1999 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 25 January 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Alas, the demise of common sense!  

Alas, the demise of common sense!  

Since the firefighters noticed a bulge in the building that pointed toward eventural structural failure, it was prudent for the firefighters to vacate WTC 7.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 25 January 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

We don't know, and no amount of guessing will change that.

I’m only looking for a logical alternative suggestion based on some sort of engineering reasoning.  To be fair, I know there is none.  There is only one way that engineer predicted the collapse time “on the money”, there is only one way the OEM staff knew WTC7 was a “lost cause” from the start – it was pre-planned.

Isn’t it strange how the last fire fighter cleared the collapse zone 20 minutes before the building went down.  That was close… like Indiana Jones reaching back to grab his hat just in time.  Except that only happens in the movies, i.e. where it is scripted that way.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 25 January 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

I’m only looking for a logical alternative suggestion based on some sort of engineering reasoning.  To be fair, I know there is none.  There is only one way that engineer predicted the collapse time “on the money”, there is only one way the OEM staff knew WTC7 was a “lost cause” from the start – it was pre-planned.

Isn’t it strange how the last fire fighter cleared the collapse zone 20 minutes before the building went down.  That was close… like Indiana Jones reaching back to grab his hat just in time.  Except that only happens in the movies, i.e. where it is scripted that way.

You've got to be kidding right?  Please tell you you are kidding.  The only way that his estimate could be accurate is that it was pre-planned?  Really?

I guess that anytime someone guesses the right Lotto numbers it is fixed too.  Anytime someone picks the right race horse, the race is rigged.  Anytime anyone picks the winner in a prize fight, the loser took a dive.

In some of our previous discussions you've seemed pretty balanced in terms of honest evaluation of the evidence.  Why are you taking a stance here by pronouncing that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation when clearly it isn't the only way it could have happened?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 26 January 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

You've got to be kidding right?  Please tell you you are kidding.  The only way that his estimate could be accurate is that it was pre-planned?  Really?

I guess that anytime someone guesses the right Lotto numbers it is fixed too.  Anytime someone picks the right race horse, the race is rigged.  Anytime anyone picks the winner in a prize fight, the loser took a dive.

In some of our previous discussions you've seemed pretty balanced in terms of honest evaluation of the evidence.  Why are you taking a stance here by pronouncing that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation when clearly it isn't the only way it could have happened?

I’m always balanced, it’s just not always what you like to hear.

As there is no engineering rationale for picking “five hours” then yes, a pre-determined event is the only remaining explanation.  The collapse time prediction was not made at random or on a whim like the Lotto example you give – it was made for a reason; with some thought in mind.  Even when a seasoned gambler backs a horse or fighter there is logic to it – either the stats or the odds are favorable.  Yet in the case of WTC7 we can see there is no engineering rationale (or alternative interpretation) for making that “five hours” call.

What am I supposed to say?  The engineer plucked “five hours” from thin air and got lucky?  That’s what you think happened?  That he may as well have rolled a dice for it?  Please tell me you are kidding.

It is not balanced to rely on a disparate multitude of luck and coincidence for every other speculative explanation - the odds for the official narrative become astronomical.  Not when in one fell swoop every aspect can be easily explained with a single answer: planned event.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

He asks for an alternative suggestion, and it appears you offer none.  

I happen to agree with him, and so does all the other evidence--it was planned.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 26 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I happen to agree with him, and so does all the other evidence--it was planned.

There was no evidence the collapse of WTC 7 was planned, and there was no evidence of explosives found in the debris either.

Quote

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

There were no reports of planted explosives in either of the WTC buildings. What it takes to prepare a building for demolition.





And, the firefighters didn't report discovering hundreds of yards of detonation wires within the WTC buildings either..




My link

So why are the 9/11 conspiracy folks still claiming that the WTC buidlings were brought down by explosives when no such evidence  was ever found?

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2012 - 03:18 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

I’m always balanced, it’s just not always what you like to hear.

Apparently you aren't always balanced.  What I would or wouldn't like to hear is irrelevant.

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

As there is no engineering rationale for picking “five hours” then yes, a pre-determined event is the only remaining explanation.  

How do you know that there is no engineering rationale for picking "five hours?"

By implying that there are only two possible reasons you are creating a false dichotomy.  Is it not possible that there are more than two potential reasons?

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

The collapse time prediction was not made at random or on a whim like the Lotto example you give – it was made for a reason; with some thought in mind.

I didn't say that the estimated time was random, but people do pick things at random which end up happening.  That doesn't make them precognitive, rigged, or preplanned.  People frequently make educated guesses which end up being accurate as well.  This isn't even remotely uncommon.

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Even when a seasoned gambler backs a horse or fighter there is logic to it – either the stats or the odds are favorable.  

And who says that there couldn't have been a logical reason for the estimated time frame given outside of your preferred solution of it being preplanned?

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Yet in the case of WTC7 we can see there is no engineering rationale (or alternative interpretation) for making that “five hours” call.

How have you determined that there was no engineering rationale?  For all we know there could have been more than one engineering rationale.  Hell, there could have even been a completely incorrect rationale which was used for the estimated time and it just ended up being correct but for a different reason than the engineer originally thought.

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

What am I supposed to say?  

If you are honest you should say that there is no definitive answer to this because there isn't enough information to make an informed decision about it.

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

The engineer plucked “five hours” from thin air and got lucky?  That’s what you think happened?  That he may as well have rolled a dice for it?  Please tell me you are kidding.

No, I'm not kidding.  If you deny that this and other potential explanations are within the realm of possibility you are prone to making a potentially false assumption.

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

It is not balanced to rely on a disparate multitude of luck and coincidence for every other speculative explanation - the odds for the official narrative become astronomical.  Not when in one fell swoop every aspect can be easily explained with a single answer: planned event.

It is not balanced to unilaterally declare that your preferred version of events is the only possible explanation simply because you aren't aware of the details behind the estimated time of collapse.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 26 January 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

How do you know that there is no engineering rationale for picking "five hours?"
…
And who says that there couldn't have been a logical reason for the estimated time frame given outside of your preferred solution of it being preplanned?

How have you determined that there was no engineering rationale?

There is simply no educated reason for “five hours” and neither has one ever been offered.

NIST have confirmed, like every other high-rise fire of its type in history, that it could have burned until the structure was gutted without ever heating the columns enough to weaken them.

You may as well be asking…

How do you know there is no rationale for believing in fairies?
Who says there could not be reason to believe in fairies?
How have you determined there are no fairies?

Well, because no one has ever come up with the evidence or logic for it.

Seriously, “five hours”… what in particular happens in five hours?  It wasn’t NIST’s first time ever event he saw coming.  It took NIST seven years of struggle to explain how that “extraordinary” sequence was supposed to have led to collapse – there was no reason for anonymous engineer to know it were possible, never mind suspect it, right there on the spot.  And there was no reason to put “five hours” on it - it could have occurred in two hours, or never.  Yet he did put five hours on it, and was “on the money”.

booNy… buildings of this type do not collapse due to failure of a single core column.  The whole point in having more than one column is to distribute the load between them.  NIST suggest that this one column was carrying a percentage of the full building load either directly or indirectly through every other column which relied on it.  That the whole building depended on one column!  And that an east to west progression of failure results in a symmetrical collapse (east and west facades dropping together).

Do you not realise how absurd that all is?

Not a chance – they blew out a number of the centre columns simultaneously.  That’s how the whole thing comes down, virtually symmetrically and for a period of freefall.  That’s also how anonymous engineer could put a time on it – because there was nothing random or unexpected about it.

Anyhow, I’ve asked the question enough times – as Babe Ruth points out, no answer has been forthcoming.

Babe Ruth, on 26 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Boo

He asks for an alternative suggestion, and it appears you offer none.  

I happen to agree with him, and so does all the other evidence--it was planned.

That’s the thing - there is no alternative explanation to offer.  It is unexplainable how the engineer put a “five hours” warning on the collapse other than with foreknowledge of the event.  This is why the demolition provides a logical explanation and the official narrative, like it so often does, must put yet another oddity down to luck and coincidence.

Silverstein trying to authorize a demolition to minimize further damage – he got lucky.
The WTC7 power shutdown coming less than an hour before collapse – that was lucky.
And the last fire fighter getting clear 20 minutes before collapse – lucky.
Silverstein more than doubling the WTC insurance coverage only six weeks prior – lucky again.
The WTC asbestos problem solved at around half the estimated cost – lucky.
Neocon interests granted their “new Pearl Harbor” six months after coming to power – how lucky.

And on and on…

Another one I’ve never heard a reasonable alternative answer for are the five Israeli agents detained in direct relation to the attacks with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van.  The best attempted explanation I’ve heard goes, “Uh, I don’t know what they were doing, but they just can’t have had anything to do with the attack”.  It is yet another non-answer in denial of the simplest solution - that the agents were involved in the demolitions in some capacity.

Do you have any better explanation for this one, booNy?

[booNyzarC]

You really have yourself convinced of this Q24, but that doesn't make it real.  As I said there is more than one possible explanation for the time estimate, and your denial of that fact doesn't change the reality of the situation.

[aquatus1]

I recall reading some time ago that there were around 60 reports predicting a collapse (as in, oral statements by firefighters on the scene saying they feared a collapse).  Whatever the actual number of predictions, I wonder how many of them actually match up to the collapse.  If only one predicts the collapse within a reasonable timeframe of the actual collapse, then why should that report be considered significant, compared to the others?  We cannot decide it is significant ahead of time; that would create a circular argument.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 26 January 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

You really have yourself convinced of this Q24, but that doesn't make it real.  As I said there is more than one possible explanation for the time estimate, and your denial of that fact doesn't change the reality of the situation.

So you keep saying; there is some possible explanation just out of reach of us all.  It’s not like I haven’t thought about it.  It’s just that any explanation for coming up with “five hours” makes the engineer appear either a ) incompetent beyond reason or b ) in the know.  If any reasonable and specific engineering rationale for the “five hours” exists (rather than just supposing some hidden spectre of a reason ‘must’ be there to avoid the alternative) then I’m all ears.  Without that, the “on the money” warning is perfect fit to the rest of the body of evidence for controlled demolition.

I brought up the Israeli agents detained on 9/11 because that is another area where most suggest some phantom answer exists whilst denying the most obvious explanation.  There are a lot of these disparate incorporeal answers required to uphold the official narrative where “something” which no one can put their finger on ‘must’ exist to continue denial of the single comprehensive answer - false flag.

It is not the same as the ACARS issue where it was possible to suggest some very reasonable and specific alternative answer (flight plan) right from the outset and more evidence arrived in way of support (not to mention the PfffT theory did not make sense from the start).  In the topic here though, there simply is no sensible alternative to begin… which is why it is always failed to be provided.

Anything can be given a different possible explanation: -

The suspect was witnessed at the scene?  They were just passing by.
The murder weapon found in their house?  That was planted.
The victim’s blood on their clothes?  Cross-contamination.
The suspect’s agenda against the victim?  Someone beat them to it.

It doesn’t matter those explanations or faith in their innocence – with that list, the suspect is going down and that’s what I’ll call beforehand, no matter their mother declaring, “but he’s a good boy; he just wouldn’t”.

I just say what I see in any case, having no need to rely on intangible suggestion.  Others would pick sides and then fall back to a position of faith come hell or highwater.  Why wouldn’t I be convinced of logic over faith?

Please give me something real.

Incidentally, are you aware there was another anonymous warning (perhaps from the WTC7 engineer – we don’t know) shortly before the first tower collapse?  The disbelieving response of the FDNY Chief of Operations was, “who the #### told you that?”  Like WTC7, it was initially beyond the FDNY expectation, yet somehow nailed-on for anonymous individuals.

aquatus1, on 26 January 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

I recall reading some time ago that there were around 60 reports predicting a collapse (as in, oral statements by firefighters on the scene saying they feared a collapse).  Whatever the actual number of predictions, I wonder how many of them actually match up to the collapse.  If only one predicts the collapse within a reasonable timeframe of the actual collapse, then why should that report be considered significant, compared to the others?  We cannot decide it is significant ahead of time; that would create a circular argument.

The warning from the anonymous engineer is significant because we know that is where the information originated upon which the FDNY based their fall back decision (please see previous posts in this thread including comment from Shyam Sunder).

Official narrative adherents tend to isolate the firefighter quotes (particularly from Chief Deputy Hayden) to give a false impression in suggesting the FDNY expected collapse of their own independent observation.  The full body of evidence shows the confidence in collapse actually originated with still anonymous external advisor(s).

[Babe Ruth]

The Sky Scanner, on 25 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

So what you are asking is, despite the fact steel has been used in buildings for many many years, just because a high rise of the exact construction of WTC7 hasn't collapsed before, their training package for accessing such situations (even in low level buildings) would have steel missing from it's training package? Are you being serious or just splitting hairs?

Your command of the English language, especially for a Brit, is impressive.

What I asked sir, is what I asked: How does one construct a training syllabus to prepare for an event that is unknown to mankind?

If a given scenario has never ever played out before, how do we know it can or will?  How does one train for an event unknown to the species?

[quillius]

Q24, on 26 January 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

I’m always balanced, it’s just not always what you like to hear.

As there is no engineering rationale for picking “five hours” then yes, a pre-determined event is the only remaining explanation.  The collapse time prediction was not made at random or on a whim like the Lotto example you give – it was made for a reason; with some thought in mind.  Even when a seasoned gambler backs a horse or fighter there is logic to it – either the stats or the odds are favorable.  Yet in the case of WTC7 we can see there is no engineering rationale (or alternative interpretation) for making that “five hours” call.

What am I supposed to say?  The engineer plucked “five hours” from thin air and got lucky?  That’s what you think happened?  That he may as well have rolled a dice for it?  Please tell me you are kidding.

It is not balanced to rely on a disparate multitude of luck and coincidence for every other speculative explanation - the odds for the official narrative become astronomical.  Not when in one fell swoop every aspect can be easily explained with a single answer: planned event.

Hey Q, I do not see this like you do and agree with Boon that foreknowledge has not been proven. The analogy comparing the seasoned gambler doesnt work (as far as supporting you) because you see when you phrase it 'there is logic to it' this logic may not be correct and it is basically opinion, so whatever logic was used by 'source' it doesnt mean it was accurate, even if he guessed correctly. Same with  seasoned gambler using 'his' logic to determine a winner, when he is correct with result doesnt mean at all he was correct in the logic used to determine said winner. (not that it matters much but its not odds or stats that need to be favourable...the stats determine if the odds are favourable. i.e. x has 90% chance of winning (favourable stats) odds are 1-50 (not favourable odds)...

As for one single answer solving all- this doesnt make it right. If I may try an analogy....five UFOs spotted over five days, could be a series of coincidental events/conditions that caused the UFO....or should we just say it was ET as this single answer solves all 5 cases?

(I know, I know I am going to regret popping my head out from the comfy viewing seat I had)  

Edited by quillius, 26 January 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[quillius]

Babe Ruth, on 26 January 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Your command of the English language, especially for a Brit, is impressive.

did you mean to insult or was it accidental?

Babe Ruth, on 26 January 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

What I asked sir, is what I asked: How does one construct a training syllabus to prepare for an event that is unknown to mankind?

If a given scenario has never ever played out before, how do we know it can or will?  How does one train for an event unknown to the species?

I am sure Sky will respond to you in due course, may I ask in the meantime what you consider the main unknowns in this 'event'?

also are you serious that humans cannot prepare for scenarios never played out before?!??

[Babe Ruth]

Quillius

Within certain parameters humans can prepare for unanticipated events.  But beyond those parameters, they cannot.

George Bush claimed this saying something to the effect that nobody could have known that terrorists would commandeer aircraft and fly them into high rise office buildings.  Nobody had informed the President of that, and of course not many in the media inform the public of that either.

Of course we know Dubya was lying when he said that, because that was precisely the scenario playing out that day with the Pentagon exercise known as Vigilant Guardian.

And of course the Titanic was claimed by all to be unsinkable.

But in this case, if there had never been an example known to man of a modern high rise collapsing at free fall rates from internal fires, how does one prepare for that?  What sort of training syllabus does one write?

Should one also prepare for a building being turned to dust?  Should one prepare to have one's automobile suddenly begin flying? Should the City of London prepare to have its transportation system suddenly turn into flying carpets?  Should they prepare for the ocean to freeze?

Edited by Babe Ruth, 26 January 2012 - 03:45 PM.