Apparently all this Imagination is contagious. Imagining a ton of thermite to cut a column is bit much though Mick, when you know from groundhog day, it only takes a few pounds to cut through the steel.
From 9.00 on is the cutting
WTC7 Firefighting
- Thread starter Ron J
- Start date
- Status
From 9.00 on is the cutting
Ron J
Active Member
Flames pouring out windows floor to ceiling and beyond, for that matter, do not look like a small office fire, because they are not a small office fire. I have not invalidated my own statement.
I see fire. The flames pouring out, were on the east wall on the 8th? floor. Floor to ceiling and beyond. If fire was burning that intense there, where else might it have been burning that intense?
Fire was and had been the action occurring on the building at the time it collapsed.
The real imagining is that a working office building was demoed, by invisible people with invisible demo charges, that left no evidence.
I see fire. The flames pouring out, were on the east wall on the 8th? floor. Floor to ceiling and beyond. If fire was burning that intense there, where else might it have been burning that intense?
Fire was and had been the action occurring on the building at the time it collapsed.
The real imagining is that a working office building was demoed, by invisible people with invisible demo charges, that left no evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not a column, and that's not thermite.
This thread is starting to lose direction. Anyone want to start something more specific from the points raised here?
Freak
Active Member
You are correct, however, if you want to go down that route you have to give up the "WTC 7 collapse couldn't have happened as we observed it happen due to fire alone" argument. If that column being taken out is what caused the collapse and that's all that was taken out with thermite (or something similar), then the fall we saw would have looked the same as if that column had been taken out by fire.
ETA: To clarify, when I said this: "WTC 7 collapse couldn't have happened as we observed it happen due to fire alone" I'm referring to the collapse speed and symmetry argument.
Ron J
Active Member
What is this, groundhog day
It is like ground hog day.
Pictured above, is not a column. A column is vertical. It also does not look like the photo of column 79, shown elsewhere on the general topic of WTC7.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Right, gotcha. Is there any possibility if there were a bomb, the evidence would have been destroyed beyond recognition in the collapse?
How long or how far into their investigation did it take them to figure out that it was a collapse due to fire? Did they come to that conclusion before or after their investigation turned into simulations of investigations where steel expands but concrete does not, sometimes windows are broken out to feed fires or sometimes they stay in, sometimes the fires start only once but other times they start in more than one place and so forth?This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7... NIST
Or from a different perspective, they simulated how an unprecedented event could happen as best they could because they knew their meta bunk conclusion in advance. How could they have possibly come to a different conclusion? If it turned out that it was highly unlikely that there was enough fuel to heat furnaces of fire right around the right column to create a global collapse? At some point, the hidden incendiary properties of donuts and office supplies seem to look like something capable of generating a lot more heat and actual furnaces of fire and all the "weakening" or "multiple failures" throughout the day begin to seem more like something along the lines of what Barry Jennings witnessed. Boom. "We were blown back." Etc.
They didn't investigate explosives and ignored the evidence. Hopefully one of them didn't know to take or spread the "It was too quiet." tactic beforehand. Because there were reports and statements that were released to early about WTC 7 but none of the other buildings that would have been just as likely to collapse into their own footprint, so far as I know. Given that those reports were early, the simulation of an investigation could begin to be nudged toward a foregone conclusion too early too. Premature simulation? That would be an interesting angle to investigate. I.e. who first reported or said that there wasn't enough sound for explosives to have been used?
In any event, one could provide long quotes from Metabunk threads about how it was never necessary to follow standard operating procedures for an investigation given that everyone already knew what happened.
And the logic of NIST is similarly unfalsifiable:
...as we saw in the Introduction, NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, said at NIST’s press briefing in August 2008: “We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.” That statement implies that NIST looked for possible evidence and found that it was absent. On the other hand, as we have also seen, NIST said in its “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” published in 2006: “NIST did not test for the residue of these [thermite] compounds.” Although this admission was not repeated in NIST’s 2008 documents about WTC 7, it was implied by its statement that finding such residues would not necessarily have been conclusive. NIST’s statement that it “did not find any evidence that explosives were used” is, therefore, deceptive. As the group of scholars observed in their “Appeal” to NIST: “t is extremely easy to ‘find no evidence’ when one is not looking for evidence.”
The circularity in NIST’s position was pointed out by journalist Jennifer Abel of the Hartford Advocate in a story in which she discussed an interview she had with Michael Newman, spokesman for NIST’s Department of Public and Business Affairs. Abel asked: “[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?” Newman replied: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.” In response to this strange answer, Abel asked the obvious question: “But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman then responded with a still stranger statement: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time… and the taxpayers’ money.”
Newman’s obviously circular position illustrates in a humorous fashion—or at least it would be humorous if so much were not at stake—NIST’s refusal to follow the scientific method’s empirical dimension, which entails that a theory, to be truly scientific, must do justice to all of the evidence that might be relevant. NIST’s failure to test for signs that thermite had been used is even more inexcusable in light of the fact that the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which is put out by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), says that, in seeking to determine the cause of a fire, investigators should look for evidence of accelerants, which are any substances that could be used to ignite, and/or accelerate the progress of, a fire.
(The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False Griffin, David Ray (2012-12-30))
Except all the eye witness testimony.
With respect to other evidence, there never could have been official reports or stories in that respect, given that everyone already knew what had happened. Indeed, in some cases officials apparently knew what was going to happen and what their official story would be before it had even happened. Intelligence agencies have a technique involving a rapid form of disinformation on the day of an event that's designed to settle into patterns of compartmentalized misinformation for most people. I could explain but it would be a ramble.
From other perspectives it must look like someone along the official line must have known that WTC 7 was full of incendiary donuts and office furniture that would fuel furnaces of fire, huh? But the other buildings must not have had the same donuts or the same furniture, so apparently (as far as I know) there was never an official report from "official sources" to the NYFD or the corporate media that they would collapse before they did and so forth.
Officials aside, decentralized reports and eye witness testimony and so forth actually hasn't been incorporated in the official story as far as the "multiple failures due to fire" and "failures due to explosives" theories go, although NIST claims that's what they did. As that would be what is actually supposed to happen in a real investigation. In fact, eye witness testimony can be more important than a simulation... although that's probably hard for some to imagine. I.e. it's probably a lot more important than any simulations in which steel expands but concrete does not and so forth.
Did they investigate or try to find evidence of that, officially?
There were known plans for explosives.
Sometimes Metabunkers bring up all this stuff at once to make an argument and then when I reply my answers to arguments disappear because the answer has to involve different topics or big picture reasoning too. Anyway, there are evidence based answers to your argument there.
This thread is going nowhere fast.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
That's a link to the posting guidelines. If you don't like them, then post somewhere else.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
That's a link to the posting guidelines. If you don't like them, then post somewhere else.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
