WTC7 collapse was a controlled demolition ?
Fred
eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and
falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
demolition.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003
Hatto von Aquitanien
Are you sure it's not an apple?
--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
Nebuchadnezzar II
<PLONK>
"Fred" <Fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PxOmi.3076$4J4.1530@trndny05...
John R Rybock
How should it have looked like? For the most part, the building is
going to fall downwards when the supports give way. Once a couple key
supports give way (and there were some very unique engineering
characteristics of WTC7 to deal with the inablility to build a normal
foundation), the rest get quickly overloaded, a mere second or so.
There is no horizontal force. The only force on the building is
downwards, so that is the direction the bulk of the mass is going to
fall. I get the sense people think it should have tipped over, but
there was no lateral force to push it over.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Give it a break.
Al Dykes
Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>John R Rybock wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Fred" <Fred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
>>> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
>>> and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
>>> demolition.
>>>
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003
>>
>> How should it have looked like? For the most part, the building is
>> going to fall downwards when the supports give way. Once a couple key
>> supports give way (and there were some very unique engineering
>> characteristics of WTC7 to deal with the inablility to build a normal
>> foundation), the rest get quickly overloaded, a mere second or so.
>> There is no horizontal force. The only force on the building is
>> downwards, so that is the direction the bulk of the mass is going to
>> fall. I get the sense people think it should have tipped over, but
>> there was no lateral force to push it over.
>
>Give it a break.
>
As of noon on 9/11 the whole world knew that WTC7 was damabed nd on
fire and doomed.
These witness accounts of these warnings and evacuation actions are
one of two bodies of evidence indicating foreknowledge of WTC 7's
collapse.
An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of
emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe
either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following
table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to
expectations of collapse. file description
These numbers are in the form of nnnnnnn.pdf appended to this URL
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
9110085 was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing; imminently
to collapse
9110413 in eminent collapse
9110398 a possible collapse
9110486 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110103 going to collapse
9110179 might collapse
9110170 threat of collapse
9110217 concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing
9110256 an imminent collapse on
9110200 they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure
9110150 a potential for collapse
9110467 concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110502 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down
9110021 they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately
9110055 just waiting for 7 to come down
9110301 in danger of collapsing
9110222 concerned about seven coming down
9110222 The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center
9110327 heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down
9110117 around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.
9110246 in dead jeopardy; stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down
9110472 the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110409 was going to collapse; is coming down
9110462 definitely in danger of collapse
Evacuation of Collapse Zone
Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in
preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly,
becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and
around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published
in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision:
Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined
that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the
incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander,
both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant
firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This
took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and
the fierce determination with which the firefighters were
searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters
evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third
steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire -- the other
two had collapsed earlier that day. 1
Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire
cheifs. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Cheif Nigro ordering
people away from the building:
Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of
West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that
point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody
two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways
up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." 2
Fire Chief Daniel Nigro's describes his reasons for creating the
collapse zone:
The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the
area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World
Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number
of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the
building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was
in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters
and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not
lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone
out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties,
and the collapse terrain. 3
Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy. 4
Professional photographer Tom Franklin provides some detail about the
timing of the evacuation: It was about 4 p.m., and they were
anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were
leaving en masse. 5 It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue
workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third
building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. 6
Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine described being surprised
by a fireman certainty that the skyscraper would come down: Hours
later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary
firefighter. ... Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated
the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. 'That building is
coming down,' he said with a drained casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At
47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of
the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box
with fire coming out of the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe
tomorrow morning.' This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five
minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center,
crumbled. 7
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the
building would be brought down: What happened with that particular
triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we
had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming
down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I
heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable,
because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told
us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a
little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being
brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because
they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this
ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running. 8
Battalion Fire Chief John Norman describes the size of the collapse
zone -- 600 feet in radius: After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to
recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had
been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were
trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south,
into the areas we were searching. 9 Now we're still worried about
7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're
telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the
directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse
zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a
600-foot radius from that building. 10
Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation
by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7: Now,
World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how
come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point,
Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds
and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me,
Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to
myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7
World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people
out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew
and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing
those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this
was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling,
Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The
common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to
leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was
going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the
collapse. One comment was, 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? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable
resistance. 11 References
1. World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
2. WTC: This Is Their Story, firehouse.com, 4/2002
3. Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
4. Postcollapse Command, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
5. Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, page 204
6. The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation, Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002
7. The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, 3/27/2006
8. Interview with Indira Singh. 'Ground Zero 911, Blueprint for Terror, Part One', Guns & Butteer, 4/27/2005
9. Search and Rescue Operations, Fire Engineering, 10/2002
10. WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse.com, 5/2002
11. WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse.com, 8/2002
The fires weren't "small". They were major. NYFD couldn't fight them
becuase there was no water in the fire hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's
trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
....The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the
collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause
of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high
temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building
and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for
those conditions.
..At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief
James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest
corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged,
possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been
breached.
Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse,
heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was
coming from that part of the buildin
The following is from the document cited below.,
Figure L-22a and L22b on page L-20 in ths document shows serious
damage to the SW corner of WTC7. Fig. L-32a shows the scene at the
base of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1.
By 2:30PM
. In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20,
and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of
Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the
south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m
. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward
the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
. From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were
observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
. Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
. Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
. Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the
south face Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
. Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the
face above the fire was covered with smoke
. Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
. Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward
the north side
All From http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Section L is very readable,
The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly
used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and
to pull the firefighters from the building.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note
he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a
"large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that
it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell.
In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building
and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did
with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near
what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack.
All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled
demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and
fire, just like the towers.
Table L-1. Timeline of WTC 7 collapse as observed from the northwest.
Time Interval (s) Total Time (s) Observation from CBS Video
0.0 0.0 - First movement of east penthouse roofline downwards
0.9 0.9 - East penthouse kink between columns 44 and 45 (Fig. L-25)
- First 2 windows at Floor 40 fail between columns 44-45 (windows 9 and
11 from east end)
0.3 1.2 - 4 more windows fail at Floor 40
- East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building)
0.5 1.7 - 3 windows break at Floor 41, Floor 43, Floor 44
0.5 2.2 - East penthouse completely submerged (Fig. L-26)
1.8 4.0 - Windows break along column 46 at Floors 37 and 40
3.0 7.0 - West penthouse and screenwall begin to move downward into building
- Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above Floor 21)
0.2 7.2 - West end of roof starts to move
0.5 7.7 - East end of roof starts to move
- Kink formed in north facade along column 46-47
0.4 8.2 - West penthouse and screenwall submerged
- Windows fail between Floors 33-39 around column 55
- Global collapse initiates (Fig. L-27 and L-28)
(From page L-27 of
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf*lots of pics
and supporting info in the PDF.
http://web.umr.edu/~explosiv/Clip_Demolition.avi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
At 0:20 seconds: "The bulding had been weakened this morning"
at 0:50 "weakened by falling debirs [from WTC1]
1:20 Building is still standing but burning
H. Meyers
ambulances and there were other bodies that were
kinds of staged waiting for removal.
Q. When you reported into the command post,
you reported to Chief Nigro; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did he give you any specific assignment?
A. Yes, he did. Chief Nigro directed me to
continue monitoring conditions at the site.
Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center.
We were very concerned with the collapse potential
there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site
safety in that no additional people became injured.
Also, to do what I could while up at the site to
organize some sort of command or control.
p 4
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110382.PDF
D. Nigro
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF
p 6 We stepped over small airplane aviation
parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at
the building. I looked up
P. (Burns (?) dies and Nigro is acting commander (verify)
At some point after I was briefed, I took
command of the operation from the Chambers Street post
P 10 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.
P 13-14 Q. Stepping back for a moment to when you were
coming over the Brooklyn Bridge, could you make a
determination based on a visual from that distance how
involved or fully involved the fire was and how many
floors?
A. It looked to me like it was involving about
10 floors of the building, and the way it was burning,
14
D. NIGRO
I stated to Chief Ganci on the way there that I didn't
believe we could extinguish the fire.
Q. That was based on what?
A. The number of floors I think. The volume of
fire on the number of floors. To my recollection, we
had never put out a fire that involved that many floors
in a high rise building in this city before.
and was told that Chief Fellini was at the forward
operations post at West and Vesey, from which the
-------------------------------------
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Is .Pull. Used by Demolitions Professionals to Mean
.Demolish a Structure With Explosives?.
No.
Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with
his expert opinion:
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of
a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional
demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a preweakened
building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull'
the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our
research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in
late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been
logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size
of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.
In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including
this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and
debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pulldown
of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring
simultaneously throughout the site. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc
From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the
Facts http://tinyurl.com/pkeqq
Book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for
controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic
Associates.
Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark
Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being
used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to
cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.
View of WTC7 From WTC Tower
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/
wp-content/uploads/2007/05/viewofwtc7and1.jpg
Early in the afternoon you have Chief Hayden sighting it with a
surveyor's transit: (Firehouse Magazine) "By now, this is going on
into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional
collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good
portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty
sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. 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. It came down about 5 o'clock in the
afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this
thing was going to collapse.
April 2002 Firehouse Magazine
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Timing ^ good video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw
Fireman saying WTC will fall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
Hatto von Aquitanien
Al Dykes
Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>
Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
What seems most important to me is to understand how the official
myth was seeded, nurtured and enforced. A very insightful study
of the same phenomena in a different context is found in Germar
Rudolf's _Dissecting the Holocaust_...
For more info on Rudolf, see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf
Hatto von Aquitanien
> In article <n56dnWWS5YJPVQbb...@speakeasy.net>,
> Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>>WTC7 was the third WTC CD of the day.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
>
> What seems most important to me is to understand how the official
> myth was seeded, nurtured and enforced. A very insightful study
> of the same phenomena in a different context is found in Germar
> Rudolf's _Dissecting the Holocaust_...
>
> For more info on Rudolf, see;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf
>
>
I've attempted to clean that whackopedia page up several times, but finally
gave up. Whatever. Read the book
http://germarrudolf.com/work/dth/fndintro.html
or be a freakin' moron. The choice is yours.
Borked Pseudo Mailed
Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>
> Al Dykes wrote:
>
Hatto, you should know by now not to bother with a disinfo shill like Dykes. As well as these shills:
age...@justicespammail.com
Al Dykes
Animal05 aka animal05
BDK
Cardinal Chunder
Douglas Berry
george
GovShill aka Shill #312
Hertz_Donut
John P.
Notan
SHOOTER586
Sunny
Tankfixer
Tex
trop...@gmail.com
Vandar
Möbius Pretzel
Hi Fred. Not just WTC7.
Thermite was found in the *molten* steel frame of both WTC 1 & 2.
Also there are a *ton* of eye witness reports of explosives going off
*before* either Tower 1 & 2 Fell.
Also note that both Towers 1 & 2 were designed to withstand
*multiple* hits from 747 airplanes.
Oh did I mention Cheney stood down any response
to the hijackings while an exercise was being conducted at the time
to practice taking out hijacked jets with the intent of crashing into
WTC towers?
Beyond incidence.
Look it up...
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
> In article <n56dnWWS5YJPVQbbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@speakeasy.net>,
Hey fucktard Dykes, by you equating the truth movement as Holocaust deniers is like me saying you will
executed as an accessory to treason/murder. But what I said is the truth. Burn in hell, shill.
Al Dykes
=?iso-8859-1?q?M=F6bius_Pretzel?= <Mobius....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Fred wrote:
>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
>> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and
>> falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
>> demolition.
>>
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003
>
>
>Hi Fred. Not just WTC7.
>
>Thermite was found in the *molten* steel frame of both WTC 1 & 2.
>
>Also there are a *ton* of eye witness reports of explosives going off
>*before* either Tower 1 & 2 Fell.
Name ONE eye witness.
"Thermite was found in the *molten* steel frame"
That's a new one. Did you make it up yourself?
The Truth Movement consists of three groups of people;
- The people that take quotes and videos from the public record and
mash them together, add an ominous sound track and a voice-over
alleging all sorts of things that are not supported by the images on
the screen. The video and quotes are out of context and all
information that is contrary to Truthy claims is edited out with no
hint that there is an edit. These people don't cite sources, and
they do their best to obscure the fact that there IS a huge public
record and many, many, many thousands of eye witnesses to the events
of 9/11. The public record and what these people saw is consistent
with the simple explanation for 9/11, that 4 commercial jets,
hijacked, caused all the destruction.
- The people that, out of ignorance of the public record and without
any first-hand experience with the events of 9/11, parrot the
fiction created by the first group. The people in this class never
have any relevant expertise or bring any information to the
discussion that they didn't get from a Truthy web site or something
that they made up.
- The people that have been shown information from the public record
that contradicts the Truth claims and then refuse to engage in
discussion of their claims and the evidence. They just change the
topic and start the discussion all over again or respond with
groundless ad hominem attacks on the source of the contrary claims.
You, MoronLocator <ye...@right.net>; Which group are you in?
Tim Crowley
> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and
> falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
> demolition.
Only to insane k000ks. To everyone who has a brain it looks like it
was damaged cause planes crashed into bulidings very close to it.
rst
Correct.
1, 2 and 7 were "pulled". And it's not a kooky conspiracy theory,
"tin foil hat" (whatever THAT means) thing anymore, folks.
You are naive (or you just refuse to believe we played a role in this
attack) if you still believe this was the work of just 19 foreigners
and a few planes and nothing else. It is as simple as that.
Please refute all of these coincidences
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
and I will humbly retract this statement will full apologies.
Al Dykes
Coincidences never proved (or disproved) anything.
The Truth Movement consists of three groups of people;
- The people that take quotes and videos from the public record and
mash them together, add an ominous sound track and a voice-over
alleging all sorts of things that are not supported by the images on
the scree. The video and quotes are out of context and all
information that is contrary to Truthy claims is edited out with no
hint that there is an edit. These people don't cite sources, and
they do their best to obscure the fact that there IS a huge public
record and many, many, many thousands of eye witnesses to the events
of 9/11. The public record and what these people saw is consistent
with the simple explanation for 9/11, that 4 commercial jets,
hijacked, caused all the destruction.
- The people that, out of ignorance of the public record and without
any first-hand experience with the events of 9/11, parrot the
fiction created by the first group. The people in this class never
have any relevant expertise or bring any information to the
discussion that they didn't get from a Truthy web site or something
that they made up.
- The people that have been shown information from the public record
that contradicts the Truth claims and then refuse to engage in
discussion of their claims and the evidence. They just change the
topic and start the discussion all over again or respond with
groundless ad hominem attacks on the source of the contrary claims.
WHich one are you?
There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.
There is *zero* effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their
own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They
contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to
differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is
fact checking.
Examples;
Washington Newsman Mike Walters shown how Truthys have twisted his
9/11 reporting;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
------------------------
"Todd Beamer is Alive"
Truthys have said that Beamer (Flt93) is alive becuase and
used this faek quote
"Todd Beamer's wife told Larry King on CNN on 23 Aug 2002 that he
is still alive.",
When we find the real quote, we see that she means he's in heavan.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html
KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?
BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive. He is alive in a much
different scenario than he was last year at this time, but...
KING: Watching you and the babies?
BEAMER: I don't know how much influence he has or knowledge he has
of what goes on here. The Bible doesn't give us really a complete
picture of the connection between Heaven and Earth. But I do know
that he's experiencing the presence of God. And he is more alive now
than he was before. And I'll join him some day
----------------------
Here's another bit of fraud by someone that uses "truth" a lot. Many
911 web sites, http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for
one) have this quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...
The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF
Many Truthy sites have this quote from a firemen. This
URL, for example; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera
The Truthies edited Rivera's text to obscure the fact that Rivera
knew it was just syuff collapsing.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN
A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.
AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO
A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF
Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.
You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says
something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and
verify quote.
I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer
reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes
there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the
site is bullshit.
That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more;
------------------------------------------------------------
Many sites have quotes similar to this;
Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic
controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on
its maneuverability;
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
but it leaves out the end of the statement,
"... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,
it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,
not told us, and not given URLs to sources.
----------------------------------------------------------
Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,
as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;
over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12
passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]
http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp
------------------------------------------------------
You.ll often find transcripts of witness statements used on 9/11 sites. Here.s one used to support a .controlled demolition at the WTC argument, for instance.:
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131
Convincing? Looks that way, but then that.s because you.re not reading the original. Where Fitzpatrick says he doesn.t recall thinking he saw explosions at all, and offers an alternative explanation, but mysteriously that.s been edited out:
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt
You always need to look at the complete transcript, then, and the 9/11 Transcripts Blog is designed to help you do just that. Interesting transcripts are highlighted regularly, there.s a search engine to look for quotes, and links to help you find out more. Visit it here.
----------------------------------------------------------
There are quotes like thisinterview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills
when he took
Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,
they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed
that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee
said. "He could not fly at all.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html
It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to
hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that
[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a
building and hit it."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
-------------------------
http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
---------
My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys
behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the
desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the
Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm
paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and
it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile
when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion
when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit
out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as
absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.
-----------
I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came
from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287
-----------
Home
Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links
Quotes
.I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?.--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
.t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110035.PDF
First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this odd combination.
.There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION... :blink:
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.. --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
. we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.. -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these liars put the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case. ;) These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem like there are more people hearing explosions than there really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera's interview split in two and Stephen Gregory's interview split in two, as if there are different people hearing different explosions. They flood you with quotes hoping you won't notice. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
.Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "IT'S BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110192.PDF
.I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.. -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; .I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it.s an inside job; and the firemen know it too., said Isaac.
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,. Isaac added that .many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they.re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the .higher-ups. forbid discussion of this fact.. --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw.
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.
In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying .detonated. and .they had planned to take down a building.. They even say .Boom. to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they.re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is .As if.. .As if they had planned to take down a building.. .It was as if as if they had detonated.. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom.
This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn.t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn.t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk.
A glaring example of picking and choosing what to focus on is the interview with Mary Baldizzi... They point to a BBC article that says
The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out.
The argument is made that towers fell because of separate detonations. As proof, they offered the case of Mary Baldizzi who supposedly had escaped the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower by elevator. Thus, the only way she could have escaped via elevator was if the core was intact at least to the 104th floor.
When I watched the video, I thought, if there had been a survivor from above the impact zone in Tower 1, it would have been widely broadcast. So, logically, I searched online for either confirmation or repudiation. I found neither. What I did find was the repeated use of Ms. Baldizzi's story as evidence in various alternative theories (i.e., other than fire) for the collapse of the towers.
Returning to the original video, I watched it several more times. After listening closely to Ms. Baldizzi's interview, I came to the conclusion that Mary Baldizzi was not on the 104th floor of the North Tower (WTC1) but was on the 104th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) and that this was a misrepresentation of her escape as having been from WTC1. Here are the reasons I came to this conclusion:
1. Although the newswomen began the interview stating that Mary Baldizzi had come down the elevators from the 104th floor and was in the "first tower when it was struck," at no time during the interview does Ms. Baldizzi state that she was in the North Tower. In addition, none of the graphics that accompany the interview claim that Ms. Baldizzi was in the North Tower. When Ms. Baldizzi is asked if she felt the impact, she says "Oh yeah." But the effects she describes -- feeling the heat, experiencing the shaking, hearing the explosion -- are all effects experienced by those who were in the South Tower on the floors adjacent to the impact zone (see:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-choices-usat_x.htm ). If she had been in the North Tower when it was hit then she would have described the impact in much less casual terms.
2. Around 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the interview, the interviewers ask about Ms. Baldizzi's coworkers. Ms. Baldizzi's states that she does not know the whereabouts of her fellow employees and proceeds to state, around 5:55 of the interview, that she has no way of contacting them other than to "call [the] main office in Illinois." Now, the offices on the 104th floor of the North Tower were occupied exclusively by Cantor Fitzgerald, while offices on the 104th floor of the South Tower were occupied by Sandler O'Neill (see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html). Cantor Fitzgerald does not have a main office in Illinois (see: http://www.cantor.com/contact/). Sandler O'Neill, on the other hand, does have a central office in Chicago (see: http://www.sandleroneill.com/). This suggests that Ms. Baldizzi was an employee of Sandler O'Neill (in the South Tower) rather than Cantor Fitzgerald (in the North Tower).
3. Finally, and conclusively, at 6:15 in the interview Ms. Baldizzi begins a discussion about what she and her coworkers did when they exited the building. She clearly says: "There were police officers, thank God, that were aiming us towards Liberty St. because we stupidly walked towards One World Trade because we didn't know; we had no idea it was a terrorist attack." Now, if Ms. Baldizzi had been in One World Trade Center (i.e., the North Tower) there is no way she would have described her egress as "towards One Word Trade" because no matter in which direction she walked she would have been going away from One World Trade. This point proves, beyond any doubt, that Ms. Baldizzi exited from the South Tower and that the mistaken announcement at the beginning of the interview that she was in the North Tower was just one of the miscommunications and misunderstandings in the chaos of those early days.
I concluded that Ms. Baldizzi exited Tower 2 at the same time many others in the building did: after the North Tower was hit but before the South Tower was hit. If she was "dragged" into the elevator within seconds after the first tower was hit, and if the elevator ride took about 4 minutes, she would've been out of the building well before the South Tower was hit.
USA Today
As you can see the South Tower core was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it anyway.
There were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
----------
. Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
. Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 *
. Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
. Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
. Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
. Car #50: B6-108 *
. Car #99: 107-110
There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.
pg 34 (adobe pg 72)
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)
There were firemen who radioed in after being stuck in the elevator moments before the south tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio8.html
So there were elevators working in the south tower AFTER the impact. But what's important here is that the interview is being taken out of context. A theme which seems to run strong with these conspiracy theorists.
Thanks to Scott S Coastal and Drval.
-------------------------------------
The Airfone "Smoking Gun"
It has been going around the truther community the last week or so that they have found a "smoking gun" proving that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, because AA flight 77 did not have airfones. This has most recently been mentioned in a David Ray Griffin interview posted on 911 Blogger:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/airfone-smoking-gun.html
Eyeball Kid
wrote:
> In article <jr-dnQJBQf14WQbb...@speakeasy.net>,
> Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
> >John R Rybock wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Fred" <Fred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
> >>> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
> >>> and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
> >>> demolition.
> >>>
> >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003
> >>
> >> How should it have looked like? For the most part, the building is
> >> going to fall downwards when the supports give way. Once a couple key
> >> supports give way (and there were some very unique engineering
> >> characteristics of WTC7 to deal with the inablility to build a normal
> >> foundation), the rest get quickly overloaded, a mere second or so.
> >> There is no horizontal force. The only force on the building is
> >> downwards, so that is the direction the bulk of the mass is going to
> >> fall. I get the sense people think it should have tipped over, but
> >> there was no lateral force to push it over.
> >
> >Give it a break.
> >
>
>
> As of noon on 9/11 the whole world knew that WTC7 was damabed nd on
> fire and doomed.
>
> These witness accounts of these warnings and evacuation actions are
> one of two bodies of evidence indicating foreknowledge of WTC 7's
> collapse.
And you don't believe that there is something odd about all of these
references? There is no information available which fully explains what
happened. There should have been plenty of resistance for the building
to collapse in freefall speed. Free fall speed. Do you know what it
means for a building of such mass to fall at that speed? Does anyone
who supports this idea that there was a natural collapse have the most
rudimentary knowledge of the laws of physics?
The references cited below mean nothing, especially because we have no
information about who was giving information to those reporters who
kept mentioning "collapse." What was the source?
And why was the BBC and CNN caught on camera, in real time, announcing
that the Solomon building collapsed BEFORE it did? How did it happen
that WTC7 could have been standing in the very background when the BBC
reporter had made a confirmed announcement that the building was
rubble?
The collapse of a 38 story building is serious business, no matter what
else happened that day. How did it happen that two news sources
received word of the collapse before it happened, and yet never offered
an explanation to the public about how they were so wrong about the
event? No one admitted the mistake about this major catastrophe.
A possible explanation is that the networks had prematurely read a
script that they were given by an official source-- a source that knew
that the building was going to go, that it was wired to be "pulled," in
Silverstein's word.
And what did they find in the survey? It's a large building with fires
on a few floors.
What did the fire department do to make this determination, when large
steel building like this one could burn for days, possibly weeks,
without collapsing? Where are the blueprints, the schematics, to show
without a doubt that the design of the Solomon building was so deeply
flawed that it could be brought down by simple fire? Was it build of
wood? Plastic? How about cardboard?
The official narration and analysis of the WTC collapses, assumes that
the fires did the deed, then works backward to construct a theory about
how the fire destroyed the buildings. This is what can be called a
poor research model.
In most investigative work, we begin with what the physical evidence
shows us. We observe what happens. We don't make assumptions about what
happened, and then try to explain an event based upon those
assumptions. Yet this is what the official narration demands that we
do.
When we hear from witness after witness that there were dozens and
dozens of explosions all throughout the twin towers, we don't discount
this testimony because it doesn't fit with what the people on
television tell us to believe. We listen, we compile the information,
we corroborate the statements, and then we begin to build an hypothesis
that could more rationally explain the event.
> . ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I
> heard that they were going to bring it down
And how could they "bring it down" without weeks of carefully planted
detonation devices, with explosive sequences perfectly synchronized to
bring about a picture perfect collapse onto its own footprint?
And we never found out how they were started, did we? We knew that some
of the debris from the twin tower explosions sent projectiles several
hundred feet, but the Solomon building was about a block away, and it
was the only building at that distance from the twin towers that
somehow "caught fire".
And, BTW, it was also the only building that, along with the twin
towers, would have cost the owner BILLIONS of dollars to remove the
asbestos from the interior walls, floors and ceilings, which HAD to be
removed due to environmental concerns. And as such, the WTCs were
virtually worthless to those who owned the buildings, except for the
fact that, if it were somehow destroyed, a bonanza could be made on the
insurance claims.
But did any of the FBI investigators examine this motive for the
destruction of the buildings? What do you think?
E. K.
--
"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
-- G.W. Bush, Gridiron Club dinner, Wash., D.C. March 2001
"I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and
ought to be encouraged." US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 2004
"The American Way of Life is not negotiable." Dick Cheney, 2001
"The American Way of Life is heading for extinction." Eyeball Kid, 2006
"...Money Trumps Peace..." G.W. Bush, 2007
Free humor. Whenever you want. http://www.psmueller.com
Hatto von Aquitanien
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:11:59 GMT, "Fred" <Fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
>>eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
>>and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
>>demolition.
>
> No it doesn't. WTC7 looks very much like a building that had a 3rd of
> its lower structure destroyed by falling debris from the other falling
> towers and then burned for 7 hours before suffering structural
> collapse.
Other than the fact that your claim is complete bullshit, you have a point.
Al Dykes
I wouldn't give a warm fart for any of those "references" until I'd
traced every one down to the original source. The "Truth Movement" has
a dirty habit of omitting anything in someone's quote that goes
against Truthy claims. See the list of examples, below, with URLS
that you can check so you don't take my word for it.
>happened. There should have been plenty of resistance for the building
>to collapse in freefall speed. Free fall speed. Do you know what it
"Free fall speed" ???????????
Why does eevryone think they are physicists? Who thinks that
"explosives" make gravity work harder?
Here's the timeline for WTC7 on 9/11
By 2:30PM
. In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20,
and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of
Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the
south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m
. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward
the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
. From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were
observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
. Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
. Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
. Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the
south face Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
. Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the
face above the fire was covered with smoke
. Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
. Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward
the north side
All From http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Section L is very readable,
Al Dykes
Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:11:59 GMT, "Fred" <Fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
>>>eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
>>>and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
>>>demolition.
>>
>> No it doesn't. WTC7 looks very much like a building that had a 3rd of
>> its lower structure destroyed by falling debris from the other falling
>> towers and then burned for 7 hours before suffering structural
>> collapse.
>
>Other than the fact that your claim is complete bullshit, you have a point.
>
Everyone know that WTC7 was heaavily damaged and burning and
firefighting had to cease if only becuase the city water supply was
destroyed in the earlier collapses.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
....The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the
collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause
of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high
temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building
and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for
those conditions.
..At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief
James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest
corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged,
possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been
breached.
Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse,
heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was
coming from that part of the building
It's funny that Truthie videos never show the south side of WTC7,
which was on fire, big-time.
down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I
heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable,
The following is from the document cited below.,
Figure L-22a and L22b on page L-20 in ths document shows serious
damage to the SW corner of WTC7. Fig. L-32a shows the scene at the
base of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1.
By 2:30PM
. In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20,
and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of
Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the
south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m
. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward
the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
. From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were
observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
. Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
. Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
. Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the
south face Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
. Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the
face above the fire was covered with smoke
. Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
. Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward
the north side
All From http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Section L is very readable,
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note
http://web.umr.edu/~explosiv/Clip_Demolition.avi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
p 4
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110382.PDF
D. Nigro
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF
p 6 We stepped over small airplane aviation
-------------------------------------
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/
wp-content/uploads/2007/05/viewofwtc7and1.jpg
April 2002 Firehouse Magazine
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Timing ^ good video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw
These witness accounts of these warnings and evacuation actions are
one of two bodies of evidence indicating foreknowledge of WTC 7's
collapse.
An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of
file description
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the
incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander,
both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant
firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This
took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and
the fierce determination with which the firefighters were
searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters
evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third
steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire -- the other
two had collapsed earlier that day. 1
--
Tim Crowley
> On Jul 16, 2:11 pm, "Fred" <Fred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
> > eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and
> > falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
> > demolition.
>
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003
>
> Correct.
>
> 1, 2 and 7 were "pulled". And it's not a kooky conspiracy theory,
> "tin foil hat" (whatever THAT means) thing anymore, folks.
Actually, it is a k0000000ky kkkonspiracy theory.
Tim Crowley
> In article <f7ggja$b2...@panix5.panix.com>, Al Dykes <ady...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <jr-dnQJBQf14WQbbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdn...@speakeasy.net>,
I've never heard anyone claim it was a "natural" collapse, k00k. What
they say is that planes flew into adjacent bulidings causing fire and
destruction for blocks. Nothing natural about flying planes into
buildings.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
In fact it was the third controlled demolition that day.
And, next to the case of WTC7, my second favorite 9/11 fairy tale
involves the ridiculous notion that fire could've meaningfully
contributed to the collapse of WTC2.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Hatto von Aquitanien
> In article <gsednR0bkZgnxQHb...@speakeasy.net>,
> Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>>ori...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:11:59 GMT, "Fred" <Fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
>>>>eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
>>>>and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
>>>>demolition.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. WTC7 looks very much like a building that had a 3rd of
>>> its lower structure destroyed by falling debris from the other falling
>>> towers and then burned for 7 hours before suffering structural
>>> collapse.
>>
>>Other than the fact that your claim is complete bullshit, you have a
>>point.
>>
>
> Everyone know that WTC7 was heaavily damaged
No it wasn't.
> and burning and
> firefighting had to cease if only becuase the city water supply was
> destroyed in the earlier collapses.
Somebody! anybody! please! tell me I am not the only one who sees this as
complete nonsense!
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/734-3/ec-3_wtc.jpg
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/87/wtc7wtc6aerial3rf.jpg
Hatto von Aquitanien
> You forgot the 4th group: rabblerousers who don't care whether
> explosives were used or not, if planes crashed into the buildings or
> these were destroyed by 150' tall Japanese robots so long as they can
> stir the pot and somehow score political points against the dominant
> political party/group (of which they are not members because no one
> wants to invite scum like them to their parties). They're old-school
> communist agitators out to destroy the country, anarchists out to get
> The Man, lunatics listening to the voices in their heads instead of
> taking their court-ordered medication, whatever. The point is they're
> just trying to sow suspicion and discontent to bring down a society
> they can't seem to compete in.
> --
> John Conyers' comments about Bill Clinton pardoning convicted
> terrorists:
>
> "Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a
> politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a
> Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our
> Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power
> to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that?
> Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Now
> the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that
> the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts
> that apply in each request for clemency."
>
> [EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT
> HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS] (House of Representatives -
> September 09, 1999). Passed 311-41; 72 voted "present", Conyers voted
> NAY)
There's a group you are probably unaware of. Those who watch TV no more
than a few times a year. Who read books. Who read the NIST report, the
FEMA report, etc.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Have you seen the video of someone breaking windows in WTC7?
Hatto von Aquitanien
They can be useful. I often extract new information from them. It's also
good to keep up with the latest lies so you know how to preempt them.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Anybody picked up on this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1857737024722850596
Al Dykes
Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> In article <gsednR0bkZgnxQHb...@speakeasy.net>,
>> Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>>>ori...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:11:59 GMT, "Fred" <Fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
>>>>>eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
>>>>>and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
>>>>>demolition.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. WTC7 looks very much like a building that had a 3rd of
>>>> its lower structure destroyed by falling debris from the other falling
>>>> towers and then burned for 7 hours before suffering structural
>>>> collapse.
>>>
>>>Other than the fact that your claim is complete bullshit, you have a
>>>point.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone know that WTC7 was heaavily damaged
>
>No it wasn't.
>
>> and burning and
>> firefighting had to cease if only becuase the city water supply was
>> destroyed in the earlier collapses.
>
>Somebody! anybody! please! tell me I am not the only one who sees this as
>complete nonsense!
>
Yes, your claims are complete nonsense, AaAre you happy know?
Whe whole F'ing world knew all day that WTC7 was doomed. Here's more
prrof.
Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in
preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly,
becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and
around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published
in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision:
Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and
determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank
Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the
operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be
established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North
Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish
because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination
with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20
minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7
WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history
to collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that
day. 1
Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire
cheifs. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Cheif Nigro ordering
people away from the building:
Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side
of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back
at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take
everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which
is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse."
Hatto von Aquitanien
Running out of pumpable water in Manhattan is 2 blocks from the river is
impossible! Do you even think before you lie?
>
>
>
> Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in
> preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly,
> becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and
> around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published
> in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision:
Such clairvoyant prescience they had. Thrice in the same day they correctly
predicted what has never before nor after occurred! Someone order some
more rope.
> Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and
> determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank
> Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the
> operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be
> established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North
> Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish
> because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination
> with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20
> minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7
> WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history
> to collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that
> day. 1
>
> Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire
> cheifs. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Cheif Nigro ordering
> people away from the building:
>
> Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side
> of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back
> at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take
> everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which
> is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse."
--
Al Dykes
Here are 4 example in the press were a fire small enough to be fought
and extinguished that caused beams to be deformed due to heat.
The WTC fire of 1975 was fought and extinguished and afterwords
they found beans deformed by the heat;
(source: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn
p.67. Steel spans buckled in 1975 fire. )
----------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
SFGate
(04-29) 12:51 PDT -- A huge ball of fire from an exploding
gasoline tanker melted steel and caused an overpass in the
MacArthur Maze near the East Bay end of the Bay Bridge to collapse
onto the roadway below early Sunday, virtually ensuring major
traffic problems for weeks to come.
...
"It was so much engulfed in flames, it was hard to see the freeway
itself," Rodriguez told KCBS radio. "It was scary because, you
know, it's metal and cement... You could see the freeway drooping.
It looked like plastic melted. It was unbelievable. It was bent
and finally it just fell and we saw it hit the ground."
--------------------------
A similar fire happened in 1989. See FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES
DETOURS at this URL; http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-78_NJ/
FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS: In the early morning hours
of August 7, 1989, a multiple-alarm fire at an illegal garbage
dump underneath I-78 near Newark Airport caused heavy damage to
the freeway overpass. The source of the fire was a mound of
trash 25 feet tall and hundreds of yards long consisting of
scrap wood, plastics and paper. The heat of the fire buckled
the ten-inch concrete surface and melted steel support beams,
and the resulting weight shifts from the highway (which had
sagged nearly a foot)
Al Dykes
That's what happens when you don't have water to fight a fire fueled
by diesel and that burned for hours.
The Titanic never sank before it, either. Engineers still debate the
exact reason it sank but all of them agree than an iceberg was the
cause.
Probabilities don't apply to specific events.
Hatto von Aquitanien
> In article <JKudnY572cFClgPb...@speakeasy.net>,
> Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>>
>>Such clairvoyant prescience they had. Thrice in the same day they
>>correctly
>>predicted what has never before nor after occurred! Someone order some
>>more rope.
>>
>
> That's what happens when you don't have water to fight a fire fueled
> by diesel and that burned for hours.
NIST isn't even stupid enough to stand by a story that idiotic.
> Probabilities don't apply to specific events.
That is not necessarily true. One can model a specific situation and
evaluate probabilities given particular boundary conditions.
Al Dykes
Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> In article <JKudnY572cFClgPb...@speakeasy.net>,
>> Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Such clairvoyant prescience they had. Thrice in the same day they
>>>correctly
>>>predicted what has never before nor after occurred! Someone order some
>>>more rope.
>>>
>>
>> That's what happens when you don't have water to fight a fire fueled
>> by diesel and that burned for hours.
>
>NIST isn't even stupid enough to stand by a story that idiotic.
"That's what happens when you don't have water to fight a fire fueled
by diesel and that burned for hours."
That is an accurate description of what happened that day as reported
by many firemen in the official transcription of what they saw.
>> Probabilities don't apply to specific events.
>
>That is not necessarily true. One can model a specific situation and
>evaluate probabilities given particular boundary conditions.
You're making shit up as you go. That's what Truthys do.
Use of probabilities to explain a specific event is a famous misuse of
statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_condition
In mathematics, in the field of differential equations, a boundary
value problem is a differential equation together with a set of
additional restraints, called the boundary conditions. A solution
to a boundary value problem is a solution to the differential
equations which also satisfies the boundary conditions.
And so on and so on...
Hatto von Aquitanien
See § 7
http://dbserv.ihep.su/hist/owa/hw.part2?s_c=SCHR%5CODINGER+1926E
I trust you have it on hand, no?
Al Dykes
Especially at the quantum level, probabilities can't be used to
predict the outcome of a specific event.
Hatto von Aquitanien
This is getting to be too much like child abuse.
John R Rybock
wrote:
> John RRybockwrote:
> > On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Fred" <Fred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own
> >> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire
> >> and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled
> >> demolition.
>
>
> > How should it have looked like? For the most part, the building is
> > going to fall downwards when the supports give way. Once a couple key
> > supports give way (and there were some very unique engineering
> > characteristics of WTC7 to deal with the inablility to build a normal
> > foundation), the rest get quickly overloaded, a mere second or so.
> > There is no horizontal force. The only force on the building is
> > downwards, so that is the direction the bulk of the mass is going to
> > fall. I get the sense people think it should have tipped over, but
> > there was no lateral force to push it over.
>
> Give it a break.
>
> Virtus Tutissima Cassis- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, the brilliant ability of conspiracy theorists to defend their
position.
Are you able to show how the building "should" have fallen by
structural collapse? Have you made any attempt to address any of the
points I made? A casual observer to these threads can see that you
cannot.
It is like the "puffs of smoke" as signs of explosives that CT claim.
If there were explosives, we may see such puffs. Then again, if it was
structural failure, the pancaking of the floors would displace a lot
of air, ejecting smoke and debris very quickly, creating... wait for
it... puffs of smoke. So, puffs of smoke is actually completely
useless as a piece of evidence.
Same with the "looks like a controlled demolition" argument - once the
main support structure in WTC7 (cantilevered trusses keeping much of
the weight of the building off of a pre-existing ConEd substation),
the collapse would be vertical. There were no forces in play that
would cause a "timber!" fall to the side. So the "appearance" argument
actually offers no evidentiary value. Plus it often glosses over,
ignores, or just plain misrepresents the spread of debris over a wide
area (for they need to convince people it all came down in a neat
pile, which it didn't) and the time of the collapse (they need to
speed it up as much as possible to make the also pointless "free-fall
speed" argument).
The main problem with the conspiracy theories, in my opinion, is not
the implausibility of their claims, nor their lack of basic
understanding of science they try to use as a basis of their
arguments, and not even the lack of additional academic research on
most of these claims in the 5 years since they were first put forth.
The real problem is the inability to put together a coherent,
"scientific method" based argument. There is a lot of reliance on
"evidence" that doesn't mean what they claim it does (as I've outlined
earlier), questions possiblly raised to justify further investigation
actually being treated like the final conclusion, multiple pieces of
evidence offered up that contradict each other, misrepresentation of
facts and making conclusions off the bad info, and no hypothesis
testing. Until these basic problems are addressed and corrected, all
CTers are going to do is make themselves feel good, sharing with each
other what they already feel they know, and they will make no progress
in actually getting closer to what they believe is the truth.
Al Dykes
In adddition to the alleged evidence, they also depend on
out-of-context quotes in support of their claims, cherrypicked and
always omitting words in the same source that go against their claims.
For example, look of the fulll text for any NY fireman's quote. Read
his entire quote and then put it in the context of all quotes by
firemen. None of them think there were man-made explosives at WTC. `
Sometimes "explosion" is just a word for "loud noise".
James McGill
> For example, look of the fulll text for any NY fireman's quote. Read
> his entire quote and then put it in the context of all quotes by
> firemen. None of them think there were man-made explosives at WTC. `
>
> Sometimes "explosion" is just a word for "loud noise".
Don't let facts get in the way of pursuing a lost cause.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Sometimes, just because you have hand grenades and machine-guns, it is not
appropriate to use them. It is not morally acceptable to shoot bullets at
kids throwing sticks.
> Are you able to show how the building "should" have fallen by
> structural collapse?
No, but there's pretty good reason to believe that they should _not_ have
fallen due to "structural collapse".
> Have you made any attempt to address any of the
> points I made? A casual observer to these threads can see that you
> cannot.
A casual observer who draws such a conclusion is unqualified to be taken
seriously.
> It is like the "puffs of smoke" as signs of explosives that CT claim.
> If there were explosives, we may see such puffs. Then again, if it was
> structural failure, the pancaking of the floors would displace a lot
> of air, ejecting smoke and debris very quickly, creating... wait for
> it... puffs of smoke. So, puffs of smoke is actually completely
> useless as a piece of evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by "puffs of smoke". There are some "puffs of
smoke" talked about in the NIST report prior to the final demolition, but
during the final collapse of the structures, I have seen no evidence of
puffs of smoke. Please clarify.
> Same with the "looks like a controlled demolition" argument - once the
> main support structure in WTC7 (cantilevered trusses keeping much of
> the weight of the building off of a pre-existing ConEd substation),
> the collapse would be vertical.
Please take you "theory" to NIST, they have been trying, without success, to
explain the collapse for years now.
> There were no forces in play that
> would cause a "timber!" fall to the side. So the "appearance" argument
> actually offers no evidentiary value.
I just posted the following in response to a OCT believer: The one piece of
evidence which is tangible, easy to assess, and definitive is the video
evidence of the molten metal.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Molten+Metal
Examine it closely. Determine for yourself whether it appears to be a
homogeneous liquid. Then find a physicist and ask him what could produce
such a bright yellow to yellow-white glow. Ask for references and exact
mathematical formulæ. If you conclude that the material is homogeneous,
and that the images are legitimate, and you cannot explain it in terms of
the OCT, then you are morally obligated to find an explanation. I am
certain that the phenomena is inconsistent with the OCT. If you can
produce compelling evidence to the contrary, please, I beg of you, do
present that evidence. I will publicly and and unambiguously retract all
of my assertions that 9/11 was an inside job if I am faced with such
evidence.
If you can produce two, completely independent, peer reviewed scientific
papers which explain the observed phenomena using mathematical rigor and
experimental evidence, I will accept your refutation. I don't believe you
can produce even one such paper, but I want to protect myself against
shysters such as Greening who will cobble together seemingly valid yet
fatally flawed mathematical physics in an effort to baffle the non-expert
into submission.
> Plus it often glosses over,
> ignores, or just plain misrepresents the spread of debris over a wide
> area (for they need to convince people it all came down in a neat
> pile, which it didn't) and the time of the collapse (they need to
> speed it up as much as possible to make the also pointless "free-fall
> speed" argument).
All rather pointless. I accept, nay, emphasize the vast dispersion of
debris from the collapses of the TT. Can you please explain what has
happened to the cars which appear in some of these pictures?
http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/images/misc/GJS-WTC80.jpg
http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/images/misc/GJS-WTC32.jpg
http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/images/misc/GJS-WTC105.jpg
http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/images/misc/GJS-WTC99.jpg
http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/images/misc/GJS-WTC108.jpg
Why were there so many cars on fire? These cars were between a quarter and
half a kilometer from the WTC 1.
> The main problem with the conspiracy theories, in my opinion, is not
> the implausibility of their claims, nor their lack of basic
> understanding of science they try to use as a basis of their
> arguments, and not even the lack of additional academic research on
> most of these claims in the 5 years since they were first put forth.
> The real problem is the inability to put together a coherent,
> "scientific method" based argument.
The most implausible one I have encountered is the one about "al Qaeda".
> There is a lot of reliance on "evidence" that doesn't mean what they claim
> it does (as I've outlined earlier), questions possiblly raised to justify
> further investigation actually being treated like the final conclusion,
Final conclusion: the brightly glowing liquid gushing from the side of WTC2
was much hotter than the melting point of aluminum, and much hotter than a
typical office fire.
> multiple pieces of evidence offered up that contradict each other,
> misrepresentation of facts and making conclusions off the bad info, and no
> hypothesis testing.
You are, I trust, talking about the legend that the MSM and Bush
administration has foisted upon us.
> Until these basic problems are addressed and
> corrected, all CTers are going to do is make themselves feel good, sharing
> with each other what they already feel they know, and they will make no
> progress in actually getting closer to what they believe is the truth.
Since you are not privy to all correspondences, you clearly, by definition,
do not know what you are talking about.
Al Dykes
So when did you get a degree in anything related to building collapse?
Read the NYT article from Dec 20, it and weap. Inspectors were warning
that WTC7 was a fire hazard even before 9/11. This was widely reported
in NYC years earlier.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytt4bg
New York Times, December 20, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER;
CITY HAD BEEN WARNED OF FUEL TANK AT 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER
By James Glanz and Eric Lipton
Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank
for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a
47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a
hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.
The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground
floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel
generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in
the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design
changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have
run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the
tank in place.
But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position
could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it
caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called
''disaster.''
Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris,
and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the
building.
Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7
World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the
110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and
set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings.
Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever
collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining
whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level --
played an important role in the building's stunning demise.
The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood
and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof
enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact
met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall
fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of
the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port
Authority's chief engineer.
The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate
the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said.
''We made sure that it was in agreement with the code,'' Mr. Lombardi
said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry
enclosure.
A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not
authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been
addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the
department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said
he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be ''a
stretch.'' The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he
still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe.
The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not
have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the
towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with
the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to
often take additional precautions.
A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis
E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination
that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was
essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source
and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was
deemed to be susceptible to floods.
''We put it in the area where we needed to put it,'' Mr. McCarton
said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the
collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said.
He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by
the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery
collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's
planning.
No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade
Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and
recovery efforts under way at the scene.
The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse
of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the
disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures
typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised
questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions.
At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James
Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of
the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by
falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached.
Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse,
heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was
coming from that part of the building.
The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding
the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the
possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground
floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have
also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more
likely culprit in the collapse.
Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the
city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of
a building posed serious risks.
(end of full text)
John R Rybock
> John RRybockwrote:
> > On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre>
> > wrote:
> >> John RRybockwrote:
> >> > On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Fred" <Fred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our
> >> >> own
> >> >> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by
> >> >> fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a
> >> >> controlled demolition.
>
> >> >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003
>
> >> > How should it have looked like? For the most part, the building is
> >> > going to fall downwards when the supports give way. Once a couple key
> >> > supports give way (and there were some very unique engineering
> >> > characteristics of WTC7 to deal with the inablility to build a normal
> >> > foundation), the rest get quickly overloaded, a mere second or so.
> >> > There is no horizontal force. The only force on the building is
> >> > downwards, so that is the direction the bulk of the mass is going to
> >> > fall. I get the sense people think it should have tipped over, but
> >> > there was no lateral force to push it over.
>
> >> Give it a break.
>
> >> --http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-u...
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ah, the brilliant ability of conspiracy theorists to defend their
> > position.
>
> Sometimes, just because you have hand grenades and machine-guns, it is not
> appropriate to use them. It is not morally acceptable to shoot bullets at
> kids throwing sticks.
You guys seem unable to defend yourselves with sticks. After each and
every point gets rebutted and refuted, what logical reason is there to
hold back the "hand grenades and machine-guns"?
>
> > Are you able to show how the building "should" have fallen by
> > structural collapse?
>
> No, but there's pretty good reason to believe that they should _not_ have
> fallen due to "structural collapse".
Actually, that is not true, and goes to what I've complained about the
inability of conspiracy theorists inability to actually take the FULL
facts into account, and explain how it all fits together.
When WTC7 was built, there was a ConEd substation already in the
ground there, which was prohibitive to move. An engineering solution
was created - since a regular foundation could not be built for the
building, a cantilevered system was designed. On the ground, most of
the weight was supported on one side of the building. Several floors
up, there were trusses which supported the majority of the building
weight, transfering it to the side with the foundation. This was
HIGHLY unusual in design.
With that design, with the damage from the collapse of WTC 1&2, with
the 6000 gallons of fuel near those trusses... engineers saw the big
picture on 9/11, and said there was a strong possibility of collapse.
Elsewhere in this thread is a clear, minute-by-minute listing of the
bulletins that went out over the newswires leading up the the
collapse, showing those engineers making that call, and officials
evacuating the area.
But you, with no apparent engineering credentials, saw no reason it
might have collapsed.
>
> > Have you made any attempt to address any of the
> > points I made? A casual observer to these threads can see that you
> > cannot.
>
> A casual observer who draws such a conclusion is unqualified to be taken
> seriously.
How are they unqualified? At the time I made that comment, you had
done nothing to attempt to defend your position. And as we'll see
throughout this post, you''re doing an ineffectual job now.
>
> > It is like the "puffs of smoke" as signs of explosives that CT claim.
> > If there were explosives, we may see such puffs. Then again, if it was
> > structural failure, the pancaking of the floors would displace a lot
> > of air, ejecting smoke and debris very quickly, creating... wait for
> > it... puffs of smoke. So, puffs of smoke is actually completely
> > useless as a piece of evidence.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "puffs of smoke". There are some "puffs of
> smoke" talked about in the NIST report prior to the final demolition, but
> during the final collapse of the structures, I have seen no evidence of
> puffs of smoke. Please clarify.
I was slightly unclear - I was talking about WTC 1&2, and claims made
over and over again that one can see "puffs of smoke" when the
building collapse, meaning controlled demolitions. This is a clear
example of evidence with no actual value in drawing the conclusion the
claimants want to draw.
>
> > Same with the "looks like a controlled demolition" argument - once the
> > main support structure in WTC7 (cantilevered trusses keeping much of
> > the weight of the building off of a pre-existing ConEd substation),
> > the collapse would be vertical.
>
> Please take you "theory" to NIST, they have been trying, without success, to
> explain the collapse for years now.
>
>From what I've read, they have most of it. But they are an engineering
group. They first worked on the twin towers, both because of their
greater symbolism and the public push for a new tower - analysis and
recommendations were needed for the new tower. Now, they are working
on WTC7, but it is pretty complicated, nothing as obvious than a fully
fueled plane crashing into it. They work not only on the mechanism of
the collapse, but also all the factors, the weight of those factors,
and the like, so new buildings can take the lessons of that collapse
into account (i.e. just how much did the 6000 gallons of fuel actually
affect the final failure).
Ah, try to hold people up to a standard you are not willing to do
yourself.
I've yet to see people who talk about the molten metal offer any
evidence that it was anything other than regular old metal. What metal
would be there be that wasn't structural steel? Perhaps desks, chairs,
computers, walls, cubicles, picture frames, desk organizers, etc and
etc.
But I was pointing out the lack of any force that would cause a non-
vertical collapse; how a structural collapse would be visibly
different from a controlled demolition.
> > Plus it often glosses over,
> > ignores, or just plain misrepresents the spread of debris over a wide
> > area (for they need to convince people it all came down in a neat
> > pile, which it didn't) and the time of the collapse (they need to
> > speed it up as much as possible to make the also pointless "free-fall
> > speed" argument).
>
> All rather pointless. I accept, nay, emphasize the vast dispersion of
> debris from the collapses of the TT. Can you please explain what has
> happened to the cars which appear in some of these pictures?
>
>
> Why were there so many cars on fire? These cars were between a quarter and
> half a kilometer from the WTC 1.
Falling, enflamed debris. The list of photos doesn't really put it in
perspective, but let's take your word on the distance. So that
disproves the "neat" collapse into "its own footprint". And I don't
get why you're asking me to explain, as the building was on fire when
it collapsed. Plus the fact that controlled demolitions doesn't
actually create that kind of damage. So double thanks for disproving
the controlled demolition theory.
>
> > The main problem with the conspiracy theories, in my opinion, is not
> > the implausibility of their claims, nor their lack of basic
> > understanding of science they try to use as a basis of their
> > arguments, and not even the lack of additional academic research on
> > most of these claims in the 5 years since they were first put forth.
> > The real problem is the inability to put together a coherent,
> > "scientific method" based argument.
>
> The most implausible one I have encountered is the one about "al Qaeda".
>
Yes. A dozen men able to slip past airline security is implausible.
Much more plausible - one of the largest office buildings in the world
is rigged with explosives in secret, where the outer wall held most of
the support, meaning the explosives would have to be placed around
office windows. And all these thousands of hours of prep is done while
everyone else goes about their daily business, no one notices
explosives planted around their office window. And all this is done in
a country that can't keep a blowjob between two people in private a
secret, or a conversation between the VP and his chief of staff
private, yet not a single person has come forward to suggest any
inside knowledge by the government.
I am, of course, being sarcastic. Because I don't know how that second
story is the more plausible. And I haven't even mentioned pulling of
the "cover" story of the plane crashes, Flight 93, or the Pentagon,
and all that must have gone into that to fake an attack.
> > There is a lot of reliance on "evidence" that doesn't mean what they claim
> > it does (as I've outlined earlier), questions possiblly raised to justify
> > further investigation actually being treated like the final conclusion,
>
> Final conclusion: the brightly glowing liquid gushing from the side of WTC2
> was much hotter than the melting point of aluminum, and much hotter than a
> typical office fire.
Analysis? Settings on the cameras you are basing those conclusions on?
Again, lack of basic scientific argument - what are you measuring, how
are you measuring it, what is the reliability of those tools? None of
that is put forth, so how can anyone evaluate your conclusions?
>
> > multiple pieces of evidence offered up that contradict each other,
> > misrepresentation of facts and making conclusions off the bad info, and no
> > hypothesis testing.
>
> You are, I trust, talking about the legend that the MSM and Bush
> administration has foisted upon us.
No, I am not. Fact is, the official story is the only one that has any
scientific rigorous work behind it. If the CTers can't, after 5 years,
offer equally rigorous work, they have no shot at getting anywhere.
>
> > Until these basic problems are addressed and
> > corrected, all CTers are going to do is make themselves feel good, sharing
> > with each other what they already feel they know, and they will make no
> > progress in actually getting closer to what they believe is the truth.
>
> Since you are not privy to all correspondences, you clearly, by definition,
> do not know what you are talking about.
I remember a report from the "9/11 Truth" convention, or whatever it
was actually called. And people were admitting that they were going to
seminars and hearing things they already knew. It seemed that it just
felt good to hear other people already thinking the same thing. Most
conventions are people going to learn new things in their area of
study or work, but that didn't seem to be a concern to those attending
that convention.
But after years of posting critiques on these theories and their
posters; many of them not on specific facts, but more on poor
scholarship and what needed to be done to improve it, I've seen
repeatedly time and time again where no one actually tries to
strengthen their arguments, rewrite it to improve its academic rigor.
People are more intent to just start a new thread repeating the exact
same thing. And little of the posts I read now is much different from
posts we saw 5 years ago - again, further evidence that the authors
are less interested in improving their argument than just repeating
themselves and getting a pat on the shoulder from those already like-
minded.
Al Dykes
>> John RRybockwrote:
>> > On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre>
>> > wrote:
>> >> John RRybockwrote:
>> >> > On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Fred" <Fred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our
>> >> >> own
>> >> >> eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by
>> >> >> fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a
>> >> >> controlled demolition.
>>
>>
>> >> > How should it have looked like? For the most part, the building is
>> >> > going to fall downwards when the supports give way. Once a couple key
>> >> > supports give way (and there were some very unique engineering
>> >> > characteristics of WTC7 to deal with the inablility to build a normal
>> >> > foundation), the rest get quickly overloaded, a mere second or so.
>> >> > There is no horizontal force. The only force on the building is
>> >> > downwards, so that is the direction the bulk of the mass is going to
>> >> > fall. I get the sense people think it should have tipped over, but
>> >> > there was no lateral force to push it over.
>>
>> >> Give it a break.
>>
>u=2E..
The story of WTC7 is nicely told in this New York TImes story
New York Times
December 20, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER;
CITY HAD BEEN WARNED OF FUEL TANK AT 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Al Dykes
Your claim in the above paragraph is WRONG.
NIST gave an explanation. (Summarized in answer 11 in
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
You might not agree with it (although you can't say why) but there IS
an explanation that doesn't require man-made explosives or thermate.
There isn't a single scientist that uses his expertise to explain why
there is anything strange about the molten metal we see in one tower.
The fact that it is seen in only one place on one tower makes the
proposal that it is a clue to the way all three towers came down,
suspect, to say the least.
>
>Why were there so many cars on fire? These cars were between a quarter and
>half a kilometer from the WTC 1.
The WTC plaza and the 4 adjacent streets was almost 2km x 2km, so
"half a km" is meaningless as anything strange.
The pile was burning, didn't you know that? According to you, it was
hot enough to "melt steel". It was clearly hot enough to set flammable
parts of vehicles; plastic, rubber, and gas on fire.
It's funny that none of the firemen, or anyone else that was an
eyewitness to the events of 9/11 at WTC thinks there is anything
strange about the hundreds of destroyed vehicles that day. I know one
of those firemen.
You, Hatto von Aquitanien might as well live on the moon for all your
first-hand knowledge of WTC before 9/11 and all you know since is the
bits that the "Truth Movement" choses to tell you, and we know that
the people that write the crap, Griffen, Jones, etc *do* lie.
Here is some reading and YouTube viewing for you.
First, a 2 hours video shot on 9/11, at WTC.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet
(you'll recognize some of it becuase the Truthys have used bits of
this video that support their claims, omitting the parts that go
against those claims, and as always, never citing source and credits.)
Then;
Book: _AFTERMATH: World Trade Center Archive_
By Joel Meyerowitz
http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/book_aftermath.asp
(images on web site)
Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_
By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray
Book: _A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath_
By Callaway
Book: _Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11
By David Friend
Book: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn
p.67. Steel spans buckled in 1975 fire.
(probably from NIST Interim Report May 2003, P.20)
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.
Plane #2 goes thru building
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2859455565562890133&q=cameraplanet&hl=en
7 Days in Sept
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5683397065827145077&q=cameraplanet&hl=en
11:30- Fire and collapse
18:00
12;30 flow cloud
13:40 doesn't hug ground
46:00 - scale of pile
bent beams
1:12:00 Scale of pile
1:29:00
Tower collapse 16 sec
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1051022303200842888&q=cameraplanet&hl=en
Clearly shows crap falling faster than building
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8500406504731486597&q=cdi+pbs
45:00 WTC7 fell after burning for 7 hours
This fikm is an edited verison of te probinal PBS America Rebuilds
Were the definitions added ?
http://www.newvideo.com/productdetail.html?productid=NV-NVG-5570-NVG-9506
Video: WTCl The first 24 hours
Video of first plane crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Hlava
hadrianc
>Sometimes "explosion" is just a word for "loud noise".
>
Or when a fully loaded plane including fuel strikes a solid object at
full speed.
hadrianc
<ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>> Are you able to show how the building "should" have fallen by
>> structural collapse?
>
>No, but there's pretty good reason to believe that they should _not_ have
>fallen due to "structural collapse".
Tut tut the designers didn't allow for a large aviation fuel fire.
The steel melted (like the state it is in at the mills during
manufacture). That's why it is allowed to harden before use in
construction.
hadrianc
>Read the NYT article from Dec 20, it and weap. Inspectors were warning
>that WTC7 was a fire hazard even before 9/11. This was widely reported
>in NYC years earlier.
It had already weathered a large truck bomb in basement years before.