900 replies to this topic

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 27 August 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Sometimes that's because the questions asked are silly.

Yes, how silly to expect someone to actually prove what they say when asked...






Cz

[Iron_Lotus]

Babe Ruth, on 27 August 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Sometimes that's because the questions asked are silly.

no i think it's more along the lines of you being scared and having no way of actually answering them without digging yourself even further into the hole you have dug for yourself.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 August 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Sometimes that's because the questions asked are silly.

Silly only in your own mind because you cannot respond to the reality of what the evidence represents with a straight honest answer, which has been evident since your appearance here.

[Iron_Lotus]

that's ok br you can run away again and log off and then when you come back you can pretend this neeeeever happened.

[Q24]

Czero 101, on 26 August 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Flyingswan is correctly using the term "attitude" in reference to the aircraft:

From Dictionary.com:




Without meaning to offend, it surprises me that you are seemingly unaware of this very common aeronautical term (very common in space travel, too), given how informed you typically present yourself as being.

It was a strange place to use the term since flyingswan had already referred to the “trajectory angle” (which NIST use to describe the aircraft trajectory and orientation).  Adding “and aircraft attitude” was just repeating himself, so I mistakenly assumed he was trying to communicate something different.

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Yeah, you certainly convinced yourself of that, but who else?

I only point to the fact the base (non-collapse) case for WTC2 was also a better match to the actual damage, as NIST already admitted for WTC1.  Had you compared the base and severe cases for WTC2 to the photographic evidence you would see this also.  It’s not my problem if anyone chooses to remain uninformed of the fact.

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

No, they did the calculations with the estimated properties.  There are no safety factors in NIST's cases.

NIST based the simulation properties on the actual building specifications and testing of the steel, which of course at that stage incorporated the safety factors.  Did you think engineers specify the steel to be used and then the construction workers take it upon themselves to upgrade the material?

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

So?  Would you enter a building with a 40% chance of collapse and a 60% chance not?  Particularly if there was uncertainty in these numbers?

I love that answer, "So?".  You agree NIST proved that in probability not one tower should collapse in an impact and fire event, nevermind two.  This is obviously some good sway to an argument for demolition, and your response, “So?”  Typical - even where a fact supports a case for demolition, "So?"  It's brilliant.

In response to your question: if the actual damage was best match to the 60% non-collapse range then I’d enter the building… which would be a mistake seeing as it was rigged for demolition.  Given the precedent for false flag attacks, I'd advise anyone to get away from any location under attack.

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Completely untrue.  NIST picked the three cases on the basis of the measurement errors and applied the same rules to all three.   The only adjustment was for the second tower, where, based on the comparisons for the first, they made the severe case less severe.

I was referring to the manually input pull-in forces, applied to the severe case after the initial parameters had been set.

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Ridiculous.  The process is slow and steel grains are too small to see.


At the temperature you claim,  steel is not molten at all.  Anything molten isn't steel.

Your argument is ridiculous – apparently relying on the grain size - whoever said the grains could, or needed to, be seen?

And to your second sentence, it really depends how we define “steel”.  The elemental iron would not be molten, but impurities throughout the steel (in the grain boundaries for example) certainly could be.  And this could allow the steel to act as a liquid and drip (as FEMA described and photographic/witness evidence shows).  I'll ask again - how do you think those sharp edges on the steel member that John Gross posed with were formed and where is the rest of the section?

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

That argument is like claiming that the force between the two bricks at the bottom of the stack is the same as the force between the two at the top.  The forces differ by the weight of the bricks in between.  In exactly the same way, the force between debris and lower block is greater than the force between debris and upper block by the ever-growing weight of the debris.

If you'd quoted Boony in full, you'd see that he included the debris layer in the upper block.  Ie, the top of the lower block and the lower face of the debris layer see equal damage.  No contradiction with Bazant, who treats the debris layer as separate.

Your mistake is in assuming the debris becomes a part of the upper block anymore than it is a part of the lower block – you need to realise the core structure that had to be overcome was continuous throughout height of the building.  We cannot arbitarily alter the force application point/crush front after the initial impact as you would like.

Please refer back to examples contained in post #875 here.

flyingswan, on 26 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Newton's Laws demand nothing of the sort, and while you claim that the video footage supports your claim, this is another aspect where, when pressed, you can't say exactly where in the footage it does so.  It isn't just a "small rigid block" that's doing the damage, it's also the debris layer.  I've only to point to your claims about the antenna to show that you see what you want to see in the videos.

I have pointed out to you more than once, to the second, where the video footage shows a severe reduction in momentum which can never occur in Bazant’s theory, and indicating deterioration of the upper block.  It is yourself and booNy who have repeatedly failed to address this.  Here it is again, post #1062 here.

I have further shown where the seismic record coincides with the momentum loss.  I have shown where the lower core columns still stand after the upper block has passed – thus ever more proving Bazant’s indestructible rigid upper block incorrect.  I have shown further footage and physics simulations which demonstrate all this.  You choose to forget everything the moment it enters your mind.

booNyzarC, on 26 August 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

When you indicate that each successive floor is being pushed down by the momentum of the descending upper block, that floor is essentially becoming part of the upper block, and becomes the new collapse front to impact with the next floor.  And this continues throughout collapse.  Yes, the damage imparted by the resisting floors below is equal and opposite, but as Bazant describes, the majority of that damage is imparted within the compacted layers between the upper and lower blocks.  In reality, this compacted layer below the original upper block essentially becomes part of that upper block.  This is what happens with an inelastic collision.

Oh lord, you’re still talking about “floors”.

Please see last response in my post #869 here.

Let me know when you want to talk about the structure and not just the hovering floors in a long ago discarded 'pancake' collapse theory.

[Babe Ruth]

Pancake collapse and Jetfuel & Gravity!

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 28 August 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Oh lord, you’re still talking about “floors”.

Please see last response in my post #869 here.

Let me know when you want to talk about the structure and not just the hovering floors in a long ago discarded 'pancake' collapse theory.

Yes, I'm still talking about floors.  As in, the word which is synonymous with stories.  As in:


sto·ry ²  (stôr, str)
n. pl. sto·ries
1. A complete horizontal division of a building, constituting the area between two adjacent levels.
2. The set of rooms on the same level of a building.

Dictionary.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

You are also requesting precedent for a unique event, and trying to use the fact that there is no other case like this to compare it to, against it.

I think there are other cases with which to compare WTC7 – that is, other cases of modern high-rise building fires, in both the real world and test structures, even where distortion of the structure has occurred (surely accompanied by a terrible sound of ‘creaking’) and floor trusses have failed, but none have ever led to global collapse, or come even close.

All precedent, in viewing either the WTC7 condition or viability of thermite charges, falls firmly on side of the demolition.

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

And how exactly did they know what the actual damage was?

When I refer to “actual damage” it is the photographic evidence of the external wall impact damage.  If NIST get the match correct at the external wall then the damage we cannot see that carried through inside the structure should also be accurate.

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

So all it would take to satisfy you on this piece of evidence is for them to have done another test case that was within the range of the photographic evidence that did show a collapse?

…

Let me try a hypothetical (and let me try and see if I can post my first pic):

Are you saying that if this was what the NIST found, you would have no qualms with these results?  You wouldn't suddenly discover ranges and measurement errors and argue how much of the actual damage range overlaps into the non-collapse range?  Assuming that the data point, 'best' case, has all the significance it seems to under your graphing?

Yes, that’s beautiful – those results would satisfy me for more than one reason.  Not only does the best estimate of aircraft/building properties now cause a collapse, but it is best match (of the three cases) to the acutal damage.   And greatest of all, unlike the current results, your diagram would actually prove an impact and fire collapse possible due to the situation on 9/11 – that’s what I hoped NIST would have done at a minimum.

There is indeed still a possibility that remains for non-collapse but the odds have reversed firmly in favour of an impact and fire based collapse.  That would remove a huge part of my skepticism and make arguing against an impact and fire collapse almost impossible on basis of the NIST results – I wouldn’t even try.

Anyhow, back to grim reality…

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Earlier you were saying how you believed the NIST reports ruled out entirely a collapse from fire and damage, and it shows no such thing, and that is far too specific of a conclusion.

I’ll give you that my conclusion is unscientific, but still I think founded – it really stems from the question: If NIST could have proved a fire and impact case possible due to the conditions on 9/11, then why didn’t they?  It seems such a basic requirement of the study.  My suggested answer to that question, is that NIST could not prove the case; all of the best match simulations did not produce the desired collapse.  Thus we are left with only the severe (collapse) case which was not best fit to the 9/11 situation.  With that answer in hand, the conclusion is a ruling out of an impact and fire case as cause of the collapses.

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

No, it 'really' does not work the same way.  You do realize there was a reason the Soviets and Nazis put all media under state control and punished dissenting opinions?  And that the US does not do either of those to even close the same extent as the Soviets and Nazis did?  The propagandists didn't punish opinions for fun, they did it because their propaganda would be more effective if they did squelch dissent.  This isn't even oranges, this is apples and granite.

I thought I had said that the situations as a whole are not the same.  I said the propagandistic techniques work the same way in reference to a specific quote from Goering.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it works the same way in any country… because Goering did, and Rumsfeld saw it too.  The comparable mindsets of Goering, Rumsfeld and Bush, apparent in the quotes provided, demonstrate this.  You can argue against it but in the end you were not running the country – they were.

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

No, not better!  What you are saying here, despite providing quotes from Hitler himself, is that you are essentially propagandizing me!  Better that you give me your honest and skeptical evaluation of the evidence, especially when dealing with a largely circumstancial case that selectively relies on exact words that were said and people's states of mind.  You're bringing up the possibility that you are disagreeing with me not because you have a good argument or evidence against me on whatever point, but because it's better that you be over-confident.

I’m just saying it’s better that we know, than don’t know and base opinion on faith or politicians' words.  You would of course say there's lots of unknowns in my theory.  I would say I support further investigation and answers before the supposed retaliatory war.  What does it matter if I were wrong?  What does it matter if the official story were wrong?  From a moral position I can afford to be confident.

Liquid Gardens, on 26 August 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

You haven't explained the non-zero number of experts who are purposely lying and what their motivation is.   You haven't explained those who do have the interest/critical thinking/will, do not fear the consequences, and do not agree with you.

There are perhaps two or three purposely lying and aware of the operation, the suspects being Bazant, Gilsanz and Gross.  We already spoke about intelligence agents forming the core of the group responsible for 9/11…

So is it not interesting to read that a CIA spokesperson said that back in 1988 the agency had enough individual professors under contract "to staff a large university" and, as reported, "As of the late 1970s, approximately 5,000 professors were doing CIA work in some capacity, either `spotting' U.S. or foreign recruitment candidates, participating in research and grant work or carrying out more active programs like foreign police training. It is estimated that about 60 percent of these academics were aware of the nature of their employment, while another 40 percent did the CIA's bidding in the dark--through front companies or foundations."

Then if I pointed out that Northwestern University where Bazant has lectured since the 70s have quite the CIA connection going on - the previous university director actually a former U.S. State Department and CIA employee with an interest in civil-military relations, and U.S. foreign policy.

Are you seeing where I’m going with this and why some academics may not be telling the truth the whole time?

There are no engineers or scientists with an interest, critical thinking skills, will to challenge authority, who are neutral, free of political and patriotic pressure, do not fear the consequences and see a benefit who disagree with me.  Those who fit that whole description, are the thousands on record within the truth movement.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

What you also fail to acknowledge, continually, is that time is also passing during which the building is continuing to burn and make apparently totally unalarming creaking noises and leaning.  You want to pretend that there is no reason anything else would influence any decisions, which is absurd given what had just happened.  

There is no decision the firefighters took that was dependent on the passing of time - that is just something illogical and which you have made up.  Did Currid and the firefighters initially withdraw from WTC7 because of the passing of time or because an advisor told them to?  Did the wider withdrawal occur because of the passing of time or because the advisor decided the building would collapse?  The source of decisions and resultant actions are on record – I’m not sure why you have come up with this unfounded parallel universe where decisions and actions were based on the passing of time.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

1) The advisors were part of the demolition plot and were apparently covertly coordinating with whoever triggered the demolitions so they could so 'accurately' predict when WTC7 would fall.
2) The advisors, with or without a conclusive reason to think that the building would collapse from an engineering/scientific standpoint, which is understandable since they have so little data, made a guess on the perhaps over-conservative side (remember those lives) that the building would collapse in a few hours.

Both of these scenarios adequately explain all conversations that happen between firefighters from this point on; the influence has been passed on whether the foundation of it was sound or not.  Now, on it's own, without reference to any other evidence for demolition, explain why 1 is more likely than 2.  If it's just how unlikely you find the ability to guess within 2 hours when 7 will collapse, we've already covered that.  If you'd like to provide some evidence that WTC7 was the control center of the plot or whatever you suggested a while ago, which necessitated it's destruction, now would probably be a good time to hear about it.

The reason is indeed how unlikely it is to predict an “extraordinary” never before seen event with such a degree of surety in both the scale and timing – the accuracy, language used and confidence of collapse is not indicative of a guess at all.  And of course the wider evidence for demolition I have provided also serves to support the first answer.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I haven't brought this up, but you are also ignoring how much is not on record.  What percentage of the overall communication do you think you have between all these people, less than 1%?  Again, you don't have evidence that they made a 100% dependent judgment either, unless you want to ignore the quotes from the chiefs that skyeagle provided.

In all of the interviews, oral histories and reports I believe are contained all of the important/vital firefighter decisions which were made that day.

I do tend not to read skyeagle’s posts (far too many bad experiences with him talking unrelated gibberish in the past - his methods are recognised as a bit of a joke all round here).  If he came up with anything interesting please could you put it to me – though I’ll say now that any firefighter concerns of collapse can be easily traced back to the advisor(s) warnings.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

And not at all by two other buildings coming down murdering hundreds of his coworkers. Right.

Oh no, when the firefighters exited WTC7 giving a collapse warning and the advisor(s) reiterated the warning to Hayden, I’m sure the tower collapses were at the forefront of his mind – this is why he took the warnings seriously.  Otherwise he might have reacted like the Chief of Operations had done earlier:  “who the **** told you that?”/” "who would tell you something like that?"

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

Alright, you've been arguing based on literalness, so let's go with it.  Let's be absolutely clear that they were NOT 'very confident' the building was in danger of imminent collapse; I'm assuming you are using the ellipses just to shorten the quotes for identification purposes and are not purposely squashing together two separate clauses in that statement to have it say something else.  "In danger" means 'at risk', there are far more confident ways of expressing this 'foreknowledge'.  Only one engineer is noted, yet it was 'they' who thought it may collapse imminently, not just this one engineer.  Sounds like some firefighters may have had some say, unless you have evidence that they didn't and you know who this conversation group was composed of.

Let’s not play word games – it is clear that the confident warning the tower’s integrity was compromised and could lead to near imminent collapse, contrasts significantly with the fact the collapses were actually a surprise to engineers.  There is additional information in the oral histories which shows the confidence with which collapse was predicted, e.g. Richard Zarillo in conveying the message: “the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they're going to collapse”.  There is no hint of doubt in it.

Regarding the conversation group, it is obvious the “some engineer type person” Perruggia referred to held particular significance, otherwise he would not be singled out for mention.  The source of the warning is further discussed in the oral histories: -

"OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out."

and: -

"Q.  Did Zarillo ever say what he based that opinion on?

A.  get that from?  He said from OEM.  We were trying to determine exactly how he got it. In retrospect, how did he get it?"

This post contains the full accounts and passing of the message in chronological order: -
http://www.unexplain...85#entry4021436

So it was apparently an OEM engineer.  And remember the advisor described by Currid during the initial WTC7 evacuation?  That was an OEM advisor also.  And where do some suppose would be the ideal command centre for the 9/11 operation?  Why it’s Neocon Giulliani’s ‘command bunker’… the OEM office.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

We've switched from WTC7, but the unknown engineer was referring to the North Tower's danger of collapse in the quote above, yet the South Tower came down first.  So he forgot to mention that the South Tower was more imminent? 'Maybe' he did that on purpose because he's one of the rare non-dolts and didn't want it to be too obvious?

Or more sensibly, the order of demolition had to be changed because the pretext, that was the WTC2 fires, were diminishing.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I think the media reports argument is utter crap honestly.  I find it absurd to think with the vast majority of media outlets worldwide covering this that mistakes aren't going to be made; you really don't need precedent provided for the media's misreporting do you?  Even if this is picked up from the fear on the scene, I again find the fear of collapse being communicated by these advisors to be far more likely than the fact that they knew because it was demolished.

Yes, find precedent of the media predicting an “extraordinary” first time ever event with a rising certainty toward the time of occurrence.  Of course their confidence increased, resulting in a pre-emptive report, due to the reports and actions on scene.

To be continued…

[booNyzarC]

booNyzarC, on 28 August 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Q24, on 28 August 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Oh lord, you’re still talking about “floors”.

Please see last response in my post #869 here.

Let me know when you want to talk about the structure and not just the hovering floors in a long ago discarded 'pancake' collapse theory.

Yes, I'm still talking about floors.  As in, the word which is synonymous with stories.  As in:


sto·ry ²  (stôr, str)
n. pl. sto·ries
1. A complete horizontal division of a building, constituting the area between two adjacent levels.
2. The set of rooms on the same level of a building.

Dictionary.

By the way, good job of avoiding the core points, yet again, with this little dismissal.  Dodge and weave.  

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

Of course the urgency is going to increase the longer it sits there and burns, they just saw the same thing happen with the towers!

Why should the urgency and concern for WTC7 increase approaching 7 hours after the initial damage and fire event, happening to coincide with the collapse?  Why not at 1-2 hours, as had just happened with the towers?  No, nothing about this is natural, based on a worry or guess – it all leans toward a pre-planned action about to take place.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

A plan to demolish the building at some unspecified future data because if it stood, it would be too damaged to repair?  Or a plan to demolish it that day?

Demolished when?

Well…

“… how soon?... And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.”

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

'We're going to have to bring it down' sounds like the firefighters were either involved in demolishing it or knew that it would have to be demolished at some future time after the fires burned out; "about to blow up" implies that they thought it was going to get demolished soon, like if the terrorists had also planted demolitions there or something.  Are you arguing that they were saying it's about to blow up because they had some indication it was going to be demolished very soon?

Hmmm… who is “We’re”?  The FDNY?  I don’t think so.  Perhaps a reference to the total responders and agencies on scene involved in the loop that day.

Yes I agree, the who mention of, “about to blow up” does imply some had indication or reason to suspect WTC7 was to be demolished very soon.  The only other explanation is to once again go the route of ‘they didn’t mean what they said’… and I don’t really like altering words so boldly to fit a preconceived stance.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

When was there time to set up this demolition?  I must be overlooking something in your theory of what exactly is going on here, I don't get it.

Exactly - when was there time?  There wasn’t.  The demolition was already set.  This is one reason those responsible would not want to simply go with the story the building was taken down for safety reasons – the speed of the work would raise further suspicions.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I think the whole plot is a little bizarre.  

1)  Destroying WTC7 increases the risk for very little benefit.  Unless you have evidence of the control center being located there.
2)  The intent was to demolish WTC7 at the same time as the tower collapse so it can be concealed in the dust, otherwise they take the risk of WTC7 not sustaining damage and thereby have either no explanation of why it does fall down later when they demolish it or run the risk of the demolition setup is discovered if they don't demolish it.  WTC7 is damaged but it screws up the demolition placement and the demolition does not happen; they apparently hadn't thought of this possibility or thought it would be worth the risk of demolitions being exposed to building occupants/firefighters.  Oh yea, I can't use this though because thermite technology has progressed in unknown ways since the 1930s so that no one would notice the demolitions even if spotted and that they wouldn't ignite from fire and damage.
3) Someone goes into the building in the afternoon and fixes whatever the demolition problem was and exits.  Apparently our advisors also knew pretty much exactly how long this would take to do so that he can make a miraculous 5 hour pretty much on the money prediction.
4) Silverstein discusses with his insurance company the need for demolition.  CTs think this means imminent demolition I think, instead of at a future date because the building is a total loss as-is.  This is just a normal, understandable conversation if it's in the future, or we have yet another dolt the dossier check failed to detect if it's tipping off that there are demolitions already in the buildling.
5) Silverstein discusses pulling it with the FDNY.  This could mean to pull the firefighters.  Apparently they literally pulled WTC6 down with cables to demolish it, so it could mean that also.  Or yes, it could mean that the firefighters were in on the plot and knew demolitions were planted?  

Again not sure your full theory here, but it seems based on all 'could be's.

1) There was the OEM ‘bunker’.
2) There was no risk had WTC7 not sustained damage – the demolition would then have taken place with collapse of WTC1.  There was contingency planning for initial failure of the WTC7 demolition – the advisor(s) acting to keep the FDNY away from the scene.
3) I’m not sure they ever got to exit.  And yes again, because it is easier to predict timing of a planned event than an “extraordinary” event that has never occurred before.
4) Yes perhaps Silverstein was setting the scene for the collapse to appear like a legitimate demolition.  Though I just had a thought… how does the reporter know Silverstein was discussing the demolition with his insurers?  Was the call on loudspeaker?  That could have been anyone Silverstein was talking to.
5) I’m not sure Silverstein was talking to the FDNY at all when he said, “maybe the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it’”.  He says he received a call from the fire department commander, and then Silverstein made his comment… to who?  To the fire department commander, his insurers, advisors in the room, someone on another line?  It is not entirely clear.  What is clear is that “it” fits better to an object than crew of firefighters and, “And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse”, links the decision directly to the event.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Huh? I'm really confused, maybe it's just getting late, define straight-out please what you think the significance of this is. Democrat John Kerry is not in on the neocon plot nor has any knowledge that there was a plot. If he's just saying that he thinks that they actually installed demolitions in WTC7 before 5 o'clock but after the attacks (is that possible?), how did this not get picked up in any interviews, and more importantly, why conceal it? The only thing that needs concealing is if there were demolitions in the building already before the attack; no one would be surprised, except possibly CTs, if the story was that they purposely put demolitions into the building to control the demolition so they could access the tower's debris more readily and safely. Why hide this? I must be missing something obvious.

As already discussed, the admittance of demolition raises further questions such as how speed of the setup were possible and regarding nature of the twin tower collapses.  It’s better for those responsible to promote the story of a fire based collapse.  Though it appears Kerry, with more high-ranking contacts than most, has come across information of the WTC7 demolition, that even some firefighters and reporters on scene knew had been planned.

Liquid Gardens, on 27 August 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I believe all the firefighters made it out, but one person may have been killed in WTC7?

Yes, Secret Service agent Craig Miller.  Did I already mention on this thread that NIST determined the WTC7 collapse initiated (at least the maximum column deflection during the initial failure) at exactly the floor occupied by the Secret Service?  I know we just mentioned above that those responsible would be required to re-enter the building to reconfigure the demolition.  Any dots connecting?  Secret Service… coinciding with location of collapse… agent found in the rubble…

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 28 August 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

By the way, good job of avoiding the core points, yet again, with this little dismissal.  Dodge and weave.  

Understanding that we are not dealing with "floors" but a continuous structure is central to the point.

You never responded to my complaint regarding your use of "floors" (essentially an outdated 'pancake' collapse theory) in the previous thread linked and you have not responded to it now, which puts us at an impasse.

Nice tactic though - accuse others of what you do yourself.

Dodge and weave booNy, dodge and weave.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Your reference to "speed of setup", if I understand you correctly, is the smoking gun IMO.  Maybe I misunderstand, but there seems to be some manner of suggestion that Silverstein decided to pull the building rather in a hurry, in a matter of hours if I understand what they're saying.

The building could not have been rigged in a matter of hours?  Or am I wrong on this?  I thought it would take days or weeks to prepare a building like that "to be pulled?"

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 28 August 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Q

Your reference to "speed of setup", if I understand you correctly, is the smoking gun IMO.  Maybe I misunderstand, but there seems to be some manner of suggestion that Silverstein decided to pull the building rather in a hurry, in a matter of hours if I understand what they're saying.

Are we still at this again?

Have you read the entire quote the "pull" fiasco came from?

Who was Silverstein talking to?  What reference was he using the "pull" word from?

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

It bothers me to see CT's take the words PULL IT completely out of context.

What is common sense (yes BR COMMON SENSE) telling you when he said 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it?

1.  We had a terrible loss of life, maybe the best thing to do is demo the building while rescue operations are still underway?

or

2.  We had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the resuce operation?

Silverstein was worried about further loss of life as seen in his first remark.  Why in the world would he give an order to kill more lives?

Babe Ruth, on 28 August 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

The building could not have been rigged in a matter of hours?  Or am I wrong on this?  I thought it would take days or weeks to prepare a building like that "to be pulled?"

Pulled....show me an example where the word "pull" was used to demo a building......

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 28 August 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Dodge and weave booNy, dodge and weave.

When we ask the 9/11 truthers for real evidence that explosives were used, their dance routine consist of dodge and weave, dodge and weave. After all, it has been over 10 years since the 9/11 attacks and still, no evidence of explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 August 2012 - 11:11 PM.