WTC Collapses

[John99]

and of course you still did not answer #1755.

 

[John99]

Now consider this:

The pencil goes halfway through the netting (in this case a 6 foot square) and unloads gallons of flaming jet fuel. Does the netting sustain the damage?

I would say with complete certainty that the netting is vaporized.

We can attribute these statements to overconfidence but they are not facts.

 

[scott3x]

Ah, but debris from the twin towers hit it and then a bit of fire; the official story is that that was enough to bring it down. The 9/11 commission didn't even think WTC 7 was important enough to mention. When the protests concerning the official disinterest in this building got loud enough, however, they made some efforts to actually find out what happened. Ofcourse, by then, all the steel had been removed. It made it harder to investigate what really happened. Even WTC 7 investigator Jonathan Barnett didn't seem to pleased about it:
We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7".

The video of the above transcript can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

Don't care to argue about it anymore. I know that's a controlled demo - just by looking at it. The official story is obviously a lie (at least regarding WTC7 in my opinion). Therefore the rest could be a lie or not.

Well it's cool that you believe that WTC 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. Given enough time, I think you would come to believe as I do, that the twin towers were also taken down by controlled demolitions.

The next question is what to do about it. I can't do anything about it. So IDGAF anymore.

What are you going to do about it? You can try to convince people that can't be convinced, you can tell new people about it (though most have now either heard the arguments and made their own decision), but it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. I think that it -does- matter. I think that if enough people believe that 9/11 was an inside job that the powers that be will -have- to pay attention. But not before. Which is why I have tried and continue to try so hard to get people to see the truth.

They got away with it. Next time they pull this shit don't give them a chance to get away with it.

I don't think the solution is to wait until they do it again to catch them. I think the solution is to try to get people to realize what they did this time around, so that it doesn't happen again at all.

 

[John99]

Well it's cool that you believe that WTC 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. Given enough time, I think you would come to believe as I do, that the twin towers were also taken down by controlled demolitions.

You cant tell by looking at it that it was a controlled demo and the collapse videos dont even support this. In an intentional demo explosives would have needed to been place along the outer perimeter supports and on every floor as visible from the consistent failure or at the official and as has happened before pancake scenario at the joists. Yours is a laymans assessment and the hundreds of investigators dont agree. Plus there is no proof of explosives. The explosive placement and being undetected is impossible for obvious reasons.

As far as WTC7- what would be the purpose or advantage to bringing down wtc7 intentionally? there is none.

I disagree. I think that it -does- matter. I think that if enough people believe that 9/11 was an inside job that the powers that be will -have- to pay attention. But not before. Which is why I have tried and continue to try so hard to get people to see the truth.

And what would people reading this do? You need to tell the FBI or the Canadian authorities because no one here can do anything about your 'intuition' or 'feelings' about this.

The people who were responsible dont deny it and if they changed their mind after being captured this is common. Have you spoken to them?

 

[Stryder]

Um, Stryder, I just took a look at the bottom and.. it looks like you added pseudoscience but didn't actually remove woo-woo .

I did remove it, however someone replace it with "woo woo" (The original was "woo-woo"). It's been removed again.

 

[scott3x]

Um, Stryder, I just took a look at the bottom and.. it looks like you added pseudoscience but didn't actually remove woo-woo .

I did remove it, however someone replace it with "woo woo" (The original was "woo-woo"). It's been removed again.

Oh come on, 'beam up'? I'm sure psikeyhackr will -definitely- not like that one . I think the same would apply for Headspin and Tony; still, definitely better then 'woo woo' . Anyway, aren't admins/mods the only ones who can put tags in after a thread has started? Because if that's so and you didn't do it...

 

[John99]

Thermite:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel

 

[scott3x]

He got it wrong, I take it?

This is the response I posted in May:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

That thread ended in October and he never responded. But I emailed that to Richard Gage in June of 2007 when I first emailed it to Greening. Gage responded saying it was correct. It is curious that Mackey assumed the mass tapered toward the top but the combination of steel and concrete made no difference but Greening assumed it was constant. It is as though these guys just have to make some complicated junk no matter how fundamentally flawed and they can find people who will go for it.

Most people get lost when it comes to math and physics. It's not exactly the forte of the average person I believe. People like me and MacGyver fully admit when we don't understand these things. Others may not admit it but it may well still be the same.

Fine. But psikey, surely you realize how incredibly weak your case is when no one but you seems to think it's important? I swear, if I had a point on this issue wherein no one but I thought it was important, I'd have serious doubts about it myself.

The funny thing is that you act as though consensus matters and yet your Greats are going against the consensus of the majority of people accepting the official story. You can't have it both ways Scott.

It's one thing to be a minority of thousands or hundreds of thousands. It's another to be all alone. Nevertheless, since I know you, I brought up your issue with Tony. I remember that he'd more or less said the same thing when he first started posting here; anyway, here's his new response and my comments on it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2162280&postcount=108

I am not saying that my way is THE ONLY WAY to prove the plane didn't do it. I just happen to think a lot of people could regard it as absurd that we don't have this data after SEVEN YEARS and that it could be a useful tactic to the Truth Movement to point out to everyone that the NIST hasn't come up with simple data. I just think it is much better than screaming "Inside Job, Inside Job".

Honestly, NIST relies heavily on its tweaked out computer simulations. Ofcourse, in their simulation, they didn't even go past 'poised for collapse' for the twin towers. They -did- simulate the collapse in the case of WTC 7. People -definitely- have protested that NIST has refused to reveal the data to put in to get the results they got. To me, the whole thing is something of a cruel joke- we won't show you the results and in the case of the twin towers, we won't even attempt to simulate the collapse. Why bother? People will suck up our "professional expertise" and leave the matter be. Honestly, the relatively crude simulation of the WTC 7 collapse doesn't really even look like what actually happened- in the simulation, it's like the building seems to suck into itself; in the actual event, it just falls straight down.

Another curious thing would be for the Obama administration to have every engineering and architectural school in the country come out with an official position paper on the destruction of the 3 WTC towers. It looks to me like most of them are just being silent and people just take that as support of the official story. They should be made to state their position and explain it.

Obama doesn't really seem to be all that interested in alternatives to the official story. If he was, I think he'd be a -little- less interested in going all out in Afghanistan and a little -more- interested in investigating to see if perhaps Osama Bin Laden was being honest when he said that he had nothing to do with it.

 

[scott3x]

Scott, dont you read what i post before posting the same redundant hypothetical snippets from before anything even happened?

I think I tend to read much more then you at times; not only that but I tend to respond to more points then almost anyone, which is why my posts tend to be bigger then what I'm responding to.

The designers also claimed this long before 911:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Maybe they did believe this so i cannot speculate on that. But doesnt the notion of MULTIPLE, say 3 or more, 707s loaded with fuel seem JUST a little far fetched?

Well, I'm sure there's a limit to how many jet crashes it could take. But perhaps it could have handled 3. The twin towers were way sturdier then most people realize.

The truth is that they really didnt know for certain nor could they have known. Note the words "probably" and "believe".

Can't you atleast admit that if the designers felt that the towers could have possibly sustained a couple jets, but that even the lead designer believed that they could be taken down by controlled demolitions, that that possibility should have been investigated? Fortunately, it -was- investigated; by Steven Jones, who found thermate, which is indeed an explosive. NIST et all still -can- investigate it- Steven Jones has offered to give some of his sample or to collect more. But at present, no one seems interested. Don't you think that looks just a -tad- suspicious?

And to use mosquito netting as an example is pretty fantastic claim in and of itself. I dont see the connection either.

I certainly do. If you make a whole in mosquito netting, does the net collapse? Nope. Same applies with the twin towers. I'll grant you that he could have perhaps used a better example; after all, mosquito netting is held up not just from the bottom, but from the top as well. I personally like the example of a notable from the truth movement, that of the connector set; even if you'd clean ripped through the building and taken out a few stories (which didn't happen, but anyway), a connector building wouldn't just collapse at free fall speeds; in fact, the floors below the floors that had collapsed would completely halt the fall downwards; perhaps the bricks would fall off to the side, but the rest of the building wouldn't simply crumple in a matter of seconds. Shaman_ has derided this example, saying that you can't simply scale up from a connector set. And yet, the notable who was mentioning this scenario said that, if anything, the WTC buildings were would be even -stronger- then the connector set, if you could scale the buildings down to that size.

But refuting these unsubstantiated and cavalier claims is getting tiresome.

You copied me on that 'unsubstantiated claims' bit, admit it . Anyway, I contend that my claims are so substantiated ;-).

 

[John99]

and....?

Why resort to conjecture when facts are available?

 

[scott3x]

Now consider this:

The pencil goes halfway through the netting (in this case a 6 foot square) and unloads gallons of flaming jet fuel. Does the netting sustain the damage?

I would say with complete certainty that the netting is vaporized.

Analogies have their limits. Jet fuel and office fires didn't have a chance in hell of vaporizing steel. Or even melting it. Which is why NIST can't admit that any steel was even melted, let alone vaporized. I wish the person who'd asked Jonathan Barnett -why- he initially thought that some of the steel had been vaporized. I'd do it myself if I knew his email address, but no go...

We can attribute these statements to overconfidence but they are not facts.

Many facts have been hard to come by; just ask psikey . However, even with the data we have, it seems clear to me that the only way that WTC 7 and the twin towers could have come down is by controlled demolitions.

 

[John99]

...it seems clear to me that the only way that WTC 7 and the twin towers could have come down is by controlled demolitions.

Thats nice.

 

[scott3x]

Well it's cool that you believe that WTC 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. Given enough time, I think you would come to believe as I do, that the twin towers were also taken down by controlled demolitions.

You cant tell by looking at it that it was a controlled demo and the collapse videos dont even support this.

Ofcourse they do. Even an demolition expert thought WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and explains how it could have been done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

In an intentional demo explosives would have needed to have been placed along the outer perimeter supports and on every floor as visible from the consistent failure or at the official and as has happened before pancake scenario at the joists.

This is the type of thing that Tony or perhaps Headspin would be better at. I'll see if I can get one of them to respond to this...

Yours is a laymans assessment and the hundreds of investigators dont agree.

Hundreds? I think you'd have better luck finding hundreds of investigators that -do- agree.

Plus there is no proof of explosives.

NIST fully admits they never tested for explosives and none of the WTC 7 steel was examined, so what did you expect?

The explosive placement and being undetected is impossible for obvious reasons.

Perhaps they may have been placed in the elevator shafts, as John Gross believes was done in the twin towers. Perhaps it was sprayed on as I believe Headspin has suggested.

As far as WTC7- what would be the purpose or advantage to bringing down wtc7 intentionally? there is none.

Actually, there's plenty. From whatreallyhappened.com's article, Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition:

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]​

I disagree. I think that it -does- matter. I think that if enough people believe that 9/11 was an inside job that the powers that be will -have- to pay attention. But not before. Which is why I have tried and continue to try so hard to get people to see the truth.

And what would people reading this do? You need to tell the FBI or the Canadian authorities because no one here can do anything about your 'intuition' or 'feelings' about this.

There are some people in high places who already believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The main problem is that not enough of the people who both believe it -and- want to do something about it are in place. And remember that many people in power are elected there. And to be elected to high office, people have to believe in them and what they believe in in turn. It all starts right here; if more average people can't be convinced, then this may well be a repeat of what happened at Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the JFK assasination; more people will question it as time goes by but by the time there's truly enough people to actually -do something about it-, most if not all of the people who were responsible for what -really- happened won't even be alive anymore. Perhaps there'll be another 9/11 incident in a decade or 2 and the cycle will repeat itself. I'm willing to accept this possibility. But I'm -not- willing to simply give up trying to persuade others of what I believe really happened.

The people who were responsible dont deny it

Actually, Bin Laden did. Which is why they had to produce that fake video of him (it clearly wasn't) saying that he did.

and if they changed their mind after being captured this is common. Have you spoken to them?

The alleged 'masterminds' behind 9/11? From what I hear, the 'mastermind' they have in prison may well be someone who is mentally disturbed. Then they torture people in Guantanamo, making anything they say highly suspect, to put it mildly. In a very real way, I like the WTC collapses for the same reason that psikeyhackr does- it takes much of the politics out of the equation and forces us to look more at the scientific arguments for and against the controlled demolition theory.

In my view, the arguments and evidence for it far outweight the arguments and evidence against it and I'm not alone in holding this view. The hard part is in persuading people who still believe that the official story is valid. There's certainly something to be said about the emotional aspect of it all. Who wants to believe that elements of one's own government could have played an integral part in what happened?

 

[scott3x]

Thermite:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel

Excerpt an argument or 2 you believe in and we can deal with that- I know that at times I post some links, but I generally do so in order to ascertain if someone's actually interested in hearing some excerpts or whether they just like listening to their own arguments .

 

[scott3x]

and....?

Why resort to conjecture when facts are available?

Are you implying that I'm resorting to conjecture when facts are available? If so, what is it that you believe that I'm conjecturing and what facts do you believe I'm.. missing?

 

[John99]

ok...what is wrong with you?

 

[scott3x]

Official story supporter's lethal paper, Round 4

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 1726 in this thread.

You seem to assume there's another credible possibility other then thermate.

Argument from ignorance.

Alright, will you simply admit that for now, the only logical argument you know of is that it was thermite or thermate?

You've provided no evidence that this is the case, however.

I have done no investigation into it whatsoever.

Yes, I have, or I would never have heard of the thermite/thermate argument.

Neither have you but to you just know that it must be thermite.

I simply believe that it's the only logical explanation I've heard of. And I believe it's the only logical explanation -you've- heard of as well.

The answer is always the ever changing thermite, well that and explosives. You have a conclusion and try to fit the evidence into this conclusion.

I have a theory, as do you; yours in planes and jet fuel, mine is controlled demolition. Here's to hoping you can admit that on this issue, the only logical explanation that you or I know is that it was thermite/thermate.

It makes sense that it would be thermite, which is capable of doing that type of damage to a car.

Show me an example of thermite doing something like this. I thought it cut steel columns like butter.

Yep. But by the time it got down to ground level, it was generally aerosolized; so, not as concentrated. Anyway, here's a good video of what thermite is capable of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng

What does -not- make sense is the the type of 'explanation' given by the type of people you like linking to, who laughably think scraps of burning paper could do this:

I did not say it was burning paper.

I never said you did. I said you linked to the guy who did. You did so back in post 185, wherein you linked to a ream of sites that I assume you felt were good stuff. The link is from one of your favourite sites actually. Here's the link in question:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

In that page, it has the following link:
[Steven] Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

Why don’t you [insult removed] and take it up with them?

I'm not interested in bothering with your fluffsters, other to make some of their absurd claims clear. If anyone should be taking it up with him, it's you- you're the one who proudly linked to the page with said fluffster.

It's the only credible answer.

Based on your clearly poorly educated, ill informed religious-like belief.

What are you talking about? You don't even have an alternative. How about if I say "It's the only credible answer either of us has at present"? That way, you can continue to pine for one that doesn't mess up your fantasy that the official story is the cat's meow.

One is sure to find fluff answers from official story supporters like paper though.

Yes, fluff answers will definitely be derided, as they should be.

You are a fanatic who is incapable of nothing more than spam and derision. Amazingly you cry and report people who insult your comments.

Look, if all you said was that I have fluff answers, I wouldn't have reported any of your posts. I don't even call you a fanatic.

Alright, I've backed up this conversation 4 posts now and I still don't see where I have 'dodged' anything.

I asked you about softened steel and you made a ridiculous comment about explosively bent steel. We are talking about steel which was softened and not affected by explosions.

I personally think that the steel was explosively bent. You can believe that the steel is softened if you want. Tony Szamboti has made it clear that you can't tell what temperatures a piece of steel reached simply by looking it shape.

I have never said that Astaneh believes that the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions. What you seem to fail to realize is that the fact that he doesn't support the controlled demolition theory makes it all the more interesting that he has reported seeing evidence of melted..

He made it clear in another article that he was referring to very soft steel, not molten.

Let's take a look at that article...

You are cherry picking in a desperate attempt to maintain the conspiracy…

I'm not "cherry picking". I'm telling you why I believe what I believe.

and even vaporized steel.

You are [insult removed]. You know that those are the words of the reporter and not Astaneh.

The New York Times reporter(s) said that Astaneh is the one who claimed it. Another New York Times article said that Jonathan Barnett said there had been evidence of evaporated steel; Jonathan Barnett was asked about it and he didn't deny it, but essentially seemed to imply that it was a mistake. He was never asked as to -why- he thought it was a mistake. I'd ask him myself if I knew his email address. In any case, the fact that Jonathan Barnett didn't deny it when asked about his comment strongly suggests that the New York Times didn't misinterpret Astaneh as well. It may well be that Jonathan Barnett's comment was actually because he had heard Astaneh talk of it. After all, Jonathan Barnett was investigating WTC 7 and no steel at all was saved from that building; so what could he himself have witnessed?

He is even aware of the significance of this to some extent, when he commented on the collapsing of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge which fell but did -not- melt; as he put it in a Newshour interview when describing what happened to the bridge:
Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders [in the bridge], because there was no melting of girders [there]. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

If they were still recognisable as girders then they were not liquid metal then were they?

Surely you are aware the a metal can melt and then resolidify later, reforming in shapes which suggest previous melting?

He has made it clear the fires alone were responsible.

He has made it clear that he -believes- that the jet initiated fires were responsible. He is not some infallible deity, you know.

He also reported evidence of melted and even vaporized steel, which is -well- beyond 2000F.

No. He didn’t. [insult removed]

You have yet to present any evidence which suggests otherwise.

Explosives can manage this, but the jet initiated office fires can't.

Here we go again. Explosives break things with force, they don’t just heat up steel.

The twin towers core columns were cut up into pieces and the concrete was pulverized. Looks like they did a pretty good of breaking things with force to me...

I don't recall him ever looking for any.

He inspected the steel for clues as to the cause of the collapse. He found evidence of high temperatures but no evidence for explosives.

I should have been more specific:
I don't recall him ever looking for any clues of explosives being used.

NIST freely admits it didn't.

Not one person in the thousands involved found anything suspicious.

Actually, a few people did: Steven Jones and some colleagues of his. They found evidence that thermate was used. NIST freely admits they never tested for thermite type compounds, though. I think they could still do so, if they wanted to. They've certainly never said they couldn't. And yet, they don't. They give some lame reasons as to why they didn't investigate to see if thermite was used. Robert Moore handily debunks their lame reasons in his peer reviwed paper, Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1.

Oh definitely. High enough to melt and even vaporize it a well. I wonder what could get the steel to reach such high temperatures?

Magical explosives?

Thermate.

I can only imagine how much steel of that nature was there before the investigation teams were allowed to take a good look.

There's no way in hell that you could get steel yellow hot or white hot at 2000 Fahrenheit without the help of something like thermate.

According to my Cardington report, the steel in the office test did get that hot, so you are once again wrong.

The Cardington report wasn't simulating the temperatures in the WTC buildings. Even more importantly, the steel didn't collapse in the Cardington tests.

While it's certainly true that much of steel was conveniently sliced up to bring the building down, if anything could manage to only bend instead of shatter when hit by explosive forces, it'd be something like steel. The concrete certainly had no chance, turning almost completely into a fine dust.

… and you are wrong again. Look at the picture. http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/6033.jpg

Is the concrete “almost completely” a fine dust?

You don't see much, so I'm willing to bet that at the very least, a fair amount of it is.

That is exactly what you would expect after a total collapse.

Via controlled demolition, sure .

 

[scott3x]

ok...what is wrong with you?

What are you talking about? You may wish to quote what you're responding to a little more often; the way it is right now, it frequently makes it -very- hard to understand what you're talking about a fair amount of the time.

 

[John99]

What are you talking about? You may wish to quote what you're responding to a little more often; the way it is right now, it frequently makes it -very- hard to understand what you're talking about a fair amount of the time.

you cant understand my posts?

 

[John99]

Perhaps it was sprayed on as I believe Headspin has suggested.

incredible. i am speechless.