• 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.

WTC7: The Twoofer Epiphany.

Miragememories said:
I'm just saying your idea of between the lines is my idea of across the ocean.

You are entitled to your beliefs of course. I know I would feel bad if I was labeled as someone who had a predictable opinion. I realize there is comfort in knowing a large group is supporting you.

I'm not asking you to agree with me T.A.M.. I'm just saying the majority isn't always right and that people with opposing views don't deserve the slanderous responses that they receive here.

MM
Click to expand...

Well I apologize for my obtuseness, if my reference to Nessie was such...to you.

Opposing views that are backed by evidence will be given a fair shake, I think. If the evidence is flimsy, than less so. If the view is just an opinion, it will be taken as such, and not treated well here, just as a dessenting opinion with out proof would be on a "truther" site.

In general, I agree with your final statement. I would add though, that if someone comes in to a site that they know is predominantly filled with "debunkers" of 9/11 truth, and begins to spue the "woo" as gospel, they are going to get, and deserve, the full wrath of the JREF "Slander".

TAM:)
 
Actually none of the CT motives about WTC 7 that I have heard make any sense at all.

1) It was for the Insurance:

a) If the insurance company smelled a rat, they wouldn't have paid out. If the claim is the Insurance company was in on it, see (b)

b) The building was badly damaged, they most likely would have written it off anyway, just as WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were and so recieved an insurance pay out anyway. If the insurance company was in on it, then the assessor would have simply agreed regardless of damage.

c) The Insurance policy wasn't enough to rebuild the building, and initailly Silverstein wanted a smaller one, only after his investors complained did it get increased to what it was.

2) It was to hide evidence of the conspiracy.

a) Who from? Apparently the NYFD, NYPD, FBI and CIA are all in on it, or at least can be threatened into do what they are told to, who else would have been wandering about in the building to have seen the supposed "evidence" that was left behind?

b) It wouldn't have worked. Hard drives, papers and other objects of interest were salvaged from all 3 WTC buildings and information was able to be taken from them. Blowing up a building to prevent evidence surviving is a poor choice. Shredding paper and deguasing disks is far better and easier.

c) It draws attention to a conspiracy. Blowing up a prefectly good building is about the dumbest action there is. Computers, radio gear and anything else can easily be removed from a building in a bunch of boxes and a moving truck. Damage to the building is a good reason to cite for moving offices, and any "evidence" could simply vanish on the way without anyone being the wiser.

It just doesn't make sense.
 
Er, it never occurred to me that my avatar suggests masturbation. Does anyone else think that, or does miragememories just have an overactive imagination?

And have I been pleasuring myself incorrectly all these years?
 
Gravy said:
Er, it never occurred to me that my avatar suggests masturbation. Does anyone else think that, or does miragememories just have an overactive imagination?

And have I been pleasuring myself incorrectly all these years?
Click to expand...

You know how when you fall in love, every woman you see looks like your girlfriend? Maybe that's how it is with some people and hands.
 
Gravy said:
Er, it never occurred to me that my avatar suggests masturbation. Does anyone else think that, or does miragememories just have an overactive imagination?

And have I been pleasuring myself incorrectly all these years?
Click to expand...

It doesnt suggest masterbation, but it does suggest that Dylan might want to audition for the lead in the third installment/remake in the "weekend at Bernies" movies.

TAM:)
 
Miragememories said:
...... you don't strike me as man enough to face up to your own mistakes in judgement!

MM
Click to expand...

Are you man enough?

We have a multistorey building which collapsed on 9/11.

It didn't collapse on 9/10 or 9/9.

What was the difference?

On 9/11 WTC7 had been in close proximity to the violent collapse of one of the tallest structures in the world.

It was hit by debris - we have photographic evidence for this
It was on fire - we have photographic evidence for this

We also have eyewitness reports from firefighters at the scene.

On 9/10 WTC7 was undamaged and was not on fire - it didn't collapse

On 9/11 WTC7 was damaged and was on fire - it collapsed

How does this then become a scenario where explosives are pre-planted/planted while the building burned and it is then brought down by the use of those explosives, strangely without any audio or visual record of explosives being detonated before or during the collapse?

You believe in the WTC7 cd because you have to believe it. Otherwise, as far as new york is concerned, you have nothing of your ct left.

You have a demolition expert (jowenko) who is prepared to agree that WTC7 looks like a CD from the limited footage he was shown, and he is prepared to consider how such a cd could have been acheived. But that is where his expertise ends.

Jowenko is not an expert on politics, the US govt, covert ops or any of the other stuff you would need in order to carry out CD on WTC7. On these things Jowenko can only speculate.

But that uninformed speculation leads Jowenko to believe that a building which was on fire and structurally damaged could have been CD, because he believes there was a motive for such an act, but he has no expertise to back up this belief.

So, will MM be man enough to accept the NIST report if it provides a realistic description of the mechanism for the collapse, even if it is contrary to his CT beliefs?
 
Wow... Miragememories, you seem rather confrontational in this thread.

Care to calm down and engage in rational polite debate?

To the OP: I think others have covered it well. Not sure what I can really add. And I'm not a psychologist. :)

-Gumboot
 
uk_dave said:
So, will MM be man enough to accept the NIST report if it provides a realistic description of the mechanism for the collapse, even if it is contrary to his CT beliefs?
Click to expand...

Aren't NIST studying blast scenarios now?

If NIST said in their final report that blasts were involved, what would you say?
 
tonicblue said:
Aren't NIST studying blast scenarios now?

If NIST said in their final report that blasts were involved, what would you say?
Click to expand...

I'd expect them to explain what type of blast evidence they had found (gas, fuel or explosives), and if they found evidence of explosives then I would expect this to be investigated to find out why explosives had caused blast damage to WTC7.

If this pointed to CD then I would expect an investigation into who, when, how and why WTC7 was brought down by CD.

And you?

What if they find no evidence for explosives?
 
tonicblue said:
Aren't NIST studying blast scenarios now?

If NIST said in their final report that blasts were involved, what would you say?
Click to expand...



I believe NIST are using the opportunity of the investigation to determine what sort of impact explosives would have on a skyscraper's integrity, and whether there would be any liklihood of such a scenario causing a collapse.

This examination is hypothetical. I do not believe NIST are examining explosives as a potential explanation for this particular collapse.

-Gumboot
 
Well, it's finally time, I think, to drop the bomb on NIST's examination of hypothetical blast scenarios. We might as well, since the truthers are going to be screaming about it when the report is released.

For this edition of "The Bitter Truth," I am relying on the December "WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary" available at the PDF link below:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

There are three phases to the NIST examination of hypothetical blast scenarios. The key to evaluating them is broken and unbroken windows.

In the first phase, NIST is going to identify a number of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have been used to fail specified columns. The pressure waves will be estimated and then compared to window strength.

In the second phase, any scenarios that clearly wouldn't have broken windows will then be modeled in the software to determine exactly the overpressures at the windows under "worst case scenario" settings.

If any of these worst case scenarios didn't break the windows (which is what was observed as WTC 7 began its collapse), then 3 of these scenarios will be chosen to calculate the level of sound that would have been transmitted through the unbroken windows had demolition charges been used.

Do you understand? Any demolition charges that would have been enough to take down the building and yet not break the windows STILL WOULD HAVE MADE NOISE, noise that is not apparent on ANY video of the collapse of 7 World Trade. These are the criteria that any hypothetical blast scenario must pass to be considered viable in the collapse: take down the specified columns, not break any more windows than were broken, and not make any noise.

Truthers, however, may begin to howl indignantly at any moment.

By the way, this information has been available from NIST since the moment they announced that they were considering hypothetical blast scenarios.
 
Last edited:
tonicblue said:
Aren't NIST studying blast scenarios now?
Click to expand...

boloboffin said:
Well, it's finally time, I think, to drop the bomb on NIST's examination of hypothetical blast scenarios. We might as well, since the truthers are going to be screaming about it when the report is released.

For this edition of "The Bitter Truth," I am relying on the December "WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary" available at the PDF link below:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

There are three phases to the NIST examination of hypothetical blast scenarios. The key to evaluating them is broken and unbroken windows.

In the first phase, NIST is going to identify a number of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have been used to fail specified columns. The pressure waves will be estimated and then compared to window strength.

In the second phase, any scenarios that clearly wouldn't have broken windows will then be modeled in the software to determine exactly the overpressures at the windows under "worst case scenario" settings.

If any of these worst case scenarios didn't break the windows (which is what was observed as WTC 7 began its collapse), then 3 of these scenarios will be chosen to calculate the level of sound that would have been transmitted through the unbroken windows had demolition charges been used.

Do you understand? Any demolition charges that would have been enough to take down the building and yet not break the windows STILL WOULD HAVE MADE NOISE, noise that is not apparent on ANY video of the collapse of 7 World Trade. These are the criteria that any hypothetical blast scenario must pass to be considered viable in the collapse: take down the specified columns, not break any more windows than were broken, and not make any noise.

Truthers, however, may begin to howl indignantly at any moment.

By the way, this information has been available from NIST since the moment they announced that they were considering hypothetical blast scenarios.
Click to expand...

Nicely summarized.
 
boloboffin said:
Well, it's finally time, I think, to drop the bomb on NIST's examination of hypothetical blast scenarios. We might as well, since the truthers are going to be screaming about it when the report is released.

If any of these worst case scenarios didn't break the windows (which is what was observed as WTC 7 began its collapse), then 3 of these scenarios will be chosen to calculate the level of sound that would have been transmitted through the unbroken windows had demolition charges been used.

Do you understand? Any demolition charges that would have been enough to take down the building and yet not break the windows STILL WOULD HAVE MADE NOISE, noise that is not apparent on ANY video of the collapse of 7 World Trade. These are the criteria that any hypothetical blast scenario must pass to be considered viable in the collapse: take down the specified columns, not break any more windows than were broken, and not make any noise.

Truthers, however, may begin to howl indignantly at any moment.
Click to expand...

Your making your own assumptions. Unquestionably demolition charges would make noise. Extensive thermite cutter charges on the other hand would likely be less sound generating. But your claim that no noise was ever recorded is a blanket assumption. There are eyewitness accounts and audio recordings that contradict this assumption. There are visible squibs moving up the side of WTC7 during it's collapse, obviously they must have made noise and just as obviously they should have been moving downward if they were air-pressure induced. Most of the audio recordings made near the WTC7 suffer from over modulation distortion that severely reduces their effectiveness in evaluating sound content.

This final WTC7 NIST Report should make interesting reading though.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom