The radio talkshow host says Jennings saw bodies in the lobby, but was instructed not to look at them. I propose he saw remnants of triage bodies who were transported to WTC 7, from WTC 1, prior to the collapse of WTC 1. The lobby was caved in, and he saw the remains. Some rescuers told him to disregard them and get out, probably. He was probably instructed to get himself, and those with him out- and save themselves.

Again, see:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive..._2004-05-18.htm

"An example of OEM's role on 9/11 was when EMS began setting up a triage area for the injured in the north lobby of the tower. Working with EMS, we determined that we should move that triage area from the North Tower lobby into the lobby of 7 World Trade Center, the building OEM was located in directly across the street. It was important to keep the tower lobby clear for fire and rescue operations and for civilian evacuation, and at the same time to locate the triage where it would be most accessible for ambulances to respond in and out. The operation in the North Tower was professional, controlled and organized. While it was a horrific event, at this point it was still primarily a high-rise fire situation.

The Fire Department was clearly in command of the fire fighting, rescue and building evacuation. The Police Department was directing the evacuation of civilians from the World Trade Center area, securing both the perimeter of the World Trade Center and the rest of the City. And in addition to the evacuation of the World Trade Center complex itself, the Police Department had begun evacuating the tens of thousands of people working in surrounding buildings and living in the area. When I subsequently viewed photos of the mass departure across the Hudson River to New Jersey it truly looked like the evacuation of Dunkirk.

When the second plane hit the South Tower, we felt an explosion in the North Tower, but at first we did not know what it was. I was immediately notified over the radio by the EOC what had happened. Almost instantly after the South Tower had been hit, I had OEM request air support from the state emergency management agency for Air National Guard, and through the Pentagon, who we have worked closely with. It was at that time that the EOC informed me that that there were still planes unaccounted for and that additional planes may be heading for New York. I relayed that information immediately to the fire incident commanders in the lobby of number one. At the same time, OEM evacuated the EOC. The rest of 7 World Trade Center had been evacuated earlier, but after the report of a possible third plane, we had to get our people out of that building.

I had recently then joined the mayor, Police Commissioner and members of the mayor's senior staff out of the North Tower in the temporary police headquarters at 75 Barclay Street. It was while we were at that location that the North Tower collapsed, and I could hardly imagine the thousands of people we had lost. We left Barclay Street and walked north. As we walked, the North Tower collapsed. There are almost no words to describe the feeling at that moment. What had been the largest rescue operation in history was forced to multiply. There were two massive building collapses, raging fires under the wreckage in both the Towers and in surrounding buildings, and potentially thousands of people missing, injured or dead."

More on the evacuation of WTC 7. I say Jennings and the others were probably late on the scene, and subsequently caught up in the collapse of WTC 2 (at 9:59 a.m.) during their decent in the stairwell.

See:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

OEM Response-

After the South Tower was hit, OEM senior leadership decided to remain in its "bunker" and continue conducting operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7 WTC. At approximately 9:30, a senior OEM official ordered the evacuation of the facility, after a Secret Service agent in 7 WTC advised him that additional commercial planes were not accounted for. Prior to its evacuation, no outside agency liaisons had reached OEM. OEM field responders were stationed in each tower's lobby, at the FDNY overall command post, and, at least for some period of time, at the NYPD command post at Church and Vesey.

Summary-

The emergency response effort escalated with the crash of United 175 into the South Tower. With that escalation, communications as well as command and control became increasingly critical and increasingly difficult. First responders assisted thousands of civilians in evacuating the towers, even as incident commanders from responding agencies lacked knowledge of what other agencies and, in some cases, their own responders were doing.

From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.

Well, I see both foreground smoke and smoke coming from the building, and you can see the latter looking much the same in the other pictures taken from different angles that don't have the foreground smoke. Lots of smoke coming from the building implying big fires inside. It's a big building, a large fire can exist without being visible in the windows.

Interesting, as Jennings statement was used as the starting point for the other long thread:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...c=97662&hl=
That version didn't mention him noticing that the towers were standing, and he still doesn't say when he became aware of the collapses, which would surely have been noticable from the next building. Here's a link which mentions how Jennings disagrees with other accounts:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....arry_jennings_1
The first version I saw of this link definitely linked his explosion to WTC1, no doubt he has spread his story about enough for the change to the more ambiguous current version.
I was certainly the first person on the other thread to suggest that Jennings' "explosion" was the collapse of WTC1, based on the fact that if he was correct, he had to fit an awful lot of activity into a short time. All very similar to the Mineta situation, and thanks to merril for the extra information.

The significant point is that you don't wan't to give debris from the top of the building time to fall and damage the set-up for lower parts of the building. This is why you still haven't found a single CD that resembles this aspect of WTC7.

The final few seconds of a collapse that lasts at least twice as long. Why do conspiracists always cut the penthouse collapse out of their "look how it resembles a CD" video clips? If you count the fires, it's only the final few seconds of a process that lasts for hours.

Large fires and considerable damage:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

You call it a feeble argument because you can't come up with a plausible scenario for prepping any of the buildings.

Let me get this right, you are claiming that all the fire service witnesses that claimed that WTC7 was going to collapse (see link above) were part of the conspiracy?

You wouldn't know whether Gilsanz was right or wrong because you do not have the expertise to do so. As for "not independent", is that another of your jokes? Any engineer who actually studies the collapses can be safely ignored? The less a person knows about it, the more their opinion counts?
As to NIST saying no steel was recovered from WTC7, I presume they mean none was recovered by them. The earlier FEMA team recovered WTC7 steel, see their Report 403:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

What are you on about? No one these days is going to try a physical model of such a complex and poorly defined problem, because computational models are cheaper and just as reliable. In view of the shortage of data on what happened inside WTC7 during the fire, a plausible computer simulation like Gilsanz' is the best anyone is going to get. There are too many unknowns to know if he got it exactly right, but his match for the penthouse collapse certainly suggests he is on the right track. A plausible explanation that doesn't involve CD is available, it fits the evidence, so why invoke CD?

What makes you think you have substantiated your theory? Conspiracists can't even decide if it was high explosive or thermite. High explosives seem to be favourite when you are on the "looks like a CD" tack, but thermite has to be invoked to explain things like the lack of any explosive noises immediately prior to the collapse. Thermite in turn brings up problems with the size of a device needed to cut a column, etc, etc, covered at length on the other thread. You don't even have a plausible reason for a CD. How would the alleged perpetrators know that the building would be damaged and catch fire? What if it hadn't? On the other hand, what if it had collapsed immediately leaving the remains of a CD set-up for any fireman to stumble over? (Of course, if you believe all the firemen were in on it...)

Hi Magikman. There is an awful lot I could comment, though suffice to say, whilst respecting that you are the mod here, I do not understand the reasoning for anything you just said. To clarify, when you say “move on” or “stop commenting”, I am sure you are not requiring me to drop the Mineta subject altogether and what you are referring to is my current track with ifisurvive. I can do that.

ifisurvive, sorry if I upset you but the points I am making and the questions I am asking are more than reasonable. I name checked you in the first place as I knew you would be someone able to show the ‘official’ position on Mineta’s testimony and you have done that very well.

I have demonstrated that the 9/11 Commission report timeline on Cheney cannot realistically be upheld when faced with Mineta’ s testimony.

I'm certainly not one to believe the US Government is honest, but I think what is basically the official story is the closest we'll ever get to the truth. I don't believe for a minute a government headed by George W. Bush could pull off the type of conspiracy that would have been required to do what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists allege, to be honest. I personally wouldn't follow that guy on a camping trip through my back yard.

That being said, I think Occam's Razor has to be applied here somewhat. What seems more reasonable? That terrorists crashed planes into a building, causing it to eventually collapse? Or that sometime around 9/11 charged explosives were planted throughout the buildings and then activated from afar...or whatever the theory is now.

My personal belief is that people find it very difficult to believe that something relatively simple can be so easily pulled on the world's superpower. From the JFK Assassination through 9/11...people have a NEED to believe there has to be more to it. That it must have been a far reaching conspiracy involving dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people. I know it can be hard to fathom, but yes....sometimes things really are as simple as they seem. Sometimes the United States really is "caught with their pants down."

Besides, for a government who can't even seem to deliver the mail correctly, it's hard to believe they could pull this off.

That depends on what you consider to be a "large" fire. All of the video and photo evidence clearly supports the argument that there is no large fire in WTC 7 at any time. Again - that is all of the video/photo evidence.

None of the videos show evidence of a large fire. Not a single photo shows evidence of a large fire.

Watch the video clip - much of the smoke blows across the south face of the building. It's not billowing out of the windows. There are at least 10-15 south face windows which become visible at some point during the video - NOT ONE of these windows is billowing smoke, and NOT ONE fire can be seen inside the building (behind these windows).

Another problem with your "large fire" argument - the smoke is only along the south face. Since when does a fire restrict itself to a single wall of a building? A fire doesn't stop when it reaches a corner!!


We know (and accept) for a fact that there is lots of smoke along the south face of WTC 7.

But you take just that one fact and run with it. You conclude that "lots of smoke" implies that there are "big fires inside" WTC 7. You ignore all the other known facts, because they contradict your argument...

Fact - there is NO video/photo evidence for ANY fire along the south face, period, let alone any "big" fires.

Fact - none of the windows which can be seen past the smoke show any fires.

Fact - none of these windows have smoke coming out of them.

Fact - there is clear video evidence that the smoke along the south face of WTC 7 originates from outside the building.

Fact - the smoke is only in front of one side of WTC 7 (south face). This further confirms that the smoke does not originate from inside the building, because fires/smoke obviously do not limit their movement within an exact boundary - such as WTC 7's south face.

It's time to accept that all the facts support my argument, don't you think?

Your argument is wrong. The debris from the top of the 'mini' tower had plenty of time to "fall and damage the set-up for the lower parts of the building". The upper structure collapsed before the lower structure had collapsed, which resulted in debris falling down on the (mostly) still-intact lower structure. But obviously, the debris did not damage the set-up for the lower parts of the building, since the entire CD went off as planned.

That proves an upper structure (penthouse, etc.) can be demolished before the lower structure, without any concern that the falling debris will damage the set-up for the rest of the CD.

There was enough time in both cases for the upper debris to fall onto the lower structure.



Are you serious? You're actually claiming that the collapse was "a process" that lasted "for hours"?

So tell me - at what point do you think the collapse initiated? When the fires started?

WTC 7 was 100% structurally intact until the penthouse collapsed. At that point, WTC 7 was still about 99% structurally intact. A few seconds later, the 99% structurally intact building suddenly and totally collapsed, in ~7 seconds.

Don't you get it?



Sure. Ignore all the videos and photos which prove otherwise, and just take their word for it. And if they said a gigantic pink elephant flew over WTC 7, you'd believe that too?

You blindly accept anything that supports your argument, and dismiss everything else. Don't let the facts and evidence get in the way of your beliefs, of course.



There is already enough solid evidence to prove the buildings were CD's, so your argument is utterly irrelevant. You need to get past it.



No. They were told to get back because the building was about to come down. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how somebody would 'know' a perfectly intact building was about to completely collapse to the ground!



You're right. I didn't know the fires melted the steel. Good thing we had your experts around to tell all of us 'non-experts' about that...er...'fact'!!



No. The opinions that count most to you are from the "experts" who work for FEMA and NIST. And he's one of them.

That's hardly independent, is it?



No. On the first page of their finl report, NIST states that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" - period. Read it for yourself...

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

The FEMA report cites a sample, which they only say "appeared to be from WTC 7".

It seems NIST didn't consider it a confirmed sample from WTC 7.

So again - why does your "expert" still claim that they recovered WTC 7 steel?

WTC 7 - East side of building



WTC 7 - North side




Those look like fairly large fires to me... granted, the building isn't fully involved, but still fairly large fires nonetheless. And who can say what the conditions inside the building on those floors were like with any degree of certainty?

I'd say these two pics - easily found on the Net - clearly discredit your quoted assertion above.


Pot... Kettle... Black... sound familiar at all?


Yet, conveniently enough, not one stitch of evidence whatsoever to indicate how it was set up, who did it, or anything other than circumstantial evidence and misinterpretation to provide any kind of "backing" for the CD story.


If you read a little further than just the first page you'll find this statement on page 'XXV"

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

which would probably explain why FEMA said that the samples they tested "appeared to be" from WTC 7.

Further into the document, this can be found on page 26

"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7. However, the columns were fabricated from conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steel that complied with ASTM International specification."


Again, if you actually read more than just the cover page to that section of the report, you'd notice that on page 3 it says

"The volunteers searched through unsorted piles of steel and other debris for pieces from the WTC buildings, spcifically searching for( McAllister 2002):

• Badly burned pieces from WTC 7

"

So while they could not positively, unambiguously identify the steel / debris they were testing as being from WTC 7, chances are fairly high that some of the unidentified, yet tested samples did come from WTC 7.

In the appendices where they list all of the samples that were recovered for examination and testing, less than half have been positively identified as coming from one particular building.


Cz

Because, unlike the "fire and damage" theories, a CD is a plausible explanation, and it does fit the evidence. All of the evidence. Gilsanz' theory is just like the other "fire/damage" theories - it cannot account for most of the evidence, and certainly not all of the evidence. And it cannot be demonstrated/replicated.

A CD can and does account for all of the evidence, and has been demonstrated/replicated hundreds of times.

Look at some of the evidence - molten metal, rapid-fire "squibs", free-fall (resistance-free) collapse, explosions and damage before the towers collapsed. None of this can be accounted for by a "fire/damage" theory. Only a CD can account for these phenomena.

As for being "too complex", or "too many unknowns" - sorry, but that doesn't cut it. It's not a logistical problem - the resources are certainly available to create physical models to try and replicate the event(s).

No, the only reason physical models have not been (and never will be) created is because they know exactly what would (or would not) happen - they would completely fail.

The models would crush their theory. It would show, beyond any doubt, that the "fire/damage" theory is not probable, possible, or plausible.

Why do you think NIST/FEMA did not even try to explain the actual collapses of WTC 1 and 2? Why do you think they still haven't come up with a final report for WTC 7, almost 7 years after the event?

Fire/damage do not cause steel-framed highrises to collapse like a house of cards. It utterly defies the laws of physics.



A CD can be done with any number of variables. Type(s) of explosives used, amount used or required, who did it, how/when/why they did it, etc. - those details are simply not relevant to the issue right now.

Those things are uncovered and accounted for later on - through a fully independent investigation. You keep on trying to put the cart before the horse.

You don't seem to realize what we're dealing with here. 9/11 was mass murder. The overwhelming evidence points to elements within our own government (and probably some foreign governments) as the prime suspects. Not bin Laden and his band of diabolical henchmen.

And that makes it extremely difficult for "We The People" to deal with. If we commit a crime, then we have to answer to the 'Almighty Judge'. But if the 'Almighty Judge' commits a crime, then who does he have to answer to? Nobody, of course. He controls everything. He commits the crime, pretends to investigate the crime, covers up the crime, and finds someone to pin the crime on.

The controlled media keeps selling the lie to the public. Anyone who dares doubt the 'Almighty Judge' is routinely scorned and ridiculed by the media whores.

I'd say those two pics clearly discredit your assertion of what large fires are.

A few windows with brief, intermittent fires on a couple of floors are hardly what would be considered "large fires" by any logical, reasonable definition.

Perhaps this could be described as a large fire if it was in a two-story house, or even in a small apartment building. But not in a massive 47 story steel-framed highrise. It doesn't even cover 1% of the area!

At least you were able to realize the "fully involved" claim isn't substantiated.

But those are far from "large fires". Or "fairly large fires".

Have you considered that most of the smoke came from the south side because the south side was damaged, so the smoke could find its way out there. As Czero 101 has already posted, there is plenty of evidence of fires.

Fact - none of the above contradicts the possibility of fires elsewhere in the building producing smoke which exits through the damaged south side. The extenal sources of smoke appear to me to be in addition to the smoke from the building, not instead of it.

Fact - many of the firefighters present reported large fires.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires

So what you're saying essentially is, that it is not important HOW it was done, or WHY it was done, or WHO did it, or WHAT they did it with, or WHEN they set it up, and it's not important that there is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF that it was done the way you interpret the evidence, it was just done that way, end of debate...?

Is that what you're seriously saying...?

What a convenient way to proclaim your viewpoint correct, totally disregard anything that smacks of a differing viewpoint, all the while totally ignoring anything resembling reason, logic or something as trifling as the facts.

To paraphrase Jay Windley:

It must be fun for you to lead a life completely unburdened by reality, Turbs


While you are just totally ignoring the horse... the road.. the city...


Just as anyone who dares have a differing viewpoint than yours, and is as convinced of it as you are of yours, and is willing to hold you to the same standards of burden of proof that you routinely hold everyone else to - except yourself or anyone who agrees with you - is routinely scorned and ridiculed by... well... you...



Cz

If a fire is bigger than me, I'd say its a large fire.


And you somehow have knowledge or evidence that the fires were only limited to the areas in the immediate vicinity of those windows? Fires were actually reported on 9 floors - 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30.


Interesting comment from someone who believes that clandestine teams of super secret agents who completely wired an occupied building with sufficient explosives to bring it down in a controlled fashion while going totally unnoticed by anyone, and leaving not one trace of their presence, using explosives and wirings that also leave not one single solitary speck of proof that they ever existed IS a logical, reasonable definition.


And your theory is not provable. Or anywhere even near plausible.


Cz

Cart...before...horse. Sound familiar?



I really didn't consider it that important to follow up on my assumption, but thanks for confirming it anyway.



Yes. That's why they said the samples "appeared to be" from WTC 7, perhaps?

Although they could just as well be from WTC 1, or WTC 2. Or maybe even from WTC 5 or 6, for that matter.

But that didn't stop your "expert" from claiming that WTC 7 steel was recovered, did it?

I don't know - somehow that doesn't give me a feeling of confidence in the "expert" from FEMA/NIST!!

But I'm sure you're quite fine with that sort of waffling, Czero. You've already bought into many things much worse than that.

All the evidence you have posted so far on this is two stills. I ask for the time delay between penthouse and main collapse and first you say "just after" and now its "plenty of time". Which is it?

The destruction of the building, including the fires, was a process that lasted for hours. The building certainly wasn't "100% structurally intact" during that time, as there is plenty of evidence that it was damaged and expected to fall.

As there are no good videos of the south side that show anything other than smoke billowing from the building, the firefighters reports are certainly relevant. Why should I ignore them? They don't report pink elephants, they report a fire in a damaged building, and as they are firefighters, I believe them. The question should be, why do you blindly dismiss them?

Begging the question. This is the aspect that you are trying to prove, not an argument in favour of it.

And none of them found that suspicious?
This is ridiculous - read the link:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage
They don't say they thought the building was dangerous because they were told to think that, they say:

"Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see."

"He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."

"I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be."
etc

Who is claiming the fires melted the steel?

If you check the other thread, you will see that, based on my own knowledge of engineering, I was proposing a broadly similar WTC7 collapse scenario before Gilsanz published his article, though in general rather than specific terms. I don't have to take expert opinions on trust. However, Gilsanz has studied the building in much greater detail that I am able to do, so I am not surprised that he could identify a key column failure that would produce the observed collapse. All I take his word on is the specifics, I was already happy with the general possibility of an internal collapse preceding the external one.

Quibbling.
Czero 101 s already replied to this.

You haven't shown that any (let alone most) of the smoke is even coming out of the south face of the building yet!

I've already pointed out that all of the windows we can see do NOT show smoke billowing out of them.




Uh, not exactly. He did try to claim the fires were "fairly large", though.



A possibility is not a fact.



That doesn't make the reports factual. It is a fact that all of the photos and videos contradict those reports, however.

On the contrary, all these phenomena can be easily explained in terms of fire and damage, see both this and the earlier thread for the details.
How does a CD account for molten metal? When has a CD been demonstrated in a building that was already damaged and on fire? When has a CD been clandestinely set up in an occupied building?

And you can produce a physical model of a CD in a damaged and burning building?

Easy for you to say that, but it is just the opinion of someone with no expertise in the matter.

NIST explain the collapse initiation. The subsequent collapse was already acknowledged to be inevitable. The NIST WTC7 report is being prepared, but have you considered that the delay was due to a higher priority being put on the report for the towers?
This is a curious idea of the laws of physics that you have. Steel framed buildings certainly do collapse, and I've posted several examples on this thread.

I can't better Czero 101's reply to this.

Of course it was mass murder, who doubts that? The question we are debating is whether there is evidence that the murderers when anyone other than the hijackers and their accomplicies.
You have a curious idea of "overwhelming evidence". I think you mean that the bits of the evidence that you choose to believe point in that direction, provided you ignore all the other bits of evidence that don't.
As this thread and others such as the Apollo hoax and Trieste ones show, you obviously have an impressive talent for arguing that black is white. This is an asset in a politician or a defence lawyer, but in an investigator it leads to the phenomenon of confirmation bias - you can twist absolutely anything into evidence for your hypothesis. Try to see the conflict between the way you nit-pick everything I post and then come up with "those details are simply not relevant to the issue right now" when asked to justify your own view. You have such blatent double standards.

It certinly looks to me as it the smoke is coming from the south side, and I wasn't saying it came from the windows, I said from the damaged areas.

A possibility may not be a fact, but it can refute a claim that something cannot be. Your photos and videos may not support the claims for a large fire, but they don't rule it out, either, because of their limitations - poor coverage of the south side because of the smoke.

As to your dismissal of the reports of dozens of firefighters who were on the spot, see my comments on your confirmation bias in my previous post.

Proposed theory that you claim to be fact, yet has no proof, and because of the nature of your theory, can produce no proof and because there is no proof, you are certain that your unverifiable, unsubstantiated, unbelievable, untestable and ultimately unfalsifiable theory must be true... sound familiar...?


Yes, foolish of me to provide you with facts from the source that YOU provide, when I know full well that you have never let the facts of anything get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.


No, Turbs, you currently hold the record for buying into the most ridiculous ideas ever... tortoise shells on the moon ring any bells for you?



Cz

So I suppose the smoke seen coming from the entire side of the building in the above picture is what? Sticky smoke that's climbing its way up all 47 floors of the building and wafting off in the breeze...?


And I've already proven you wrong, or did you ignore that part of my post, like you ignore anything that counters your arguments...?

See? Lotsa smoke coming out of the windows there along with a buncha fire... neat huh?


So.... a fire that encompasses a large portion of a floor on one side of a building isn't "fairly large" in your estimation...?


Good.. so you agree then that the astoundingly remote possibility of your CD theory being even partially correct DOES NOT make it the FACT you are claiming it to be. Great.. we can move on then, finally.


Well, I've already posted photos showing fires on multiple floors on different sides of the building, just as the reports claim. And there are other photos that show damage to the southwest corner of the building, just as the report says.

So I guess its not really ALL of the photos that in your estimation contradict the reports...

Just the few that fit your theory...

Oh wait... there are no photos of the clandestine demolition crews setting up their magical demolition charges...

So I guess, once again, we see that there is absolutely no proof of your CD theory...



Cz

And Turbs, since you chose to ignore it in my previous post, I'll re-post my question for you here near the top of this page so its easier for you to see.



A lot of us know how much difficulty you apparently have in remembering to answer questions posed to you, especially ones that show the fallacy of your opinions... Maybe you can try to remember to answer the one above...



Cz

It's both, because "just after" was still "plenty of time" for the debris to fall onto the lower structure. The top collapsed at free-fall speed (just like 3 other buildings somehow did on 9/11). The debris fell onto the lower structure within one second.



"Plenty of evidence"? Only for minimal damage. What valid evidence exists that it was "expected to fall"? Btw, I don't consider comments like "Yup, we could tell it was gonna come down any second, yup, uh huh!" as valid evidence.



I don't. I dismiss them based on all the available evidence. The real question is - Why do you blindly accept them?



Wrong. Those are not relevant issues at this point. Again, that's putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps you've seen how a criminal investigation is conducted? And why it's conducted? Investigating the collapses is no different.



I'm sure many of them did.



Oh sure. It was a virtual "Leaning Tower of Pisa"! (sarcasm intended)

Have any photos or videos of WTC 7 "leaning over" that you'd like to show me?



Your "experts" at the time were, remember?



Somehow, all of that doesn't surprise me. Can't put a finger on just why that is, as yet.



No. He did do a nice little dance all around it, though.

So you consider it irrelevant that he makes unfounded claims about collecting WTC 7 steel?

No, that's how you're misinterpreting it.

Obviously those are important issues. But they require an investigation. How in the world do you expect to uncover all those details without a thorough investigation? Ask a bunch of psychics or something?

Try and think about it for a minute. Perhaps it'll sink in.

No, I mean a valid explanation.



A CD which includes thermite, as you well know.

How does the fire account for molten metal? It doesn't, as you well know also.



On 9/11, three times.



See above.

Case closed.

"Within one second" is only time enough for debris to fall a few metres. How is that going to affect the rest of a tall building?
Do you actually have the video those stills came from, or are "just after", "plenty of time" and "within one second" all guesses?

Yeah, it's evidence you don't like, so you ignore it. Try this:
"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

You dismiss them because they don't support your ideas. I accept them because they were the experts on the spot.

An investigation is not conducted by saying "The defendant is proven guilty, perhaps we could examine the evidence later".

... and your opinion should be accepted because...?

See the link above.

Not mine, but some "experts" who expressed opinions before they had any evidence, always dangerous, see your "Leaning Tower of Pisa" comment above.

Just because you have no clue about engineering, doesn't mean that others don't.

Gilsanz says in passing that the effort was made to collect steel from WTC7, though he doesn't use this as evidence for his theory. FEMA analysed a piece they think comes from WTC7, so it must have been collected. Where is Gilsanz making unfounded claims?

As opposed to "all these phenomena you claim as evidence for CD have occurred in other building fires and collapses or can be modelled using standard engineering techniques"?

Long-duration fires in the debris pile, a common phenomenon in building fires, could easily produce molten metal, but no-one has explained why any molten metal from thermite could keep hot so long.

Incidentally, you are still refusing to explain - beyond vague hand-waving - how thermite could be incorporated into a CD.

Begging the question again. You really need to improve your logic skills.

My attention has been brought to this link:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
Can anyone other than turbonium watch these and still think that the smoke isn't coming from the building, or that there are no visible fires on the south side?

Hi Q24, I don't think the points you made or questions you asked were unreasonable per se; I specifically said there were a lot of contradictions on both sides of the argument. Why I repeatedly said that, to me, any debate about Mineta would be pointless was for that very reason - it all depends on your own interpretation of the contradictions on both sides. There are multiple arguments against your view in general and your specific points, just because they are not satifactory to you does not mean others cannot read them, consider them, understand your viewpoint, but ultimately, genuinely, disagree with you.

The only thing that you 'upset' me about was your refusal to accept a difference of opinion. If you read back on my comments about 'muddy the waters' that was my point there. I accept the fact that the link I provided you was not enough to change your opinion and I understand (though, obviously, not agree with) your arguments on why not. That was not what I was bothered about. To me 'muddy the waters' by definition means to try to hide, confuse or cloud 'the truth'. It wasn't good enough for you to state you thought he was wrong, you had to imply that somehow he knew that you were right but chose to cling on to a blind devotion to the 'official story' and try to smear the 'true facts'. You did the same again with me when you accused me of believing in one thing when I had clearly and repeatedly stated the opposite.

Having a strong opinion is fine. Believing, for example, that I am an idiot because I have a different opinion, I am not bothered by. But having such a strong opinion that you cannot accept someone has a different opinion to you is not healthy.

Apologies to Magikman if you feel this has been a continuation of bickering, but I thought this was a useful clarification (on my Mineta statements but also as a general point).

The photographic record for WTC7 is not nearly as complete as that for the twin towers. We don't know specifically when the fire photos were taken. They are vigorous fires and were very likely growing, not being fought at all. But it's obvious in the south side "smoke" photo that the smoke is more than just ground smoke being sucked in the lee of WTC7.
There is photographic evidence of a large chunk of a lower corner of 7 being taken out. There are numerous firefighter reports of a gaping hole in the center south side from street level up many stories.
There is oral testamony from firefighters about the likelyhood of 7 coming down, the damage, the transit data...

...and the evidence of a CD is "it looks like", and "it's never happened before". Yeah, and neither had a 9/11...may strange and unprecedented things, outside the known architectural experience, happened that day. There are real alternatives to a speculative, assumptive CD theory.

It's at this link (Southwark Towers)...

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm



It's another unsubstantiated account.



No, you accept them because they support your ideas. You dismiss all of the photo/video evidence because it doesn't support your ideas.

The accounts themselves are very inconsistent....

"The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower." - Tiernach Cassidy.

"They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily." - FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

You can't accept completely incompatible accounts. But that's exactly what you're trying to do.

We know at least one of the accounts is wrong - maybe both of them.

So which of these accounts do you "accept", flyingswan?



?? Are you incapable of understanding my argument?

One more time - We need an investigation FIRST, so we CAN examine all the evidence, and find out who was involved, etc.

Do you think this can be done WITHOUT an investigation?

They are indeed your "experts" - structural engineers.

As for WTC 7 "leaning", your link shows nothing to support that claim.



Where does he say the effort was made to collect steel from WTC7?

He claims WTC 7 steel was collected. That is an unfounded claim.

Can you cite any previous cases where molten metal was found?

As I see it, the far side of the tower falls slightly ahead of the near side and takes the penthouse with it. I can't see the penthouse moving first as you claim.

Let's see. An unnamed fireman quoted as walking around inside the building "blows away" the evidence from all the other firemen present, but a quote from a named fireman in Firehouse magazine is an "unsubstantiated account". Your confirmation bias is showing again.

Did you actually look at that new link?
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
Plenty of video evidence there to support the firefighter accounts and refute your "small fire" claim.

...and why do you think that both quotes refer to the same time period? Or are you trying to claim that the fire locations never changed in six hours?

If we need another investigation, why have you already come to the conclusion that it was CD? Are you admitting that you don't have conclusive evidence? Face it, there is no actual evidence of a CD, all you have is a resemblance in the way the final collapse ended, and that resemblance can be explained without invoking CD. Unless the conspiracist side can actually find a "smoking gun" to convince enough people to support them, they will have to finance their investigation themselves.

How many times do you want me to say they were stupid to theorise in advance of the evidence?

You were making claims without evidence, just as those structural engineers were.
You claimed there was no evidence for WTC7 being about to collapse, I provide a page of comments from firefighters, you said their opinions weren't worth anything and made the "Leaning Tower" comment, I provided evidence that a transit instrument had been used on WTC7 and had detected a bulging wall. It needs a pretty strong confirmation bias to reject all that evidence just because it conflicts with your opinion.

Page 1 of his article:
"The effort began with the collection of structural pieces, existing plans, eyewitness accounts...". That is his only mention of collecting steel, he doesn't say anything about the problem of identifying the pieces or whether the pieces collected were ever conclusively proved to come from WTC7 or just thought to probably come from there. The only unfounded claim I see is your claiming he said something he didn't.

Edit for late notice of typo.

Plenty of accounts of fires in most local papers, where do you live? Church bells melting are a favourite.

what a joke-- are you trying to compare bronze with steel??

barry jennings,molten steel,video evidence of squibs,satelite imagery of hot spots and the bbc reporting its collapse before it was imploded is all evidence you cannot refute end of debate period

size is irrelavent when the physics of metalurgy and common sense are applied!

this fire was obviously still not enought to breach the integrity of the steel involved yet it was much hotter for much longer-- your reason is grossly flawed beyond the point of logic and into the realm of ulterior motive

observe....it didnt collapse

9/11 TRUTH NOW

What steel? None of the molten metal reports were ever confirmed as steel as far as I know.

I can and have refuted all these claims, why don't you read a thread before you post to it?

Barry Jennings is very likely mistaken as to the time that WTC1 fell and mistook debris falling on WTC7 for an explosion.
No confirmed molten steel, and no explanation from the conspiracy side of how mol