that we had simply given up on finding bodies; that the mayor wanted to speed the cleanup so it would be finished before he left office; that we had recovered gold from the trade center and didn’t care about anything else. . . . Union officials started telling the workers we were haphazardly trucking everything to Fresh Kills–a ‘scoop and dump’ operation.” (Van Essen 265) ....
In mid-October, an audience of firemen, policeman, widows, and orphans loudly booed several members of the Giuliani administration, but also Senator Hillary Clinton and a local Democratic politician. (Van Essen 258) On Friday, November 2, Giuliani was able to harvest the results of his provocations. In the morning, more than 1,000 firemen came together at the WTC. Their chants included: “Bring the brothers home! Bring the brothers home!,” “Do the right thing!,” “Rudy must go!,” and “Tom must go!,” a reference to Fire Commissioner Thomas Van Essen, a Giuliani appointee. Their signs read, “Mayor Giuliani, let us bring our brothers home.” Speakers denounced Giuliani’s hasty carting off of wreckage and remains to Fresh Kills as a “scoop and dump” operation. One well-respected former captain appealed to the crowd: “My son Tommy of Squad 1 is not home yet! Don’t abandon him!” This was met with a cry of “Bring Tommy home!” from the assembled throng. This scene soon degenerated into an altercation between the firefighters and the police guarding the site, and then into a full-scale riot. Twelve firefighters were taken to jail, while five policemen were injured. Giuliani had gladly sacrificed the 9/11 myth of national solidarity to the needs of his campaign of psychological warfare and provocations against the firemen.
(9/11 Synthetic Terror by Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12)
Patriotic chumps... they never seem to look at the big picture or notice that a false flag is even possible. After all, they're too busy with waving one.

Nothing against them, though.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
But explosives that bring down a building leave a seismic signal. That was absent hear.

Here, I know... none so deaf as those who will not hear, I suppose.

Not sure about that, though:
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions, these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had produced no seismic effects at all–it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage–but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11 commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
(9/11 Synthetic Terror: Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12))
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
What was the rock bottom price that the steel was sold for? How did that all work?

Here:
Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily. China.org

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year. 911research
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Bit more context on the "no cameras" thing:




So there were six days of unrestricted photo taking. And even after that it's hardly going to be possible to control everyone on such a huge site.
 
Last edited:

mynym

Banned
Banned
For the person asking about explosions:
Proponents of the official version have attempted to explain some of these explosions as having been caused by gas escaping from leaks in gas mains, but this cannot account for the phenomena described by Terry. Nor can such other explanations as exploding transformers, etc.
Ann Thompson of NBC reported that she had reached the corner of Broadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade Center that morning when she heard an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a building. When she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen warned her about a further explosion. (Wisnewski 136; Trinkhaus, 4 ff.)
The eyewitness Michael Benfante told a German TV camera team: “As I was leaving, I heard it. I looked back, and the top of the North Tower was exploding. And even then I did not believe that the whole tower could fall. I thought, only the top exploded and is now going to fall on me. I turned around again and ran away. I felt the rumble of the explosions, the thunder of the collapsing building.” (German ARD network, “Tag des Terrors–Anschlag aus heiterem Himmel,” August 30, 2002, Wisnewski 136)
A reporter tried to film a standup with the WTC in the background, but was interrupted by the sound of an explosion: “We can’t get any closer to the World Trade Center. Here you can see the firemen who are on the scene, the police and FBI officers, and you see the two towers–A huge explosion! Debris is coming down on all of us!” (“Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit,” West German Television, Cologne, July 24, 2002; Wisnewski 136)
Yet another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and everything got black. Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them. It was a big explosion, everything got dark, this here is not snow, it’s all from the building, a horrible nightmare . . . I was on Sixth Avenue and I had just tried to call somebody when I heard an explosion and saw how the people were throwing themselves on the ground, screaming and crying, I looked up and saw all that smoke, as the tower came down, and all that smoke in one tower.” (Segment by Oliver Voegtlin and Matthias Fernandes, NTV, September 11, 2001)
Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a hospital bed who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and then three unbelievable explosions.” (“Terror gegen Amerika,” RTL, September 13, 2001)
An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his experiences to a reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on Church Street, about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South Tower collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the same time heard a “a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.” (American Free Press, December 2, 2001; Wisnewski 137)
Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was another eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn’t know what was going on,” she told People magazine. “We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . . We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion.” (American Free Press, December 2, 2001) A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust and ashes told the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown back by a huge explosion.”* (Wisnewski 138) The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also were talking about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan, was cut off in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was speaking, and hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape. (Wisnewski 138)
(9/11 Synthetic Terror by Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12))

*
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

$120 vs. $160? That hard seems like "rock bottom", I'd got the impression it was like 5% or something.

And here it says $150.60

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
These endless quotes from Tarpley are getting a little tired. You know that ALL the points he raise have been addressed elsewhere, so perhaps you could save us time and also include the debunking with the quote?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
So there were six days of unrestricted photo taking.

He probably should have had a better plan or drill in place for that. Especially given that he apparently knew that a steel frame building would be likely to fall due to office fires before the event could even be imagined to have happened or simulated later:
If we accept this explanation, which the BBC could have offered, we might conclude that the premature announcement of the collapse* by the news media adds nothing to what we have already established, namely, that Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management had spread the word several hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
Even with that interpretation, however, the premature announcements were not insignificant, because they revealed in a dramatic and memorable fashion the fact that someone knew in advance that Building 7 was going to collapse. This is important because, given the salient facts—that WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, that no steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed because of fire alone, that WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors, and that some of the other still-standing WTC buildings had suffered far worse damage—there should have been no reason to expect WTC 7 to collapse. (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin: 116)

*E.g.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
You know that ALL the points he raise have been addressed elsewhere...

Where?

E.g.:
Giuliani brought in Controlled Demolition, the same highly suspect firm which had finished the demolition of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995...

Is that not accurate?

...so perhaps you could save us time and also include the debunking with the quote?

As easy as it is to link to or find what you've already supposedly debunked and your history of going for details whenever it's possible to do so in support of your worldview that looks like a bluff. Even if there's just some minor point out of place somewhere, then it seems to me that you should be quite happy to go ahead and "debunk" some little detail. Wait... this isn't a simulated or imaginary type of debunking of everything I just quoted, is it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As easy as it is to link to or find what you've already supposedly debunked and your history of going for details whenever it's possible to do so in support of your worldview that looks like a bluff. Even if there's just some minor point out of place somewhere, then it seems to me that you should be quite happy to go ahead and "debunk" some little detail. Wait... this isn't a simulated or imaginary type of debunking of everything I just quoted, is it?

What I'm not happy about is having to debunk the same little details over and over again, when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is not that they ask questions, it that they ignore the answers, and then ask the same question again.

I try to politely answer questions, but it gets a little hard when I see certain things pop up on an almost daily basis. This is why I try to split up the threads so I can focus on one topic or one item per thread, but inevitable it devolves into a Gish gallop.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
What I'm not happy about is having to debunk the same little details over and over again...

In the time it took you to write that you probably could have quoted a detail that I just cited and "debunked" it.

This still looks like an imaginary debunking of the details that Tarpley is basing his theory on to me.

....when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself.

I don't even know what details you're imagining me being capable of debunking.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In the time it took you to write that you probably could have quoted a detail that I just cited and "debunked" it.

This still looks like an imaginary debunking of the details that Tarpley is basing his theory on to me.
But then I'd just be picking away at the details. I'm trying to attack the root here. You seem intelligent. So why would you be putting up utter nonsense, like the BBC reporter, as if it's actually significant? Why don't you also include reasons why it might not be significant?

I don't even know what details you're imagining me being capable of debunking.
Come now. Think about it. Why not start with one you highlighted yourself: "here should have been no reason to expect WTC 7 to collapse"

Now why can't you find a reason that people were expecting WTC7 to collapse? You know I can find them, so why can't you?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
This is the detail I was the most interested in:
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just before the collapse of the towers began.
Debunked or not?

Because I read an article by a group of demolitions experts who wrote that the seismic evidence actually supported the official conspiracy theory and falsified alternatives.

On a side note, I would note that you have to hit numerous falsifications or verifications to build up a verifiable theory. Simply imagining things or running a simulation in which you "prove" what you already know to have happened while dealing with criticisms based on charlatanism* and pseudo-science isn't the epistemic equivalent of real science.

*Nothing against that sort of thing to wow "the base" or blind them with science, so to speak... but it is just a trick based on mental illusions in the end. If you're going to engage in charlatanism for money or for fun, then you shouldn't get confused by it yourself and begin to think that it's actually true that you know something. An illustration might be helpful, as another favorite metaphor for explaining things in terms of "chance" (with little or no regard for evidence) is flipping a coin and then playing pretend that you've somehow successfully simulated what "chance" is. Imagine that! But meanwhile... back in reality chance is still nothing, just as the chaos/abyss from which some seek order is null and void. Imagine it this way, if you had knowledge of the force that the coin was flipped with, its trajectory and so on and so forth then the illusion of "chance"/nothing disappears as you advance toward scientia/knowledge about how the coin will come to rest... yes?

Yet, what are the chances that people and especially "the base" will actually do that? After all, we tend to like magic too much and chance affords us that... if nothing else. A satire: "What are the chances? Some cards just fell here and your brain events emerged from a void over time to observe them falling here... didn't they? So I'm 100% certain that my theory explains everything that exists without reference to any empirical or experimental evidence. Falsifiable? It's not. After all, that's why it's so convincing to my brains!"
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Now why can't you find a reason that people were expecting WTC7 to collapse?

Maybe they recognized intuitively that after the Right and the Left pillars collapse, the Center of wisdom is sure to follow.

But that's just imagining things. It seems to me that Griffin is correct to point out that scientifically speaking, there would be little to no reason to expect steel frame buildings to collapse due to fires. After all, that's one of the main reasons that the firemen ran into them, isn't it?
You know I can find them, so why can't you?

What other debunked details am I supposed to be looking for within what I quoted to answer people's questions and so forth? Because I will look for them.

Also... I don't mind people picking away at details, as long as they don't turn around to play pretend that they've established a comprehensive and rigorously specified theory of events with vast explanatory power that justifies their worldview and so forth.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
S NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 26
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
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. 9/11 129
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
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top