• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

Although I don't agree with Submersible's conclusions, I must say that as compared with some of the CTers who are JAQing, at least Sub is asking some sensible-sounding ones. From the tone of the OP, at least, it sounds like he might actually be willing to consider the answers.
 
pagan said:
That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Some questions:

If it's obvious, why aren't several controlled demolition companies saying it was a controlled demolition?

NIST are examining hypothetical blast situations as part of their invetsigation, will you accept their conclusions?

This is a controlled demolition:



originally posted on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69994

So, the question is: why aren't there recordings of similar explosions in WTC7?

see also this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70047

How were the explosives planted and how long did it take?

How did the explosives resist the fire for so long?

The FDNY stopped searching for survivors in the area around WTC7 several hours before the building collapsed. Why would they do this if they didn't believe the building was going to collapse at some point?

Is it obvious that Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind?
 
Last edited:
pagan said:
Well, if I see a sceleton on the ground. I don't need a doctors opinion to determine if that person is dead or not.
Click to expand...

But you would need one to determine how they died.

I'll throw your crappy analogy back at you:

"Well, if I see a building on the ground. I don't need a structural engineers opinion to determine if that building fell or not".

But you see, I would need a structural engineers opinion to determine HOW the building fell. And oddly enough, none of them say controlled demolition.
 
Welcome to the youtube generation. Forget all that science stuff. Forget all the expert observations made at the scene prior to WT7's collapse. Forget all the problems with preparing a building of that size for demolition.

If it looks like a demolition in a youtube video, it has to be demolition.

Sigh.
 
W6102LA said:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3271662324445998224&q=wtc7

This is an interview with Dutch CD-Pro Danny Jowenko. http://www.jowenko.nl/

The CT'ist love this one :)
Click to expand...

How come every word in that interview is in a different language except for "controlled demolition"? That was weird...



pagan said:
Well, if I see a sceleton on the ground. I don't need a doctors opinion to determine if that person is dead or not.
Click to expand...

Sure, just like I don't need an expert to tell me that the buildings are no longer standing. Now, fromthat skeleton, can you determine the cause of death? I'd say you'd need a doctor of some sort for that. Not only that, but a specialized doctor.
 
Just because Madonna looks like a man, doesn't mean she is.

Looks can be decieving (If I spelt that right lol).
 
pagan said:
That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Looking out from a hill over the Somerset Levels* today I noticed they're incredibly flat.

OMG !! Common sense tells me I've been transported to DiscWorld :eek:

(* ex-marshland in the W of England. Bleak but beautiful. Draining them is one of the many things that The Romans did for us. Those Romans were great, I tell ya. Shame they owe us an 'apology' for those invasions, like we're supposed to be apologising for the slave trade. The French owe us an apology for 1066, too. Though I hear they were mostly Viking immigrants to Normandy or something, so half of Scandinavia should be apologising as well. Did you Yanks ever apologise for that 'War of Independence' business? Most unseemly and violent! And such a waste of good tea. We'd have built you some nice neo-roman aqueducts eventually, too. It's all common sense, really)
 
GlennB said:
Looking out from a hill over the Somerset Levels* today I noticed they're incredibly flat.

OMG !! Common sense tells me I've been transported to DiscWorld :eek:

(* ex-marshland in the W of England. Bleak but beautiful. Draining them is one of the many things that The Romans did for us. Those Romans were great, I tell ya. Shame they owe us an 'apology' for those invasions, like we're supposed to be apologising for the slave trade. The French owe us an apology for 1066, too. Though I hear they were mostly Viking immigrants to Normandy or something, so half of Scandinavia should be apologising as well. Did you Yanks ever apologise for that 'War of Independence' business? Most unseemly and violent! And such a waste of good tea. We'd have built you some nice neo-roman aqueducts eventually, too. It's all common sense, really)
Click to expand...


Discworld? I always seem to get crappy replys on this forum.


The French did not have anything to do with 1066. It was the Normands. The French term for the vikings, meaning men from the north.

Me? Not a Yank, I'm from Sweden.
 
pagan said:
Discworld? I always seem to get crappy replys on this forum.
Click to expand...

It was an analogy.

How's about you stop accusing the replies of being crappy and actually address the points that are raised?

Anything else is empty rhetoric.

In case you missed them, here are some of the responses from this thread:

maccy said:
Some questions:

If it's obvious, why aren't several controlled demolition companies saying it was a controlled demolition?

NIST are examining hypothetical blast situations as part of their invetsigation, will you accept their conclusions?

This is a controlled demolition:



originally posted on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69994

So, the question is: why aren't there recordings of similar explosions in WTC7?

see also this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70047

How were the explosives planted and how long did it take?

How did the explosives resist the fire for so long?

The FDNY stopped searching for survivors in the area around WTC7 several hours before the building collapsed. Why would they do this if they didn't believe the building was going to collapse at some point?

Is it obvious that Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind?
Click to expand...

doctorfungi said:
But you would need one to determine how they died.

I'll throw your crappy analogy back at you:

"Well, if I see a building on the ground. I don't need a structural engineers opinion to determine if that building fell or not".

But you see, I would need a structural engineers opinion to determine HOW the building fell. And oddly enough, none of them say controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

twinstead said:
Welcome to the youtube generation. Forget all that science stuff. Forget all the expert observations made at the scene prior to WT7's collapse. Forget all the problems with preparing a building of that size for demolition.

If it looks like a demolition in a youtube video, it has to be demolition.

Sigh.
Click to expand...
 
Bell said:
Maybe you should rethink your strategy. Oops, my bad. You don't think. Common sense and all.
Click to expand...

So you are from Holland? You should know better. When you have such an excellent compatriot as Danny de wit.

Splendid fellow. I guess all Dutch people aren't that bright.

Maccy: I come back to you later. Got to go.
 
pagan said:
So you are from Holland? You should know better. When you have such an excellent compatriot as Danny de wit.

Splendid fellow. I guess all Dutch people aren't that bright.

Maccy: I come back to you later. Got to go.
Click to expand...
Don't hurry.
 
pagan said:
Discworld? I always seem to get crappy replys on this forum.

The French did not have anything to do with 1066. It was the Normands. The French term for the vikings, meaning men from the north.

Me? Not a Yank, I'm from Sweden.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Normands were living in Normandy at the time, so the French were in on the Invasion Conspiracy. Common sense innit?

And I'm pretty sure that Sweden must have invaded us, so I'd like an apology. Every other b#gger invaded us at some point, so common sense tells me you lot must have. We have plenty of blonde folks and a national fondness for Abba over here, too. Proves it.
 
You asked what could cause enough heat for the beams to fail - the building
contents supplemented by 10,000 gal diesel fuel from the backup generator

Most items and furnishings today are made of synthetic materials aka
plastics (remember the film "THE GRADUATE"??)

Plastics are derived mostly from petroleum and burn with much great heat
than organic material (wood, paper, cloth). Plastics produce from 12,000
to 16,000 btu/lb vs 8,000 for organic type materials. A modern office is
almost entirely made of plastics . Chairs - urethane padding, cubicle
dividers - styrofoam, urethane, desks - particle board aka sawdust held
togather with resin (plastic binder), Even the computers are almost all
plastics these days. FEMA set up test where typical office workstations
were ignited and heat output measured - small cluster of workstations
generated 12 mega watts thermal energy. Add to that diesel fuel from
broken pipe caused when top of WTC 1 gouged out corner of WTC7 have
makings of nice big bonfire.

Also the spray on fire proofing common in many buildings has tendancy to
crack and flake off over time - assuming its applied right. Tests found
applying on painted steel reduces adhesion by factor of 2 to 3 (more likely
to peel off)

Add to this that FDNY did not fight the fire - had no water pressure from
collapse of towers which cut mains which with lack of equipment (FF on
scene when initially told to go into WTC7 had to scrounge for air packs,
hose and tools from destroyed/damaged apparatus). Fire chiefs considered
structural damage to building (read accounts from FF and chiefs on scene
in FIREHOUSE magazine WWW.FIREHOUSE.COM in their 9/11 archives) and
realized lacked resources to adequately fight the fire without risking more
death/injury to personnel - 343 were already dead and many more injured.

WTC 7 was abandoned early afternoon after building was searched and
nobody remained. Collapse can 5:20pm some 7 hours after being damaged
by debris shower from collapsing towers.
 
GlennB said:
Every other b#gger invaded us at some point, so common sense tells me you lot must have. We have plenty of blonde folks and a national fondness for Abba over here, too. Proves it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... let's overlook the whole 'British Empire' thing, shall we?
 
pagan said:
That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...
Keep it up, one day you will be smart enough to be a useful idiot!
 
It Is Clearly A Controlled Demolition

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition. Most of the people cannot see this not because of facts but because of something with their personality. Which is what i am here for, trying to understand how certain individuals can twist reality.
Listen to this analogy....
The day when the OJ Simpson trial was to conclude, i.e. the verdict was to be read, i took a city bus to work which consisted exclusively of Afro-Americans. During the bus ride i read about the pending verdict and i started a conversation with the people around me, and when i asked their opinion about his innocence or guilt......there was a unanimous assertation that he was innocent. When I arived to work, and asked my co-workers how many afro-americans were on the jury, and they told me 11. I knew there and then that OJ Simpson was going to walk. The Jury was no longer looking for evidence, it had become an emotional race issue. Facts were secondary.
I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.
 
And all those people from around the world who are not american?

You've gotta do better than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom