This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[Pardalis]

28th kingdom, has any secret controlled demolitions of three buildings ever been attempted simultaneously before in history?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Evidence?

Ma'am,

When I'm able to post links...this will be a lot easier for me. But, there is even a video of someone at ground zero, who uses the word, "Pull," to describe them taking down the remains of WTC 5 or 6. I forget which one. But, you can clearly see the person radio in...that they just pulled it. Referring to them demolishing it.

Also, I think it's awesome that so many people have decided to participate. I can assure you all - the truth has come for you...so please...

Open your eyes.

 

[uk_dave]

In the spirit of fairness, dave....cite?

awwwww damn you fairness!

UK Building regulations

Approved Document B
http://tinyurl.com/yk8fhr


2006 International Fire code (Get your credit card ready)
http://www.iccsafe.org/ps/pdf/2006_IFC.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_protection

etc etc

 

[Firestone]

Ma'am,

When I'm able to post links...this will be a lot easier for me. But, there is even a video of someone at ground zero, who uses the word, "Pull," to describe them taking down the remains of WTC 5 or 6. I forget which one. But, you can clearly see the person radio in...that they just pulled it. Referring to them demolishing it.

Also, I think it's awesome that so many people have decided to participate. I can assure you all...that the truth has come for you...so please...

Open your eyes.

The demolition of WTC 6 (that's the one in the video) didn't use explosives ...

 

[Arus808]

Ma'am,

When I'm able to post links...this will be a lot easier for me.

YOu can. just take off the http:// in front of
so
type www.hotmail.com
instead of http://www.hotmail.com

But, there is even a video of someone at ground zero, who uses the word, "Pull," to describe them taking down the remains of WTC 5 or 6. I forget which one. But, you can clearly see the person radio in...that they just pulled it. Referring to them demolishing it.

You are talking about the video where a fire chief is telling his men to pULL out, and he is "supposedly" talking to Siverstein.

or the video where its days AFTER 9/11 where a demoltion team (CDI) were brought in to help clean up the area, and they "pulled" WTC 6 (via cables and tractors) down?


The only reason the term would be used is to make sure his men are out.

Debunked numerous times


Seriously, BEFORE answering any more quetsions in this thread, PLEASE use hte search function.

 

[Pardalis]

Open your eyes.

Don't drink the Koolaid.

 

[beachnut]

Sir,

No they were NOT. They weren't told in secret that the WTC 7 was coming down...they were simply informed...by higher ups, that the building was about to come down. That doesn't in anyway imply they're a part of the demolition.

Do you always make up stuff like this? The higher ups, can you list the higher ups please?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Ma'am,

When I'm able to post links...this will be a lot easier for me. But, there is even a video of someone at ground zero, who uses the word, "Pull," to describe them taking down the remains of WTC 5 or 6. I forget which one. But, you can clearly see the person radio in...that they just pulled it. Referring to them demolishing it.

Also, I think it's awesome that so many people have decided to participate. I can assure you all - the truth has come for you...so please...

Open your eyes.

So, your evidence is the use of the word "pull"?

Sorry, not good enough for me.

Please use the search function for previous discussion on this issue.

 

[uk_dave]

28th Kingdom, do you have even the slightest doubt in your mind that the CT scenario sold to you by the CT advocates is wrong?

 

[Alt+F4]

Ma'am,

When I'm able to post links...this will be a lot easier for me. But, there is even a video of someone at ground zero, who uses the word, "Pull," to describe them taking down the remains of WTC 5 or 6.

<Sigh> I am of the age where a Ma'am is no longer insulting, but then it's also not necessary.

Your contention is that "pull" is an demolition industry term for the controlled demolition of a building. It is not.

 

[maccy]

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....

Please be more precise with you language. In order for something to dissolve it has to be soluble in another substance, for example: sugar dissolving in water. From this, it makes no sense to say that something "dissolved into nothingness" the word you should use is "disappear". It is quite clear that the building did not disappear - it collapsed into a very large pile of rubble. Your use of the term "the blink of an eye" is also inappropriate, even if you personally close your eyes for several seconds at a time when blinking, human beings do not typically do this. Overall, this sort of hyperbolic rhetoric does not help your argument.

Also, we don't know for how long damage was occurring before it started to be become visible. However, we do know that there was a 5 to 6 second delay between the sage of the east penthouse and the final collapse. We also know that fires burnt in the building for several hours before it collapsed.

apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside.

You'll find further discussion of this in the resources I list at the bottom of this post, but briefly: very large building, lots of smoke, bright sunshine. Why would lots of flames have to be visible on the outside of a large building to indicate that cantilevered transfer trusses on floor 7 were being weakened and damaged by fire?

Also, the building was damaged by falling debris as well as fire.

Numerous firefighters who were there at the time have testified that the fires were serious and on many floors and that they were afraid that the building was going to collapse. In addition, the fire service cleared an area around the building and stopped searching for survivors in that building several hours before the building collapsed. Why would they do this they didn't think the building was in danger of collapse due to fires and structural damage?

Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse.

Why would the 9/11 Commission address WTC7?

There is an initial FEMA report that addresses WTC7 and NIST are still working on their report into it. Up until recently NIST have focussed on WTC1 and 2, now that they have published the report on these, they have turned to WTC7. NIST's working hypothesis is alreday published and they will be publishing their draft report in the spring. See below for links to the official documents about WTC7

All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Again, hyperbolic rhetoric (nothing actually turned to jello) combined with a lame attempt at humour - please avoid this if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it.

In analyzing a large complex event you have to look at things methodically and in detail, do the maths and not rely on assumptions, generalisations and appeal to incredulity. Precision is not over-analysis.

Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

If someone makes a politically inspired statement in discussions here then please do call them on it and make the point that it's not relevant. However, please do not make assumptions about a posters political motivations in order to avoid dealing with the posts they made.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

However, in order to put forward a controlled demolition hypothesis you have to account for how that demolition was carried out and how its preparation was kept secret. It would also help greatly if you could come up with a plausible idea of why it was carried out and by whom.

Even if you succeed in finding holes in the fire and structural damage theory this does not, of itself, prove an alternative.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be!

I suggest you take some time to read all the links at the bottom of this post to get a proper idea of various skeptics position on this. Informing yourself beforehand will lead to a better discussion. At the moment you are going over things that have already been discussed several times.

In a court of law, you do not make a statement and then ask your opposing counsel to disprove. The burden of proof lies with the person making the statement. You have to provide positive evidence for controlled demoliton and subject it to scrutiny.

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

You're getting ahead of yourself here, if you feel a point is distracting then you can say so after it's been made, not in advance.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

It would help if you dropped the patronising tone. I'm all for dealing things one question at a time. The points I've raised above are intended to encourage to think about the issues some more and do some research before progressing further. I'm not expecting you to address them immediately.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

I can say that no building the size of WTC1,2 or 7 has ever been brought down by controlled demolition.

WTC1, 2 and 7 did not collapse solely as a result of fire. The NIST report is comprehensive overview of the most likely factors in the collapse of WTC1 and 2. They are still working on WTC7. In a complex and chaotic event like a building collapse it is impossible to say exactly what happened down to the very last detail. However, it is possible to describe in great detail the issues and the probable cause of the collapse. This is what NIST has done and there is no reasonable doubt about their conclusions (even a criminal court only asks for conviction beyond reasonable doubt).

By contrast there are several problems with the controlled demolition hypothesis, including:

1. lack of physical evidence for explosives in wreckage; and

2. no sound recordings that match the explosions of a typical controlled demoloiton.

For reference, this is NIST's most recently published thinking on how the collapse progressed:

Interior columns 79, 80, and 81, were located directly below the east penthouse on the roof and supported large tributary areas. It appears that some sequence of component failures in the region identified in Figs. L–29 and L–30 led to the failure of one or more of these columns, as discussed above. The failure progressed vertically upward within the failed bay to the roof level, based upon observations of window breakage relative to failure of rooftop structures, and was first visible from the exterior when the east penthouse lost support (see Fig. L–26).

The 5 s to 6 s delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west penthouse (shown in Fig. L–27) approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical failure progression on the east side of the building to reach Floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses and girders in this area.

A kink developed in the north facade approximately where column 76 projects to the north face. The kink may have formed in the plane of the north facade or it may represent a displacement in the structure along this line towards the south. The area of this kink correlates to the easternmost cantilever transfer at Floor 7. All of the Floor 7 cantilever transfer girders had back spans supported along the line of the north core columns, of which the easternmost one was supported by truss # 1. This north facade kink also coincides with the girders at the eastern edge of the cooling tower area at Floor 46. When the screenwall and the west penthouse sank into the building, a line of windows broke from Floor 44 down to the bottom of the visible range, which is approximately at Floor 33 on the west side of the structure (see Fig. L–27). This area aligns with column 61, which is supported by the cantilevered end of transfer truss #3 between Floors 5 and 7, as shown in Fig. L–31. This suggests that the observed window breakage may be related to the failure of column 61 or truss #3.

The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures, window breakage on the west side of the north facade, and initiation of global collapse (see Fig. L–28) indicates that the building loads could no longer be supported. Horizontal progression of the collapse appears to have occurred after the vertical collapse on the east side of the building. The greater strength of Floors 5 and 7 relative to the other floors and the transfer trusses between these floors suggests that this region of the building played a key role in destabilizing the remaining core columns, and the global collapse occurred with few external signs prior to the system failure.

All of the photographic and videographic records show the north facade collapsing from below the visible area; the facade appears to sink into the ground without any sign of the other floors in the visible portion of the building collapsing. This may indicate that the collapse of the facade starts below the area visible in the photographic and videographic records.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

I'm sure they will go into more detail as they release the draft and then the final report.

There's already an ongoing discussion about WTC7 here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70177

From that thread here is may list of sources on WTC7

This is still being investigated by NIST, but there's some good information here:

FEMA's initial report:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

NIST's working hypothesis:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Counterpunch article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

911 Myths WTC7 page:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Screwloosechange blog entry on WTC7

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

Debunking911.com on WTC7

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm

Gravy's WTC7 Paper (skip part one for the time being)

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (Microsoft Word version)
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf (Adobe Acrobat PDF version)

Finally, some threads that are relevant to at least some of your questions

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70067
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67656 (gets going once Russell Pickering arrives)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66010

 

[Polaris]

Hello all,

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be!

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.
.

You mean these fires?

You've been given three examples of structural steel failure due to fire already. No government report ever said the steel had to melt. And as has been posited before, if fire isn't a threat to steel structures, why is structural steel fireproofed?

Courts of law do admit the commentary and analysis of experts, to explain to the jury things they might not otherwise be aware of or understand properly in regards to the case. Who is on trial, since you said you aren't interested in pointing fingers?

So let's assume WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Why were there no explosives heard detonating as in other CDs? Why does no structural engineer the world over disagree with the NIST report? How do you account for the fact that no explosives can remain intact under that kind of heat, and even if there was a kind that could, there are no detonators that can?

You want people to put aside their political differences so they can...what? All agree that Bush and the NWO blew up the WTC 1, 2, and 7 for reasons unknown? You are insinuating that al-Qaida didn't do it, so someone must have. 9/11 didn't happen spontaneously.

Go to this site. Read it:

http://www.911myths.com/

ETA: Lord Jesus you guys move fast. In the 10 minutes I typed this the thread more than doubled.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

awwwww damn you fairness!

UK Building regulations

Approved Document B
http://tinyurl.com/yk8fhr


2006 International Fire code (Get your credit card ready)
http://www.iccsafe.org/ps/pdf/2006_IFC.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_protection

etc etc

Well, to belabor this even further, dave, can you point me to specific chapter and verse that says structural steel members must be protected?

As a former fire protection engineer, I am well aware that fire codes exist, but I recall nothing from my previous experience that states that all structural steel must be protected.

For instance, if I have a facility with the primary purpose of storing "pig iron under water", do I need to protect the structural steel?

 

[Horatius]

If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun.

So you're looking for evidence that WTC7 at least was a controlled demolition.

this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....

This is just wrong. It didn't dissolve (and how could a CD do that in any case?). It didn't do it in a "blink of an eye" by any defintion anyone but you would accept.

Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it,

This is just wrong. There is an interim report, and a complete report will be out soon, as everyone who's actually paid any attention knows.

and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse.

Straw man. No one has ever, to my knowledge, described the collapse of WTC7 as a "pancake" collapse.

All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that.

This is just wrong again. They did not "turn to jello", and it wasn't "all at once". And it certainly wasn't "magically", unless the CD people have been hiding something from us.

the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

This is just wrong. No one (other than CTists) has ever said the steel "melted". And we still haven't said it was a pancake collapse.

So, since pretty much every major point you've raised to suggest that the collapse of WTC7 wasn't due to impact damage and fires is either flat out wrong or a misrepresentation, why should anyone waste any time jumping through your hoops?

If you really want to have an honest debate, you have to be honest. That means acknowledging when certain CTist arguments have been shown to be utterly false. If you can construct an argument in favour of CD that doesn't rely on already debunked assertions, we might have something to talk about. Otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

P.S.:

I just found this forum today...and my hand to god - this is the first time I have ever posted on this board. Also, I will never sink to a name-calling match - even if others choose to - because I'm here to unite NOT divide. Remember, United we Stand...

Methinks the boy doth protest too much. Particularly since no one even brought this issue up. Socks says "Hi!"

 

[jimtron]

Sir,

A pile of rubble is nothing to me. There is no structure left in the building...it dissolved into a pile of rubble.

But you said:

...DISSOLVED into nothingness...

This is a topic where details are very important. If you are going to do things here like equate "rubble" with "nothing," we're going to have a problem discussing the fine points.

 

[Alt+F4]

So let's assume WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Why were there no explosives heard detonating as in other CDs?

Good point I hadn't thought of before....especially considering the fact the the collapse of WTC7 was shown on live TV.

 

[uk_dave]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Well we are talking about an above ground structure, and specifically an office building...........

i'll have to get back to you

 

[Mr. Skinny]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Well we are talking about an above ground structure, and specifically an office building...........

i'll have to get back to you

I was speaking of an above ground structure also in my "pig iron under water" example, but you are free to find me something re. office structures.

Take your time.

ETA: You may find something re. office structures, but I'm interested in your claim that all steel structural members must be protected...just to clairfy my question.

 

[beachnut]

Hello all,

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds.

Few seconds, is that 3 or 4, or 5 or 6. Who gave you the time. I clocked almost 15 seconds, but then I was looking at the final to the ground below ground type fall.

Nothingness is kind of final. I saw a big pile of building left on the site, and next to the site, across the street, down the street.

Dissolve like sugar in a drink?

So far you opening statement is kind of over the top, false stuff, and not very factual.

 

[28th Kingdom]

The same holds true with jumping to conclusions over 9/11. Calling it an inside job creates an enormous domino effect of very unlikely and bizarre questions, and tremendous suspensions of disbelief and "leaps of faith." For instance, there's the question of how WTC7 was prepped for CD without anyone noticing it - a very good question indeed, since it was an active office building and would've required months of preparation, during which time SOMEONE would've had to find something unusual going on. If you're going to propose an inside job as an "alternative explanation," then you do NOT get to just cleanly sidestep questions like that. And if you consider these things for a little bit, it's quickly clear that the idea of WTC7 being brought down by CD is rather nonsensical garbage.

Sir,

Thanks so much for writing. See, this is what I am referring to, when I say, "Over analyzing," this issue. We must not project our uninformed and unsubstantiated assumptions onto the actual hard evidence and facts of this event...lest we distort (the facts of the event) with our preconceived notions.

True enough, that all of our bodies are in the physical world - manifested from an invisible metaphysical realm, but for us to try and conceive and/or analyze this process (manifestation) as a means to prove our existence only moves us away from the actual physical evidence (our body) that is so clearly evident before us. We need not question the odds or probability of such a manifestation to occur in order for us to unequivocally state that our bodies are in fact, present in the material world.

Thus, we need not have a firm understanding of how such an operation (inside job) would be orchestrated and/or executed, in order for us to clearly espy the fact that three steel-structured buildings collapsed by controlled demolitions.

That building from Chicago in 1967 is not even remotely comparable to the WTC buildings. That's a typical roof collapse of a one or two story building. Nothing fancy about it. We're talking about HUGE skyscrapers, that crumble right into their own footprint. Someone pull a video of WTC 7's collapse. Get a real short clip...of just where it shows the building disappear from the skyline in about 7 seconds. So what's the answer to how this one fell? Did fire melt some floors and cause a pancake collapse? But, all the floors just fall at the same time. There is no domino effect. So we've got 47 stories here. I mean, just say fire completely melted 10 floors (fire, that's not even visible but from one side of the building...I'm sure you've seen buildings that have fires so big, that you can see the blaze from all sides, and these buildings didn't even attempt to collapse like WTC 7) okay, so let an expert step up...and explain technically, how that caused all 47 stories to vaporize all at the same time.

If everyone will shut off the voice of their ego, and just meditate - quietly while watching the collapse of WTC 7 on a loop...the truth will find you.