Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[Bill Angel]

I pursued one discussion of the collapse of building number 7:
See: The Tidy Pile of Rubble
According to that discussion:
"The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint.
The rubble pile was less than 3 stories high.
The fall visibly damaged only one adjacent building.
Taking a building down into its footprint is the objective of controlled demolition.
It requires shattering all columns at ground level simultaneously, then marching the charge detonations up the building as it falls."

So my question is this: Did any witnesses hear, or did any of the sound tracks of the video recordings that depict the building's collapse record the sound of these purported explosive charges as they were detonated as the building was collapsing?

 

[Jeremy]

I pursued one discussion of the collapse of building number 7:
See: The Tidy Pile of Rubble
According to that discussion:
"The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint.
The rubble pile was less than 3 stories high.
The fall visibly damaged only one adjacent building.
Taking a building down into its footprint is the objective of controlled demolition.
It requires shattering all columns at ground level simultaneously, then marching the charge detonations up the building as it falls."

So my question is this: Did any witnesses hear, or did any of the sound tracks of the video recordings that depict the building's collapse record the sound of these purported explosive charges as they were detonated as the building was collapsing?

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that the gubmint has new, silent, detonation materials that they developed at area 51 with alien technology.

 

[eots]

Good read...

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

yes Indeed a perfect example of how "popular mechanics" myths are still perpetuated even though they are in often contradiction with the findings of NIST and that mountains of first responder and eyewitness testimony is all excluded in favor of the statement of Boyle and a few select others

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho&feature=related[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

 

[eots]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

what your life..your denial ? the multiple witlessness to explosions NIST says doesn't exists ? or the computer simulation that doesn't resemble the reality of the collapse ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

what your life..your denial ? the multiple witlessness to explosions NIST says doesn't exists ? or the computer simulation that doesn't resemble the reality of the collapse ?

The explosions that caused the demolition that didn't exist. You have a handful of witnesses and hundreds of people who were in the area. You have reports from firefighters saying they knew the building was going to collapse.

Pete Castellano -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 149
We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.

Frank Cruthers -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
...
-- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. Thre was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolands and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe.

Ray Goldbach -- Fire Captain (F.D.N.Y.), Executive Assistant to the Fire Commissioner
There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

Rudolf Weindler -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

And dozens more who knew the building was coming down. You may ask them how they knew, I would guess because someone with knowledge and experience simply knew it would happen. Notice none of these reported controlled demolition explosions....

 

[eots]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

what your life..your denial ? the multiple witlessness to explosions NIST says doesn't exists ? or the computer simulation that doesn't resemble the reality of the collapse ?

The explosions that caused the demolition that didn't exist.

NIST says no explosions as loud as a shotgun blast were not heard or reported..clearly NIST lied as even you coincide there were explosions that loud and they were reported...the claimed lack of any such explosioms was the reson given by NIST in not investigagating explosives

You have a handful of witnesses and hundreds of people who were in the area.

the wittinessess are eyewitnesses and first responders some even from inside the building

You have reports from firefighters saying they knew the building was going to collapse.

how could they of known this if the NIST collapse theory is correct ??????

Pete Castellano -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 149
We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.

by who ? on what information or observation ????

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.

hearsay





Frank Cruthers -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
...
-- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. Thre was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolands and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed

.

???

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe.

says nothing...

Ray Goldbach -- Fire Captain (F.D.N.Y.), Executive Assistant to the Fire Commissioner
There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

Rudolf Weindler -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

NIST SAYS DAMAGE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT TO THE COLLAPSE

And dozens more who knew the building was coming down. You may ask them how they knew, I would guess because someone with knowledge and experience simply knew it would happen. Notice none of these reported controlled demolition explosions....

these are little cuts of quotes from people that barely got near the building and were" told by they" and not people in and directly outside the building...YOU HAVE A BUNCH "WITTINESSES" THAT REPEAT WHAT THEY WERE TOLD

 

[JiggsCasey]

If you're serious,

There's no need for you to ever ask such a question, regarding this subject matter, anyway. Just assume it, k? Quite serious.

you should be able to explain what you think happened on that day or where the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.

I'm sure you can do neither.

Check please.

It's amusing when cons like you present a challenge, and then go ahead and misrepresent an answer in the same breath. Followed, of course, by the declaration of some sort of smarmy "victory."

'Check', indeed.

Quite the contrary, I don't NEED to explain what happened that day. All I require of myself is that the case is made -- when presenting the evidence -- that it was never truly investigated in the first place. ... I believe that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, as means, motive and opportunity are all well-established, yet the 9/11 Commission never came remotely close to fulfilling their mandate. Kean and Hamilton essentially ADMIT that fact in their book: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Without-Precedent-Inside-Story-Commission/dp/0307263770"]Without precedent[/ame]. NORAD lied, the White House stonewalled at every turn, and the director of the investigation was a Bush League lackey who wrote WH policy papers for the future occupation of Iraq.

But, if at knife point, you insist I offer a narrative of what I believe happened that day, very well, I will sum it up as best I can:

As spelled out in their PNAC essay "Rebuilding America's defenses" from the late 90s, and in adhering to the lessons gleaned from Tri-Lateral Commission founder and author Zbignew Brzezinsky in his book "Grand Chessboard" regarding central Asian energy reserves, I believe a cabal of the Cheney administration suppressed known intelligence and let the attacks happen for the purpose of creating, once and for all, a tangible foreign threat. This threat, real or perceived, would in all certainty galvanize America's support for retaliation, and grease the skids for expanded imperialism in largely-uptapped, liquid energy-rich nations. It is a known fact that mankind has flat-lined on global energy production since 2004, while demand continues to skyrocket. They knew, years ago, that this was coming, including no later than 1999 in London, when Dick Cheney admitted global oil decline to the Institute of Petroleum. Something always had to give, and the Cheney gang set out to mitigate the drawdown of the American empire, at the very least. Let them (China, India) eat cake. "The American way of life is not negotiable," Dick even said it on Meet the Press.

I don't think they believed those buildings would actually collapse, but they knew an attack was coming by way of hijacked aircraft. They set about to willfully suppress known surveillance (Phoenix Memo), bury testimony (Moussaui), ignore direct warnings (Putin et al) and change safety protocol (Cheney putting himself in charge of all operational management in the event of a domestic emergency). They coordinated as many as 5 different wargame scenarios -- some involving live hijack drills -- for that very morning, pulling most fighter cover away from the northeast sector. They got no straight answers from NORAD concerning who was in charge that day, nor any accounting for their noticeable time-line discrepancies. And of course, no one could find Donald Rumsfeld for 30 crucial minutes that fateful morning, when HE was required to advocate the shootdown order. Exactly HOW does the civilian chief of our military leave his post as the nation is under attack ... and somehow not lose his job?

To use a poker probability analogy: The array of overlapping coincidences that coincitards expect Americans to believe regarding the events that unfolded that day is akin to expecting a poker player to believe a particular opponent being dealt a pair and flopping a set 25 times in a row is completely plausible, and to never question the integrity of the dealer.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

yeah its funny how you octa's make morons out of yourselfs in these debates dismissing physical evidence and witness testimnys and ignoring the laws of physics telling us they no longer apply anymore. "rolls on floor laughing."

 

[LA RAM FAN]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

what your life..your denial ? the multiple witlessness to explosions NIST says doesn't exists ? or the computer simulation that doesn't resemble the reality of the collapse ?

could not have said it better myself.

 

[DiveCon]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

yeah its funny how you octa's make morons out of yourselfs in these debates dismissing physical evidence and witness testimnys and ignoring the laws of physics telling us they no longer apply anymore. "rolls on floor laughing."

now THATS some massive irony

 

[SFC Ollie]

Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.

 

[CurveLight]

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.

Reverse the positions of funny and tragic and that is your perfect eulogy.

 

[CurveLight]

Ok Curve.

I tried this once before. Let's stop the senseless name calling and verbal darts (I admit that I am guilty of this also) and get down to a real debate. We are never going to get anywhere unless we do this.

Agreed?

If so. The first question I would like to ask you is this. Why is fire being the primary cause for the collapse so hard to believe? If the steel structure was built in such a way that severing or weakening certain members would cause load re-distribution to all other members to a point that they can't handle the load anymore, why is that such an impossible scenario?

If heat from the sun on a hot day can cause this to happen (expansion):

what do you think would happen to steel members and connections made by bolting? Do you think bolts would resist steel expanding or do you think they would shear?

I have personally seen high pressure steam lines that sheared welded T supports from the steel they were welded to because they were placed in the wrong area. Why do you think they make expansion joints such as these to install within pipe lines?

Or why they set rollers beneath pipe lines to allow for expansion/contraction?

It's a simple fact. Expansion/contraction of steel due to heat can be devastating to a structure/ That's why they insulate the steel in the first place.

The first step is to avoid assuming what my thoughts are regarding 7. Im a self employed in residential construction so im familiar with many basic aspects of building materials. Here are some basic problems I have with 7:

Ok, A little about my construction/design background.

I worked for a couple of engineering firms. One was MK Ferguson way back when. When I worked for them, I worked on projects for clients such as Anheuser Busch and Kodak where I designed piping for both. I was onsite for both the Shell Oil chemical explosion in Belpre, OH and the IMC/Angus explosion in Sterlington, LA to do damage assessment. I also worked on numerous projects for steel mill blast furnaces,rolling mills, slab mills, etc. I worked for the Army Corp of Engineers in Tooele, Utah on the nerve gas destruction facility. I designed an oxygen pipe run for the River Rouge steel plant in Michigan. I was also the onsite construction supervisor for it. These are just a few of the jobs/projects I did.

Lol.

What does this have to do with the fact that we are debating whether WTC7 came down because of fire?

This is basically where I lost most respect. Seven fucking years to explain the collapse and you try to be coy. Fuck you for wasting my time. Go ahead and pretend again there is nothing suspect about it taking seven fucking years for the conclusion.

Ok. Show me one of those skyscrapers that was constructed similarly to WTC7 that stood after a fire like that and we'll talk.

What a fucking dildo. Pick any skyscraper in the world that suffered fire damage dumbass. There was nothing special about 7's design. Once again you try to be coy and you just exposed your active dishonesty.

Is that why the penthouse collapsed into the building itself FIRST? What kind of damage was done to the infrastructure when that happened? Do you understand loads on a steel structure? When you remove critical components from a steel structure, the other components have to pick up the slack. If you exceed the load capacity of the reaming components, they fail.

You can kiss my ass you patronizing prick. See, I honestly ignored your response instead of pretending to give one.

I thought they showed a model of the collapse?

That isn't what I asked you fucking reject.

You're so clueless you asked "is that why the PH collapsed into the building first?"

Exactly which PH are you referring to? Go learn some basic facts then come back and dazzle again. You fucking waste of life.

 

[eots]

Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.

big fucking deal?? no one said they thought the entire building would symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed...just because he viewed the building as unsafe

 

[SFC Ollie]

Big fucking deal. The experts on the ground had a first impression that the building was unsafe and would likely collapse. Maybe they got the reasons wrong, or maybe the NIST report got the reasons wrong. But one thing they got right. They knew it was coming down and they saved lives by keeping people away from it. And again, none of the Firemen Officers mention any controlled demolition. But they site the condition of the building, the damage, and the fires.

 

[CurveLight]

Big fucking deal. The experts on the ground had a first impression that the building was unsafe and would likely collapse. Maybe they got the reasons wrong, or maybe the NIST report got the reasons wrong. But one thing they got right. They knew it was coming down and they saved lives by keeping people away from it. And again, none of the Firemen Officers mention any controlled demolition. But they site the condition of the building, the damage, and the fires.

It's amazing how you ignore eyewitness testimony you don't like but cling to that which you think helps your views.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Big fucking deal. The experts on the ground had a first impression that the building was unsafe and would likely collapse. Maybe they got the reasons wrong, or maybe the NIST report got the reasons wrong. But one thing they got right. They knew it was coming down and they saved lives by keeping people away from it. And again, none of the Firemen Officers mention any controlled demolition. But they site the condition of the building, the damage, and the fires.

It's amazing how you ignore eyewitness testimony you don't like but cling to that which you think helps your views.

I'm sorry, is there something in this statement I made that is not true? Please point it out....