Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

I’m going to leave out some of your post on WTC7 where I think we have both made our cases. For example, the subject of “creaking” - I’d only be repeating myself and have new information and lines of argument I'd like to introduce in response to your questions. I’ve also re-ordered some quotes to make the post flow better…

These actions do not necessarily suggest a 'minor concern' as you are stating what firefighters' jobs are; they have a habit of trying to help people get out of burning buildings alive, sometimes even when there is a non-minor concern that they are risking their lives. You list a bunch of actions they took, but when did they take them?

The point, and I think you miss this continually, is that the firefighter level of concern and actions altered at each step after external advice – the firefighters did not abandon WTC7 of their own accord but because that is what they were influenced to do.

You don't have evidence that the sole suspicion that the building would come down came from this advisor. If you think the concern was truly non-existent, then why is Hayden even discussing the possibility of collapse with the advisors?

We have evidence the advisor(s) influenced the FDNY to believe WTC7 would collapse. We have no evidence the FDNY made independent judgement the building would collapse. I’m accepting the limit of what’s there on record.

Hayden was influenced to suspect a collapse even prior to his discussion with the “on the money” advisor. It flows from the account of Michael Currid that we have seen. An OEM advisor scared the FDNY out of the building at around 11:30am with the warning there was a serious danger of collapse. When Hayden arrived on scene, he encountered the withdrawing firefighters. From the NIST report: -

"When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse."

So we see that initial warning from the OEM advisor affected the firefighters on scene and, indirectly, Hayden upon his arrival. That is reason Hayden discussed the possibility of collapse with the advisor. It is the advisor(s) that wanted the FDNY away from the building.

I think the collapse of the towers was a surprise as that whole morning was, and being cautious provides a far more reasonable, and to me likely, explanation than 'foreknowledge'. Did these advisors predict the towers' collapse?

Funny you should mention that. It’s something I’ve nearly raised a couple of times but didn’t want to distract from the WTC7 foreknowledge.

First, it is correct the collapse of the twin towers was a surprise. Even Bazant stated, “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001 came as the greatest surprise…” To the trained and experienced FDNY, the global collapse of the towers obviously came as a surprise also. Keep this at the forefront of your mind.

So why do we have another advisor on scene (or was it the same advisor as for WTC7? Anonymous, once again), confidently predicting the tower collapses and seeking to influence the FDNY beforehand? And why didn't the official investigation seek out these clairvoyants?

Here is the account of John Perruggia from the NYT oral histories: -

"Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."

Contrast the following two statements from above, and you see why I’m asking questions: -

  • “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center … came as the greatest surprise…”
  • “Some engineer type person … very confident … the building is in danger of imminent collapse.”

And the response of the FDNY Chief of Operations when the message of “engineer type person” reached him?

"who the **** told you that?"

"who would tell you something like that?"

"who are we getting these reports from?

Understandable shock, disdain and confusion.

So to clarify, this is the twin tower situation: -

  • Not one of the FDNY personnel expected collapse.
  • All of the responders displayed some surprise at the information.
  • The information was not their own deduction but was passed up the chain of command.
  • This foreknowledge of collapse was not based on firefighter observation.
  • The foreknowledge originated from an anonymous advisor.

If it happened this way for the towers, then why not again for WTC7? Except this time of course, the FDNY took the advisor(s) warning more seriously.

This looks far more benign to me in context, and note the repeated use of the word 'advice' and not 'insistence'.

It was still not that the advice was founded in engineering rationale, see above, more that the WTC7 advice was never going to be disregarded, and nor should it have been, later in the day after the tower collapses.

Okay, unless I'm missing something, this whole 'pre-emptive' media reports 'argument' is pretty weak. You think the idea that the hypothesis that this is foreknowledge is more likely than the case that the media has made yet another mistake which it does all the time? There's a running gag concerning whether the actor Abe Vigoda is alive or dead, after he was twice mistakenly referred to as deceased by the media; I've seen death reports periodically of other celebs that are later retracted. The media is incentivized to be the first with 'breaking news!', so of course they make mistakes. And this is surprising during the most chaotic event and probably most media-covered event? Worse, how does the idea of including in our proposed plot the order that the media be notified by our conspirators that WTC7 has collapsed fit in to anything? Why would they take it upon themselves to do this and not just let the building collapse and the media report on it? Yet another bonehead conspirator who isn't waiting for the building to collapse before notifying the media; all he had to do was look at a television.

I think the pre-emptive media reports are further evidence of the rising foreknowledge on scene shortly before the building went down – so confident that it misled reporters to believe the event had already occurred. And it is not only the incorrect report that is interesting. The expectation was so certain it led CNN to change their caption from the speculative, "may collapse" to the foreboding, "on verge of collapse"... just 15 minutes prior the actual collapse. There was no change in the building condition at that time. Yet reporters accurately predicted the “extraordinary” first time ever event to occur 15 minutes beforehand? It appears that reporters picked up on the confidence on scene which some possessed.

That may be because 'confident foreknowledge' may not be an accurate term for what went on, and of course presumes exactly what I'm disputing.

  • “pretty much right on the money”
  • “pretty sure”
  • “on verge of collapse”
  • “imminent”
  • adamant about 7 coming down”
  • “7 was definitely going to collapse”
  • “it’ll be coming down soon"
  • “building is about to blow up”

What other word do I need to find to demonstrate ‘confident foreknowledge’?

You are making this impossible to prove because you won’t accept what’s there.

But a bulge is evidence of structural deformation. Why do you think that our firefighters, and advisors who I don't think are actually on the scene, believe that they themselves have all the data they need to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's no chance of a collapse and more firefighter deaths?

The firefighters did not have all of the data – along with the advisor(s) warnings, that is why a concern of collapse existed. Why do you think firefighters had the data to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's a [insert “adamant”/”imminent”/”definite”] collapse coming?

You obviously do not know that the firefighters would not have halted operations at WTC7 in a different reality.

Independently the FDNY certainly would not have halted firefighting operations when they did – see account of Michael Currid - it was the advisor warning that prompted the initial evacuation.

Of course there's going to be urgency at even the suggestion of an imminent collapse, it's their lives on the line. This part of your analysis seems to rely on an assemblage of messages being passed from person to person (I'm sure you are aware of the degradation of the message as it is passed on, a la, the Telephone Game (also called 'chinese whispers' I guess)) and that the parties involved have enough data to know that it won't collapse. And for no reason that I can think of ignores the most pertinent context of what had actually happened, the impact of those events on everyone's decision-making processes, the chaos and fear and confusion involved, and what was at stake for those at the scene.

No, the urgency increased significantly drawing nearer to the collapse time – the appearance is that some on scene knew the collapse was due. You say, of course there’s going to be urgency? Though many firefighters displayed the opposite upon receipt of the warning: oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? And an increasing urgency that reaches its crescendo shortly before the collapse? This isn’t making sense in context of an unpredictable event, it’s making sense in context of a pre-planned event.

I'm really confused on these; the quotes indicate a plan to intentionally bring the building down that the firefighters knew about at the time? I'm having trouble fitting that data point in, you're not suggesting FDNY was in on the demolition?

Yes some firefighters clearly knew there was a plan in the works. This has already been confirmed through the news article which described Silverstein seeking authorisation for demolition of WTC7 on the morning: "Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."

I am suggesting that some firefighters had reason to believe the building was going to be demolished. It seems that way (we’re gonna have to bring it down”/There's a building, about to blow up”) doesn’t it?

This plan and foreknowledge also frame Silverstein’s “pull it” comment in a whole new light. I’ve been avoiding that topic – it’s been gone over a thousand times - though to me the language used, logic and surrounding circumstances indicate that “it” refers to the building.

All the official story later had to do, is convince the firefighters and public that fire beat the demolition to it.

You see I don’t think the powers that be were intent on selling the official WTC7 story as we now know it, not from the beginning. As discussed, the demolition, the way it went, was ‘Plan B’ – it would seem better for them had WTC7 come down at the same time as the north tower. I think the plan was to remain tight-lipped and see how the situation panned out with the media, emergency departments on scene and public – this is why there was no ‘official story’ for so long. When it became clear the demolition could be hidden under guise of a fire based collapse, that is what the powers that be went with – there were less questions to answer that way, not to mention limiting further suspicion of the tower demolitions. But then Silverstein became too publicly candid of his experience. That does make me wonder how close Silverstein was to the operation planners – though I’ve said before he was more a pawn to smooth the aftermath.

Here’s another piece of information I’ve not mentioned on this thread yet: -

"I do know that that [WTC7] wall I remember was in danger, and I think that they made that decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion.”

~John Kerry, 2004
U.S.
Presidential candidate

Wherever did Kerry get that idea?

I really think there are more people who know about the WTC7 demolition than any other covered-up area on 9/11 but, either through subversion of the official story or political pressures, are not letting on. It’s a strange one, WTC7, whereby there is potential for a demolition which is not necessarily nefarious but fits with the rest of the official 9/11 story (much like a Flight 93 shootdown). And I have heard from official story adherents who do accept both the WTC7 demolition and Flight 93 shootdown. Though official acceptance of these alternatives would now open a can of worms and stoke conspiracy fires ever higher…

If the public can be so readily deceived in those areas, what else of the official story might not be the whole truth?

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Evidence of Controlled Demolition

[media=]

Nigro, Daniel

"I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

He said the reasons given were that "the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse", "the collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7", "WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels", and "numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them."

Nigro, Daniel,

“The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had

damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between

West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I

ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to

give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away

far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.

We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and

a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed

completely.”

McGlynn, James,

“Just when you thought it was over, you’re walking by this building and you’re hearing

this building creak and fully involved in flames. It’s like, is it coming down next? Sure

enough, about half an hour later it came down.”

Kelty, Eugene,

“And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I

had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building,

which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that

if 7 World Trade Center came down, what would happen to this building? We went in

there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I

went in the back to see what was happening.

The fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound

to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because

there was no water in the area. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’t

know if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in

danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in

the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. …when I was coming back

somewhere around I think it was 5:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 7 World Trade Center came

down.”

Fellini, Frank,

“The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the façade on Vesey Street.

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in thebuilding collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.”

* At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.

–Firefighter Vincent Massa

* Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.

–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

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

________________________________________________________

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

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

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The avenues were covered, because as we see, even when Israeli intelligence were caught celebrating the attack, with an indication of explosives transported in their van and failed lie detector tests, the investigation is swept under the carpet by politics.

Or, an investigation was done to the extent to determine there was no evidence that they were involved in the attacks. We don’t know, I don’t know what the standard protocol is for when allies uncover one another’s spies.

That is right - there were no explosives in the van because they had been transferred into the towers. The sniffer dog sure picked up on the residual scent though. I'm not sure there were two vans, or one still packed with explosives.

And "maybe" sure as heck does not give confidence in the official story.

‘Maybe’ doesn’t give us any reason to detain these ‘agents’ further or doubt the official story either, there’s not enough info. This isn’t really a problem for the official story as the official story doesn’t try to say that these ‘agents’ are evidence of anything, but your theory does, thus ‘maybe’ is an issue for your theory.

I often hear it said that polygraph tests are 95% reliable. I've had another look after your prompt and the scientific community places it at closer to 60%. Still, both sniffer dogs and polygraph tests are more often than not accurate. To disregard both as mistaken is to believe against the odds.

They are slightly more often than not accurate. To say that there is a 40% chance that they are not lying is more than enough variability to doubt the results of a polygraph; I'm sure if you were being charged with something and failed a polygraph you'd offer that same argument.

Ah but "we don't know" is always to my advantage because we should know. In the end I'm the one who would demand a comprehensive investigation of 9/11, it is others defending the lack of answers.

Not quite. ‘We don’t know” is definitely not ‘always’ to your advantage, and I don’t think it even is in the case of our Israelis. The data is missing, have you entertained at all the possibility that these Israelis were not involved in the demolition of WTC? What if there was an investigation done, no evidence was found to link them to any demolition, and they were thus sent home? If that was the case, what more would you demand be done? What more would you want under that scenario, that we as standard policy parade foreign spies from our allies in front of the media and the public and let them be interrogated by local law enforcement and possibly divulge classified information that our own govt may rightly want classified? That is what you think should happen if Israel catches one of our spies?

We don’t even know if there was one van with just explosive residue or if it was packed with explosives, whether there were two vans, a possible 40% false positive rate for dogs which is possibly even greater since there are reports that these guys may have been profiled as ‘Arabs’, and the fact that these guys inexplicably later filed suit for their treatment when they were arrested and detained which is foolish if they were part of the plot as they’re providing ‘us’ with even more time to investigate them and who they really supposedly are. The accounts aren’t even consistent, and based on these sketchy ‘reports’ you’re feeling pretty good that we, meaning the general population, should know the details of the investigation. Is it illegal to either ride around in a vehicle that contains ‘explosive residue’ that only a dog can detect or to celebrate a terrorist attack? What evidence has been found that justifies their detainment, and what is the charge? I think it’s pretty clear that there isn’t enough evidence, with the exception of the questionable case of a van packed with explosives, to charge them with anything.

I can’t speak necessarily for you, but you know there are plenty of CTs for which any additional evidence offered as to their innocence on this is just going to be waved away because it came from the govt. Is there anyone, outside of a handful of CTs, whose word you would accept if they were to further investigate these guys and find that they didn’t have any involvement?

And we’re not talking about whether a further investigation should be done or not, we’re talking about at this point in time whether you have enough evidence for your demolition theory. I’d have to think more about under what conditions I’d think a comprehensive investigation would be warranted, it’s a different question.

It's just that when the WTC buildings are demolished and there is evidence of Israeli intelligence, who would benefit from the attack, having carried explosives at the scene, there's an obvious connection to be made. I stand to lose nothing in demanding a full investigation. That's one awful risk you take in settling to presume their innocence. You do know Israeli intelligence has bombed Western targets on more than one occassion before to be blamed on Arabs and coerce the West into pro-Israeli action? And really, you now want to give them benefit of the doubt? Don't you think that is a little naive, and possibly dangerous?

If the buildings were demolished. There isn’t any evidence that they ‘carried explosives at the scene’, you don’t even know if there were explosives ever in their van and if so, how long ago it was. It’s not just ‘benefit of the doubt’, it’s called ‘presumption of innocence’. Unless you want to Guantanamo these guys.

Thanks for the recent responses too, Q, gotta give me some time to digest them. Ha, I’ve said this a zillion times, but I am going to try narrow how many topics we’re dealing with ongoing, these responses take me a lot of time. Have a good weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were not talking about the range of inputs within variable factors, we were talking about the level of damage severity (which the diagram I provided represents). Whichever of the variables are adjusted, this will still converge at a level of damage, and a specific level of damage must still be met to initiate a collapse. For instance, the two parameters of aircraft mass and aircraft speed, however adjusted, result in only one value of kinetic energy. And that is essentially all the initial inputs are about - kinetic energy of the aircraft vs. resistance of the tower - NIST did not need to simulate hundreds of cases to determine the tipping point where the first overcomes the latter.

Typically, you carefully ignore the parameters which don't give a change in energy: trajectory angle and aircraft attitude. These are the ones that alter the pattern of the damage.

Again, there is no overlap between the severe (collapse) case and observation. The fact NIST admitted the base (non-collapse) case provided better match to the actual damage rules this out. Please refer to the diagram I provided where you will see that the severe case and actual damage never overlap on the damage severity scale.

You are ignoring significant factors here. The tipping point is somewhere between the two cases, and the best fit to the damage is somewhere between the two cases. In your diagram, the size of the error range of the best fit to the damage is your choice and you have arbitrarily chosen to touch one case but not the other, even though for one tower both cases were judged equally good fits. A slightly different chosen error range and the best estimate wouldn't overlap either. You are also ignoring all the uncertainties normally covered by a design safety factor. Even the damage in the "best estimate" represents a considerable reduction in this safety factor, so you cannot claim that there is a valid case for assuming no collapse.

I would not, generally speaking, be opposed to assuming numerous eyewitnesses were mistaken. However, I cannot disregard the photographic evidence of a melted beam and the high temperature steel corrosion FEMA discovered, which corroborate the statements. Look at the steel beam John Gross posed with. Where is the rest of it? If the section corroded away through high temperature liquification of the steel grain boundary, that is going to match just what those eyewitnesses described ('beams dripping molten steel'). Your solution of a steel lollipop stick dipped in molten aluminium (or another low melting point metal) is not best fit to the body of evidence, including the physical and photographic.

The metal is still in a semi-solid state far above the melting temperature of aluminium or lead which rules out those two metals (at least as a single solution). The presence of liquified steel can be explained twofold, 1) through the FEMA discovery 2) that the dripping substance appears near white hot. But I see - you want to believe no matter what that the glowing lump is a composition of materials coated in molten aluminium or lead, which again achieved through taking the photograph in isolation of the body of evidence.

You still have no clue at all about the differences between melting and intergranular corrosion. In the latter process, only the boundaries between the grains of the steel are melted, the grains themselves remain intact. You don't get a pool of molten metal or metal drips, you get a heap of grains. Your picture of what happens is wrong, so your conclusion is also wrong.

BY your own estimate, the metal in the photographs is at too low a temperature to be molten steel, so whatever is melting/dripping must me some other metal. Both aluminium and lead are molten at your estimated temperature, steel is not.

Just for the record, there is another interesting observation in that the main mass of the material held by the digger is not glowing at all. That indicates a focussed energy source/phenomena raised the temperature of the glowing section, rather than the widespread or dispersed effect of a fire.

All it indicates is a temperature gradient, such as occurs between the centre and the outside of something that is cooling. Pull apart a fresh-baked cake and you'll find the centre is a lot hotter than the outside.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't NIST nail it?

The short answer is that the NIST engineers appreciate the probabilities involved with error limits and you don't.

Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828. Poor booNy eventually tied himself in a terrible knot trying to reconcile his own understanding with the official collapse theory, culminating in post #1052 (see green and red text).

Please do, LG, and don't stop at #1052. Q24 repeatedly claims that Bazant ignores Newton's third law, but can't put his finger on just where in the paper Bazant does this (for the simple reason that he doesn't). Q24's problem is that he can't see how "equal and opposite reaction" can bring about differing outcomes for the upper and lower blocks. Boony was quite right to say that the blocks are equally damaged, but this applies only for the initial impact. Beyond the immediate impact event, in both space and time, things are not symmetrical, and there are two factors that cause this. First, the blocks are not symmetric structurally, in that the lower block has its far end fixed to the ground while the upper block has its far end free. Second, after the initial impact, there is a growing debris layer between the blocks which is accelerated by gravity towards the stationary lower block, while there is no differential acceleration between the upper block and this layer.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are talking of lies so big as offering hypotheticals that do not match reality (not only in the NIST example discussed further above, but numerous others). We are talking of lies that circumvent the foundations of established physics such as Newton's third law.

As an admitted non-expert, I'm surprised to see you repeat this Newton's third law violation stuff. You do know there is considerable debate and controversy about that topic, are you really qualified to evaluate the arguments against this? Maybe you are, I don't know.

It’s so blatant anyone can understand. Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828. Poor booNy eventually tied himself in a terrible knot trying to reconcile his own understanding with the official collapse theory, culminating in post #1052 (see green and red text).

That last post is perhaps the best example I have seen on this forum of the quote: "Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." Even though the facts that contradicted Bazant were brought clearly to booNy’s mind, even stated in his own words, he clawed for any explanation to fit two contradicting positions. It’s real and it happens – Orwell described it as “doublethink”.

What a joke... :rolleyes:

Yes LG, please do read through that thread in full. See if you can come up with a way to explain these concepts to Q24. It isn't that complicated, but for some reason Q24 just can't seem to get it.

By the way Q24, I wasn't tied into any kind of knot and I didn't contradict Bazant, as is clearly explained throughout the thread and even after the post which you have wrongly classified as some kind of culmination. Ridiculous.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, an investigation was done to the extent to determine there was no evidence that they were involved in the attacks. We don’t know, I don’t know what the standard protocol is for when allies uncover one another’s spies.

That is not the impression I get from Cannistraro’s statement: -

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in mind that this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue. If somebody says we don't want the Israelis implicated in this - we know that they've been spying the hell out of us, we know that they possibly had information in advance of the attacks, but this would be a political nightmare to deal with."

This suggests: -

  • the investigation was never completed.
  • there was no lack of law enforcement options or intelligence leads.
  • the Israel’s possibly did have connection to the attack.

I’m not sure where your optimism comes from.

‘Maybe’ doesn’t give us any reason to detain these ‘agents’ further or doubt the official story either, there’s not enough info. This isn’t really a problem for the official story as the official story doesn’t try to say that these ‘agents’ are evidence of anything, but your theory does, thus ‘maybe’ is an issue for your theory.

The official story does not decide what is or is not evidence – the reality determines that. Why should it be that when Moussaoui is detained… that is oh so relevant? But when Israeli and Saudi agents are detained in relation to the same event… that is near auto-irrelevant? That is the foundation of propaganda, not truth.

What if there was an investigation done, no evidence was found to link them to any demolition, and they were thus sent home? If that was the case, what more would you demand be done?

Then I’d let it go, given a competent investigation which answered some of the questions we have.

What would you do if an investigation were done, and evidence placing these men in the towers or connecting them to Turner Construction were found? Perhaps even revealing the fact the front company were used to deliver thermite and explosive materials? Wouldn’t you feel awkward in defending them now?

You see who of us is taking the risky position?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, you carefully ignore the parameters which don't give a change in energy: trajectory angle and aircraft attitude. These are the ones that alter the pattern of the damage.

What are you talking about "aircraft attitude"? Are you trying to say "aircraft altitude" (which NIST did not adjust) or perhaps referring to the “failure strain”? It doesn't matter, I’m sure the aircraft trajectory angle and aircraft/building failure strains do determine the pattern of damage, and both also significantly affect the energy imparted to the core structure. To prove the case, NIST still needed to adjust these factors to produce a best match that resulted in collapse.

You are ignoring significant factors here. The tipping point is somewhere between the two cases, and the best fit to the damage is somewhere between the two cases. In your diagram, the size of the error range of the best fit to the damage is your choice and you have arbitrarily chosen to touch one case but not the other, even though for one tower both cases were judged equally good fits.

NIST stated the base case was a better fit for WTC1 but did not specify which case was better fit for WTC2. Fortunately I did the work for them, comparing the simulations to the actual damage myself - as for WTC1 the base case for WTC2 is once again certainly a better fit to the actual damage.

A slightly different chosen error range and the best estimate wouldn't overlap either. You are also ignoring all the uncertainties normally covered by a design safety factor. Even the damage in the "best estimate" represents a considerable reduction in this safety factor, so you cannot claim that there is a valid case for assuming no collapse.

The safety factors are included in NIST's best estimate of the material properties and construction specifications. Of course they are - NIST did not take the steel properties and building design then deduct the safety factors.

The short answer is that the NIST engineers appreciate the probabilities involved with error limits and you don't.

I certainly appreciate that NIST proved in probability the towers should not have collapsed.

I appreciate NIST did not prove the towers could collapse under the conditions on 9/11.

You appreciate it also: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"

~flyingswan

Well of course NIST couldn’t rule out collapse… when the severe case simulation did not produce the collapse witnessed, NIST simply made manual inputs until it did… it hardly gives the impression NIST were looking to rule anything out, rather make it work no matter what.

You still have no clue at all about the differences between melting and intergranular corrosion. In the latter process, only the boundaries between the grains of the steel are melted, the grains themselves remain intact. You don't get a pool of molten metal or metal drips, you get a heap of grains. Your picture of what happens is wrong, so your conclusion is also wrong.

I know the process. It doesn't matter whether we refer to the "boundaries" or the "grains"; altogether it is the "steel". The way that "bricks" and "cement" are a "wall". If the corrosion occurs at a high rate and temperature then of course the entire steel section will glow and pieces will appear to drip off.

BY your own estimate, the metal in the photographs is at too low a temperature to be molten steel, so whatever is melting/dripping must me some other metal. Both aluminium and lead are molten at your estimated temperature, steel is not.

The steel in the photograph is not entirely molten, so matches the process above.

Please do, LG, and don't stop at #1052. Q24 repeatedly claims that Bazant ignores Newton's third law, but can't put his finger on just where in the paper Bazant does this (for the simple reason that he doesn't). Q24's problem is that he can't see how "equal and opposite reaction" can bring about differing outcomes for the upper and lower blocks. Boony was quite right to say that the blocks are equally damaged, but this applies only for the initial impact. Beyond the immediate impact event, in both space and time, things are not symmetrical, and there are two factors that cause this. First, the blocks are not symmetric structurally, in that the lower block has its far end fixed to the ground while the upper block has its far end free. Second, after the initial impact, there is a growing debris layer between the blocks which is accelerated by gravity towards the stationary lower block, while there is no differential acceleration between the upper block and this layer.

Your argument is wrong at every turn…

First it is more accurately described that Bazant “circumvents” rather than “ignores” Newton’s third law - please try to remember this (a hopeless request I know) because it’s an important distinction. This circumnavigation is carried out through the method you describe. What you need to realise is that the debris at each stage of destruction is not “accelerated by gravity” but by the already greater momentum of the upper block. This is important because it means the debris cannot and does not progress ahead of the upper block – rather, with mass of the upper block continuously driving the debris downward. In other words, the debris under gravity, from a standing start, can never outrun momentum of the upper block; the debris does not simply fall under gravity but is continuously compressed through momentum of the upper block. Once the maximum compression point is reached there must be equal and opposite damage between the upper and lower blocks. This process is indeed what video footage of the collapse and physics simulations show, which you ignore in favour of non-reality hypotheticals.

Second, booNy was not referring to the initial impact but “throughout” the collapse. The contradiction between his statements, which were absolutely correct, and Bazant’s hypothetical statement, is blatant.

I’d be interested to hear LG’s view on the contradictory comments. And whether he can see the circumnavigation of Newton’s third law. Again, it’s as simple as this – Bazant says the crush up does not occur until the upper block reached the ground – Newton’s third law indicates, and video footage shows, otherwise. It’s established physics and observation vs. hypothetical - there is no contest – the official collapse theory is wrong. A smaller rigid block cannot perpetually crash through a larger rigid block of the same construction and material - yet that is what the official theory presumes possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about "aircraft attitude"? Are you trying to say "aircraft altitude" (which NIST did not adjust) or perhaps referring to the “failure strain”? It doesn't matter, I’m sure the aircraft trajectory angle and aircraft/building failure strains do determine the pattern of damage, and both also significantly affect the energy imparted to the core structure. To prove the case, NIST still needed to adjust these factors to produce a best match that resulted in collapse.

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

From Dictionary.com:

at·ti·tude

[at-i-tood, -tyood]

noun

1.

disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, especially of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.

2.

position or posture of the body appropriate to or expressive of an action, emotion, etc.: a threatening attitude; a relaxed attitude.

3.

Aeronautics . the inclination of the three principal axes of an aircraft relative to the wind, to the ground, etc.

4.

Ballet . a pose in which the dancer stands on one leg, the other bent behind.

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.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about "aircraft attitude"? Are you trying to say "aircraft altitude" (which NIST did not adjust) or perhaps referring to the “failure strain”?

As Czero says, it is indeed attitude, and since it wasn't known exactly, NIST adjusted it between cases.

NIST stated the base case was a better fit for WTC1 but did not specify which case was better fit for WTC2. Fortunately I did the work for them, comparing the simulations to the actual damage myself - as for WTC1 the base case for WTC2 is once again certainly a better fit to the actual damage.

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

The safety factors are included in NIST's best estimate of the material properties and construction specifications. Of course they are - NIST did not take the steel properties and building design then deduct the safety factors.

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

I certainly appreciate that NIST proved in probability the towers should not have collapsed.

I appreciate NIST did not prove the towers could collapse under the conditions on 9/11.

You appreciate it also: -

NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"

~flyingswan

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?

Well of course NIST couldn’t rule out collapse… when the severe case simulation did not produce the collapse witnessed, NIST simply made manual inputs until it did… it hardly gives the impression NIST were looking to rule anything out, rather make it work no matter what.

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 know the process. It doesn't matter whether we refer to the "boundaries" or the "grains"; altogether it is the "steel". The way that "bricks" and "cement" are a "wall". If the corrosion occurs at a high rate and temperature then of course the entire steel section will glow and pieces will appear to drip off.

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

The steel in the photograph is not entirely molten, so matches the process above.

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

Your argument is wrong at every turn…

First it is more accurately described that Bazant “circumvents” rather than “ignores” Newton’s third law - please try to remember this (a hopeless request I know) because it’s an important distinction. This circumnavigation is carried out through the method you describe. What you need to realise is that the debris at each stage of destruction is not “accelerated by gravity” but by the already greater momentum of the upper block. This is important because it means the debris cannot and does not progress ahead of the upper block – rather, with mass of the upper block continuously driving the debris downward. In other words, the debris under gravity, from a standing start, can never outrun momentum of the upper block; the debris does not simply fall under gravity but is continuously compressed through momentum of the upper block. Once the maximum compression point is reached there must be equal and opposite damage between the upper and lower blocks. This process is indeed what video footage of the collapse and physics simulations show, which you ignore in favour of non-reality hypotheticals.

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.

Second, booNy was not referring to the initial impact but “throughout” the collapse. The contradiction between his statements, which were absolutely correct, and Bazant’s hypothetical statement, is blatant.

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.

I’d be interested to hear LG’s view on the contradictory comments. And whether he can see the circumnavigation of Newton’s third law. Again, it’s as simple as this – Bazant says the crush up does not occur until the upper block reached the ground – Newton’s third law indicates, and video footage shows, otherwise. It’s established physics and observation vs. hypothetical - there is no contest – the official collapse theory is wrong. A smaller rigid block cannot perpetually crash through a larger rigid block of the same construction and material - yet that is what the official theory presumes possible.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is wrong at every turn…

First it is more accurately described that Bazant “circumvents” rather than “ignores” Newton’s third law - please try to remember this (a hopeless request I know) because it’s an important distinction. This circumnavigation is carried out through the method you describe. What you need to realise is that the debris at each stage of destruction is not “accelerated by gravity” but by the already greater momentum of the upper block. This is important because it means the debris cannot and does not progress ahead of the upper block – rather, with mass of the upper block continuously driving the debris downward. In other words, the debris under gravity, from a standing start, can never outrun momentum of the upper block; the debris does not simply fall under gravity but is continuously compressed through momentum of the upper block. Once the maximum compression point is reached there must be equal and opposite damage between the upper and lower blocks. This process is indeed what video footage of the collapse and physics simulations show, which you ignore in favour of non-reality hypotheticals.

Second, booNy was not referring to the initial impact but “throughout” the collapse. The contradiction between his statements, which were absolutely correct, and Bazant’s hypothetical statement, is blatant.

I’d be interested to hear LG’s view on the contradictory comments. And whether he can see the circumnavigation of Newton’s third law. Again, it’s as simple as this – Bazant says the crush up does not occur until the upper block reached the ground – Newton’s third law indicates, and video footage shows, otherwise. It’s established physics and observation vs. hypothetical - there is no contest – the official collapse theory is wrong. A smaller rigid block cannot perpetually crash through a larger rigid block of the same construction and material - yet that is what the official theory presumes possible.

You probably don't even realize it, but you've proven yourself wrong within your very description.

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.

Inelastischer_sto%C3%9F.gif

Consider that the black block in this animation is like the upper block in the tower, and the blue block is the next floor impacted. After the collision, the upper block is now comprised of both blocks.

This is not in contradiction with Bazant or with what Swanny is saying, it is just a different way of describing the exact same thing. Instead of having an upper and lower block with a compressed section in the middle, it is a constantly growing upper block. Same difference.

And by the way, the collapse does continue to accelerate due to gravity, as anything falling would do until terminal velocity is reached. It slows at each layer because of the conservation of momentum and accelerates due to gravity from there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exactly. :tu:

Why can't Q24 see that?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.

Completely wrong BR, but thank you for demonstrating yet again how completely clueless you are about these things.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.

LMAO! HAHAHAHA. wow....

Edited by Iron_Lotus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't Q24 see that?

Because he appears to have great difficulty seeing anything except what he wants to see?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he appears to have great difficulty seeing anything except what he wants to see?

I suppose, but I'm at a loss for how to make it any more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any damage done to the building by the aircraft was done only by the landing gear and engines.

With those exceptions, the airframe was shredded by the building.

It is clearly evident that you really do not understand how the fuselage of an aircraft can punch holes in buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference is that a thermite demolition device is quite basic/established technology, whereas the collapse of WTC7 by NIST's own admittance was "extraordinary". So you see why I might request precedent for the remarkable event but not the mundane? That's how I see it anyhow and apply the use of precedent.

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 put together the graph based on the NIST report and it applies only to the twin towers, the WTC7 study was different.

(*snip*)

Thanks for the detail Q. I can't see your pics with the arrows for some reason, but I think I see what you're saying.

NIST needed to demonstrate a collapse case within extent of the actual damage.

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?

Or better put, NIST needed to find a collapse case that provided best match to the actual damage.

And how exactly did they know what the actual damage was? Here's my high-level problem with your argument. You accept that we have a range of possible damage, why, because we don't know that the actual damage was. The data we have is imperfect and we thus have to deal with ranges and probabilities, but in spite of that, you demand that they show a collapse case for the 'best' match, a specific data point that has an unknown probability of actually being the true case. Were they to actually show a case for the best case, then CTs could just turn this whole argument around and say how there is a range of possible damage cases and argue that the NIST's 'best' case isn't actually the best case, and round and round we go. Regardless, we don't know how best the best case is. On a roll of dice, the 'best' case is rolling a 7; however, chances are 5-1 against you rolling a 7 on a single roll of dice and thus hitting your 'best' case. And with 9/11 we have one roll.

You yourself indicated how complicated all this is above, you seem to understand the basics of chaos theory and how changing a few variables can have significant and chaotic results on, in this case, whether the towers collapse or not. Your photographic evidence line on your graph's left edge is right at the best case; for all we know, one micrometer to the right of the 'best' case on the photographic evidence line results in the building collapse. But how do you even show something like that? How do you measure the exact damage from photographic evidence? You can't, and when dealing with chaos the slightest change in the input parameters and/or starting conditions can have significantly large, and most importantly, unpredictable effects on the result. That is why we have these ranges to begin with.

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

sxhw62.jpg

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?

Without this, NIST have not proven that the collapse is possible within bounds of the actual damage. NIST failed to prove the collapse is possible within extent of the actual damage, though they did prove non-collapse is possible within extent of the actual damage. It is bizarre - this is why I say NIST's conclusions are not backed by their own results (this only one of numerous examples).

Proof is in the domain of math and logic, not science. NIST has not shown that the collapse is impossible, or even unlikely, within the bounds of the actual damage. 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. What I find bizarre is that you seem to accept that the NIST experts did a great job of analyzing data, modeling multiple scenarios within the possible damage ranges, and basically doing good science by recognizing the amount of data that they do not have. But I find some of the specific conclusions you then try to reach based on this to be, at the least, overstated and kinda unscientific, in that they are not correspondingly couched in terms of likelihoods nor do they acknowledge the amount of data that is missing, as all good scientific conclusions do.

Given accuracy of the simulations, what the official theory must do to survive, is assume a collapse case exists within the actual damage range and provides best match to the photographic evidence. But NIST never simulated an intermediate case to determine that - leaving us to argue over a grey area where official theorists have their usual faith and skeptics say more should have been done.

I don't have any 'usual faith' in really anything. We haven't been discussing what should have been done, we are discussing why you think the demolition is so blatant with what we know now. What the CT must do to survive is assume that the hypothetical 'they' actually exists, that they thought it crucial that the towers be demolished and assume (since it was so covert) that demolitions were placed in WTC unnoticed despite a bombing 7 years earlier. And since this was so covert, you have, well I hesitate to call it an advantage because logically it is not, it's in the huge bucket of 'things we don't know and have no evidence for', but you have at least the 'convenience' that you can't provide any evidence of how these supposed demolitions were configured so that we could analyze, a la the NIST report, how the way the towers came down fits that specific hypothesis. By virtue of the specific and over-certain conclusions you have from the NIST report you do implicitly put faith in, and insist, that these types of studies are necessary in order to determine how the collapses unfolded. Yet you have no data at all we can examine; we don't know what exactly what type of demolition component was used, how much of it, how exactly it was detonated, where the demolitions were placed, let alone adding in how the plane crashes affected these placements. All we've got is the huge assumption that, 'well, however the towers collapsed, whatever demolition is required to do that is how it was done'. I've said this a couple times, but except in the case where we have reason to expect some evidence, having no evidence moves us to the unknown position, which I don't find consistent with what your position actually is.

Why didn't NIST nail it? Prove it one way or the other. They could have done. A real investigation might have asked the question, "Was the collapse initiation possible within the actual bounds of damage present on 9/11?" Unfortunately for NIST the conclusion was preconceived and they never set out to prove the case.

No, see above about 'proof'. The fact that you have a range of possible damages by definition precludes proving anything.

Or did they try and could not, with the non-collapse case always providing better match?

Yes, all those organizations and people involved with the NIST study are either part of the plot, outright lying, or sheep, that's very likely. (/sarcasm)

What I do know is that the only collapse initiation case NIST produced was beyond reality of the actual damage present on 9/11. The non-collapse case was within reality of the actual damage. Whose argument does that back? Honestly.

Yet another issue I have; photographic evidence doesn't tell us fully what the 'actual damage' was, and I don't know why you think it could. And the non-collapse initiation case is right at the edge of the 'actual damage' according to your graph. Again, we don't know what the probabilities are of where the actual damage was or where the collapse initiation point is, so you are again overstating with your mentions of specifics like 'beyond' or 'within' reality.

And this is only the beginning… the next level is in understanding that none of NIST’s simulations, not even the collapse case, predicted the situation on 9/11. Further manual inputs were required to be made – at which point it became an animation (cartoon-like) more than a simulation. I have no reason to doubt physics of the models so can only assume the damage and fire process NIST relied on was incorrect.

You acknowledge the need for ranges and thereby seem to recognize that there is necessary imprecision, and then turn around and say because it didn't exactly predict the situation on 9/11 that there's something wrong with it, as if we had all the needed data that would be necessary to actually 'predict the situation' that you seem to understand that we do not have.

Why, to an extent, do you not think certain occurrences of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany could repeat in America?

Really?

1) External communication outside of those countries was controlled easily since methods of communications were limited at the time. 2001 America had a world wide web available.

2) The Soviet and Nazi governments had control of nearly all media. I can find plenty of books in America that accuse our government of all kinds of evils.

3) The Soviet and Nazi governments jailed or executed people who said something they did not like or approve of.

'Could' is again not any standard, give me some precedent for this massive lie/silence of tens of thousands of experts occurring in America.

the propagandistic techniques are no different, and it really does work the same way in any country.

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.

It’s so blatant anyone can understand. Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828.

Will do, sounds like based on the responses from others here that that's going to take a little time and study.

Better that I be over-confident, than misplaced confidence in an argument intended to justify a decade of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

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 have assumed that you have already been as skeptical as you can get about your own position before assenting to it, maybe that was a bad assumption on my part. I guess I had wondered about this before you stated it, with the inclusion of such arguments like the recent, 'the media had foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse' which I register as a whopping zero on the evidence scale, and it makes me wonder why on earth you would find something like that convincing of anything with how very little it is based on. And you do realize that your use of over-stated hyperbole like 'non-existent risk' and 'beyond reality' goes against your arguments like the firefighters' statements where they've possibly used over-stated hyperbole like 'adamant' and 'certain' concerning the WTC7 collapse; thanks for conceding that people don't always use words to mean the exact literal definition you'd like them to for the sake of your arguments.

Having doubts about the evidence for the demolition does not necessarily lead to confidence in the official story; there's a huge gulf of "we don't know" conclusions that I've been trying to convince you of. One of these possible "I don't know" positions includes, 'WTC may have been demolished, but we don't have nearly enough evidence at this point to conclude that"; that's not a 'confidence in the official story' position.

I’m sure I have already addressed in numerous ways and added to it in each post the reason we have ‘only' thousands of engineers and scientists who oppose the official story. The explanations provided are lack of interest and/or critical thinking and/or a will to challenge authority, internal doubt and/or bias and/or political/patriotic pressuse, fear of the consequences and/or lack of benefit and/or scale of the fight. How many explanations do we need?

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. I've explained already the benefit to you of a critical mass of experts coming forward with the obvious truth, which makes me wonder how familiar you are with American culture and how ingrained the allure of money and fame is in it, let alone that occasionally we even encounter some people with principles and courage. We've been talking about this point for a while, I'll let you let have the last word if you'd like, I'm satisfied by the inability to provide a precedent in the US for what you are suggesting here.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most patient man in the world. My hat is off to you LG. Truly. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point, and I think you miss this continually, is that the firefighter level of concern and actions altered at each step after external advice – the firefighters did not abandon WTC7 of their own accord but because that is what they were influenced to do.

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.

Even if I set aside the obvious, that these firefighters might just have some reason to fear WTC7 will collapse, at it's highest level our disagreement comes down to these two options:

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.

We have evidence the advisor(s) influenced the FDNY to believe WTC7 would collapse. We have no evidence the FDNY made independent judgement the building would collapse. I’m accepting the limit of what’s there on record.

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.

Hayden was influenced to suspect a collapse even prior to his discussion with the “on the money” advisor.

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

So why do we have another advisor on scene (or was it the same advisor as for WTC7? Anonymous, once again), confidently predicting the tower collapses and seeking to influence the FDNY beforehand? And why didn't the official investigation seek out these clairvoyants?

Contrast the following two statements from above, and you see why I’m asking questions: -

  • “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center … came as the greatest surprise…”
  • “Some engineer type person … very confident … the building is in danger of imminent collapse.”

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.

So to clarify, this is the twin tower situation: -

  • Not one of the FDNY personnel expected collapse.
  • All of the responders displayed some surprise at the information.
  • The information was not their own deduction but was passed up the chain of command.
  • This foreknowledge of collapse was not based on firefighter observation.
  • The foreknowledge originated from an anonymous advisor.

If it happened this way for the towers, then why not again for WTC7? Except this time of course, the FDNY took the advisor(s) warning more seriously.

The FDNY didn't need to take the advisor more seriously, because by that time they had reason to fear on their own that the north tower and eventually WTC7 would collapse also, as the first tower had already collapsed. 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?

I think the pre-emptive media reports are further evidence of the rising foreknowledge on scene shortly before the building went down – so confident that it misled reporters to believe the event had already occurred.

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.

  • “pretty much right on the money”
  • “pretty sure”
  • “on verge of collapse”
  • “imminent”
  • adamant about 7 coming down”
  • “7 was definitely going to collapse”
  • “it’ll be coming down soon"
  • “building is about to blow up”

What other word do I need to find to demonstrate ‘confident foreknowledge’?

Depending on what you mean by 'foreknowledge', I may withdraw part of this, I may have been sloppy. I think the firefighters were pretty confident that WTC7 was going to collapse, but I guess I don't term that 'foreknowledge' in that it doesn't give the same level of confidence as knowing it's going to collapse because you're going to detonate it. Regardless, it's the advisors' 'foreknowledge' I object most to, not necessarily the firefighters depending on your translation of 'foreknowledge'.

The firefighters did not have all of the data – along with the advisor(s) warnings, that is why a concern of collapse existed. Why do you think firefighters had the data to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's a [insert “adamant”/”imminent”/”definite”] collapse coming?

Again I'm sure you know about how verbal messages are altered with retelling. They should use those words, they feared it would come down, the data they had that you hardly acknowledge in this decision-making analysis of these people is that buildings had already collapsed.

No, the urgency increased significantly drawing nearer to the collapse time – the appearance is that some on scene knew the collapse was due.

Maybe they 'knew' it because they assign more importance to the building condition changing, despite your statements to the contrary, by an afternoon of fires and creaking and leaning. Remember, creaking doesn't even have to be valid evidence of structural deformation, although it is; it only needs to lead the firefighters to believe that it is. And thus they have data, invalid or not, on which to 'know' (more accurately, 'highly suspect') that the building would collapse.

You say, of course there’s going to be urgency? Though many firefighters displayed the opposite upon receipt of the warning: oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? And an increasing urgency that reaches its crescendo shortly before the collapse? This isn’t making sense in context of an unpredictable event, it’s making sense in context of a pre-planned event.

It makes more sense if you took into account the bleeding obvious that two buildings had already come down from apparently fire and damage. Yes, of course, different people are going to have different opinions at different times on whether they think the building is going to collapse, that's undisputed. 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!

Yes some firefighters clearly knew there was a plan in the works. This has already been confirmed through the news article which described Silverstein seeking authorisation for demolition of WTC7 on the morning: "Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."

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?

][/b]

I am suggesting that some firefighters had reason to believe the building was going to be demolished. It seems that way (we’re gonna have to bring it down”/There's a building, about to blow up”) doesn’t it?

Demolished when? '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? 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.

This plan and foreknowledge also frame Silverstein’s “pull it” comment in a whole new light. I’ve been avoiding that topic – it’s been gone over a thousand times - though to me the language used, logic and surrounding circumstances indicate that “it” refers to the building.

You seem a little selective about when 'the language used' is critical or not. I'm kinda glad we've been avoiding this topic, I don't find the 'pull it' argument much better than the 'media foreknowledge' argument. So Silverstein screwed up and mentioned that it had already been wired for detonation? You aren't suggesting that they set up the demolition after it had already been damaged are you?

You see I don’t think the powers that be were intent on selling the official WTC7 story as we now know it, not from the beginning. As discussed, the demolition, the way it went, was ‘Plan B’ – it would seem better for them had WTC7 come down at the same time as the north tower. I think the plan was to remain tight-lipped and see how the situation panned out with the media, emergency departments on scene and public – this is why there was no ‘official story’ for so long. When it became clear the demolition could be hidden under guise of a fire based collapse, that is what the powers that be went with – there were less questions to answer that way, not to mention limiting further suspicion of the tower demolitions. But then Silverstein became too publicly candid of his experience. That does make me wonder how close Silverstein was to the operation planners – though I’ve said before he was more a pawn to smooth the aftermath.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another piece of information I’ve not mentioned on this thread yet: -

"I do know that that [WTC7] wall I remember was in danger, and I think that they made that decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."

~John Kerry, 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate

Wherever did Kerry get that idea?

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.

I really think there are more people who know about the WTC7 demolition than any other covered-up area on 9/11 but, either through subversion of the official story or political pressures, are not letting on. It’s a strange one, WTC7, whereby there is potential for a demolition which is not necessarily nefarious but fits with the rest of the official 9/11 story (much like a Flight 93 shootdown). And I have heard from official story adherents who do accept both the WTC7 demolition and Flight 93 shootdown. Though official acceptance of these alternatives would now open a can of worms and stoke conspiracy fires ever higher…

If the public can be so readily deceived in those areas, what else of the official story might not be the whole truth?

Okay, maybe that clears it up a bit, a non-nefarious demolition possibility. I see no reason to hide this demolition then, and can think of convincing justification for the demolition itself, although am not sure if that quick of a demo setup is feasible. I believe all the firefighters made it out, but one person may have been killed in WTC7? Not wanting to announce that you had to kill Flight 93's passengers is a lot more understandable from a concealment standpoint than the fact that you had to demolish a building, especially since they demolished other buildings after the attacks from damage anyway like WTC6.

I'm really confused on the overall theory on this point, but maybe you're throwing multiple at me simultaneously. Demolitions must have been placed in the towers prior to the attack. It sure seems like you've been arguing that this was also done in WTC7, thus the discussion of the demolitions maybe being dislodged which is why they didn't demolish it during the collapse; I don't know why you didn't just say that they may have put the demolitions in after the attack, as any demolitions in the building prior to the attack are necessarily nefarious. If you're just offering other possibilities, that's great, it's one I haven't thought of, although again I'm not sure on the feasibility of it.

Newton's third law still awaits me, I'll get back to you after I've looked through that thread, thanks to you and boony and swan for the links and the prelude.

Does anyone know what I'm screwing up with my formatting where I get those extra lines when I quote others? Maybe it's because I put the quote and /quote tags on separate lines around the text I'm quoting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most patient man in the world. My hat is off to you LG. Truly. :tu:

Thanks boony, I think 'overly verbose' might be more accurate; just had my first 'cannot post reply because you have exceeded the max number of quote tags' error when I tried to post. Q and I are pretty close to the 'agree to disagree' point on some of these points I think, so hopefully I can get my replies down to an acceptable length soon.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks boony, I think 'overly verbose' might be more accurate; just had my first 'cannot post reply because you have exceeded the max number of quote tags' error when I tried to post. Q and I are pretty close to the 'agree to disagree' point on some of these points I think, so hopefully I can get my replies down to an acceptable length soon.

Get ready for the side stepping, avoidance, and twisting that is sure to come. Q24 knows there was a conspiracy and nothing will ever change that. Anything you cite will be twisted into that conspiracy because, quite honestly, he's ****g brilliant at that. Seriously, he's one of the smartest people on this forum, without question, and he can spin just about anything into the appearance of supporting his point of view.

I can't wait to see what he comes up with in response to this latest couple of posts from you.

pssst... make note of anything he avoids... It took me a while to pick up on that aspect because he does it so incredibly well...

And by the way, 'overly verbose' may be accurate, but it is also understandable. Fight fire with fire as they say...

Don't stop. My pom-poms are just getting warmed up. :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.