Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[stateofgrace]

I've heard they make very good whiskey in your homeland.

I've also heard that a great deal of it gets consumed at this time of year.

MM

They do indeed MM, alas I am unable to enjoy such pleasures I am offshore working at the moment.

< twoofer mode on>

So MM, they really demolished WTC 7, why was that ?

< twoofer mode off>

Well?

 

[V23]

Only two calls were made from Flight 93 on cellphones, the rest were made using airphones. The call durations were 1-2 minutes, after which they were dropped. There is nothing to suggest that this is impossible. Just because you've tried and failed to get a signal doesn't mean that you could never get a signal (or, as [SIZE=-1]Frank Kotsonis said, the plural of anecdote is not data).

For more details see:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Cell_phones
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_Phone_calls

Also, you have to consider the difficulty of faking the phone calls. Even if you think it is unlikely that a cell phone call could be made, it seems to me even less likely that a call could be faked.

I have yet to encounter a proposition from the CT side that doesn't fall apart under investigation. Although, I accept that some can seem plausible on first glance - mainly because they are talking about things which are outside of our normal experiences.
[/SIZE]

By Slyjoe -
At what altitude were you trying this experiment? And at what altitude were the calls made from 93?

ETA: and just curious - you are agnostic to 9/11 being an inside job because of what is perceived as cell phone anomalies?

Of all the CT stuff that I have heard out there, this is the only accusation that I find merits my attention. This is not to say that I believe that the entire case of a consparicy hangs on this issue for me, nor does it mean that if this turned out to be a real issue, would it change my mind that terrorists were responsible for 9/11, for it wouldn't.

What it means is, this is my one and only thing that I would consider a "loose end". And I have a feeling that the truth of what really transpired on Flight 93, wont change just becasue the 9/11 Commision report got this one wrong.

I just believe that there is some "anomalies" that need to be taken into account and dealt with, for if the skeptics don't, this one issue will be forever considered the thorn in our side when dealing with "Truthers".

I don't want to leave this issue in the relm of "slight possibility" or "maybe plasuable". I want to kmow the truth. How come the passengers of Flight 93 were able to make cell phone converstations from an aircraft moving in excess of over 400 knots and flying over 8,000 ft. in the air?

And I don't believe that the evidence shows that the airplane was at one time "low enough", or that the plane right before crash had slowed down enough for this to occur at the time frames that are being presented. I am sorry, I do not buy it. The time frames I have seen presented for when the cell phone calls were made do not match the amount time that the conversations had to complete them. One or two things there has to be wrong. For the timeframes alone to be true that plane was WAY lower than previously thought, and got lower a lot sooner than has been documented.

Not to mention, I have yet to see a defintive study or document that says EXACTLY which phone calls were air phones and which ones were cell phones, and EXACTLY when they were called, when they ended, and EXACTLY where was the airplane when this occured, and EXACTLY at what Alt. was the plane at and EXACTLY what was the airspeed of the plane when they occured.

All of this information, if it has not been relaesed, (I don't know I just havent seen it yet), needs to be analyzed, and shown beyond any doubt how this occured by the parameters I just listed.

There is something missing, some key piece of this story that in my opinon has yet to come to light. My current theory is that somehow the two or more cell phones used might have been of a diffrent type that would alow for this type of communication above 6,000 and below 8,000 ft. Another is that perhaps the 9/11 commision got it completely wrong and there were no cell phones that were used and they were all just enough air phones calls.

(which would put this thing to rest . . .)

Another possibilty is that they used call fowarding through their air phones, to pay for the time, (all would be needed is perhaps an access no. for their carrier) and this was set up before the flight had began, not knowing of the events that would transpire that day, which is why verison wireless was able to track certain calls.

(I know that last one is real weak, but I am working on it)

By the way, I know I am posting this on the wrong thread, but i just wanted to reply to the two of you here first before I go find the right thread or start a new one.

 

[Miragememories]

They do indeed MM, alas I am unable to enjoy such pleasures I am offshore working at the moment.

< twoofer mode on>

So MM, they really demolished WTC 7, why was that ?

< twoofer mode off>

Well?

And your asking me why?

Am I to conclude from your asking that question that unless the motive is known, that WTC7 could not have been felled by controlled demolition?

I can and have speculated numerous times as to what would motivate such an act but my posted speculations usually only serve as fuel for mockery which is, with little doubt, the intention of your question in the first place.

MM

 

[Jono]

Did you read my latest reply, Mirage? While I'd like for you to reply it, I understand if you feel you don't have the time. I usually debate 1-5 myself, ie notably outnumbered, though usually on VNN and Stormfront.

 

[johnny karate]

Okay maybe eyewitness statements are what you seek?

Mirage, your bias is showing again.

First, you cling to the dubious claim of a lone expert that supports your beliefs, and ignore the multitudes of experts that contradict them.

Now you trot out a handful of eye witness testimonies that supposedly confirm your position, when just a couple of pages ago, you hand-waved away the far greater number of eye witness testimonies I provided that support the official version of events.

Just remember to save room after finishing your cake so you can have your cake.

 

[Miragememories]

Did you read my latest reply, Mirage? While I'd like for you to reply it, I understand if you feel you don't have the time. I usually debate 1-5 myself, ie notably outnumbered, though usually on VNN and Stormfront.

I'll attempt to now. In the onslaught of other replies yours got forgotten.

The above presentation of facts was a brief summary of a much more predominantely conclusive case.
However, you can't readily have bothered too much with it correct? *it's a fair question*

The material you presented did not appear to contain anything new to me.

If you have anything specific you want to draw my attention to, then please do so.

By the way, my use of Swedish was not intended to be offensive and I'm sorry if it's amateurish quality left you feeling that way.

The bottomline is that WTC7, several seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse, did, unquestionably, perform a complete, high speed (under 10 seconds) collapse , with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

You mean that after some of the floors had collapsed, after the penthouse and screenwall submurged (ie fell down upon those floors into the building), after the north face had moved and the building begun tilting, after the east end and thenwest end of the roof had begun moving, then the subsequent global collapse issued under ten seconds?

Other than obviously a portion of the roof deck under the east penthouse, what floors collapsed prior to the global collapse?

The east penthouse fell through the roof. The roofline and height showed no immediate effect.

Several seconds later, the west penthouse collapsed with global collapse following in what was virtually a continuous action. The global collapse lasted under 10 seconds.

You pad your description of what occurred by using lots of redundant language and talking about physical changes to WTC7 without the application of any useful time measurement. That is a rather disingenuous technique for someone who is supposedly interested in the truth.

Clearly you do this as a setup for this statement;

Yes, but that's basically saying;
"Well after the building had begun to collapse here and there, when it collapsed for real, I mean the rest of it, then it was fast".

I'm sorry if I see the global collapse of the main 47-story portion of WTC7 as having more significance than the east penthouse falling through the roof several seconds prior.

with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

Now it's an "approximation of its footprint"? Hmmm... well, you did see the damage to the other buildings around and the huge chunks of debris scattered in a less than footprint-esque kind of way no?

I used the term "approximation" in anticipation of people like yourself drawing undue attention to the minority portion of WTC7 debris which landed outside the WTC7 periphery.

It is impossible to engineer a perfect footprint collapse of a 47-story building covering an area of one city block.

Also, it would be undesirable to mirror a perfect controlled demolition as that would only highlight the suspicious nature of the collapse.

The fact that they failed to 'fake a natural collapse' is why we are currently having this discussion.

Had the building toppled, WTC7 would not have been surrounded in so much controversy.

MM

 

[Jono]

Other than obviously a portion of the roof deck under the east penthouse, what floors collapsed prior to the global collapse?

The east penthouse fell through the roof. The roofline and height showed no immediate effect.

Erhm, why do you suppose the east penthouse fell through the roof? Surely it's more than possible that it did because the building had begun collapsing underneath the roof? It didn't just collapse through the roof by itself, there was no fire in the penthouse itself to my knowledge.

Several seconds later, the west penthouse collapsed with global collapse following in what was virtually a continuous action. The global collapse lasted under 10 seconds.

True, but for some 4 seconds prior to that, the distinct signs of the inward collapse were visibly from the outside as the eas penthouse submerged.
About 1,5 seconds before the global collapse the west penthouse and screenwall began to sink into the building (no mystery why since the inward collapse which caused the east penthouse to drop did escalate).

You pad your description of what occurred by using lots of redundant language and talking about physical changes to WTC7 without the application of any useful time measurement. That is a rather disingenuous technique for someone who is supposedly interested in the truth.

Yes, it would have been had I not already given you the application of useful time measurements.
They were given here;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3283418&postcount=264

See, this is why you should not be so quick to browse through posts, saying they do not show anything you haven't seen before, while subsequently not knowing what's been given.

I'm sorry if I see the global collapse of the main 47-story portion of WTC7 as having more significance than the east penthouse falling through the roof several seconds prior.

No, stop being sorry. Of course the end-stage of the collapse will be an escalated result of a collapse that started before, there is nothing mysterious or odd about it.

I used the term "approximation" in anticipation of people like yourself drawing undue attention to the minority portion of WTC7 debris which landed outside the WTC7 periphery.

Minority?

The Verizon Building was severaly impacted by the debris, causing large wholes in the building, the same with the 30 West Broadway in the north, which was subsequently torn down because of the damage from the debris.

As I said before, here's a good photograph showing the pile of debris, rubble at and around WTC7;
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

It wasn't exactly in its own footprints. If this was a CD then it's the sloppiest and most unusual CD I've ever seen.

Also, it would be undesirable to mirror a perfect controlled demolition as that would only highlight the suspicious nature of the collapse.

It's hard enough to do a safe and secured cd, let alone fiddling with it to make it only slightly more "chaotic", because then the variables become much more unexpected.
No, I simply do not see the CD-assertions to be more reasonable, substantiated and coherent.

The fact that they failed to 'fake a natural collapse' is why we are currently having this discussion.

Had the building toppled, WTC7 would not have been surrounded in so much controversy.

Well, if the building had toppled somehow then it would indeed have been controversial, since the damade causing the collapse was inward with a tilted slant-fall to the south. Toppling would not have been in contrast to the nature of the damage, yet you believe the damage was somehow faked as well or? Just another stroke of "good luck" for them as they had their cd-plan prior to it?

This is getting multi-facetted and incoherent, I'd prefer it if you would elaborate on the how's and why's.

 

[pomeroo]

Apparently anything other than a complete and rapid collapse is incomprehensible to those who support the Official Story.

MM

I know you accidentally overlooked this post--you would never ignore it intentionally. Seriously, why won't any conspiracy liars agree to peddle their snake oil on 'Hardfire,' in a debate with a well-informed rationalist?

(pomeroo wrote)

Hey, MM, I'm trying to put together a 'Hardfire' discussion on the collapse of WTC 7. For the rationalist side, I have Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY battalion chief who has written a book on the subject, and Mark. To date, I have been unable to find a conspiracy liar with the stones to subject his snake oil to critical scrutiny. Are you the champion the fantasy movement has been yearning for? Why not?

 

[Mancman]

-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor
caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Sounds like they were describing the penthouse debris ripping through the building. You know, that debris that would have landed on transfer trusses 1&2 and collapsed the core of the building?

 

[GStan]

Technically what you said is true and I have no recollection of you calling me or anyone else a "liar".

Maybe in your case "practising denial" might be a more accurate description. "failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth"

I say that when referring to your statement; "Nothing, and I mean that in the strongest possible use of the word, was observed at building 7 that would be inconsistent with the building collapsing as a result of debris and fire damage. No phenomenon were observed by anyone on scene that would have exclusively happened only from a CD."

It doesn't get more unequivocal than; "Nothing, and I mean that in the strongest possible use of the word", that introduction to illustrate the rigidity of your convictions and your mind's closure to lots of reason for doubt.

I have no ‘rigid convictions’ on this matter. I have no emotional investment in determining who was responsible for 9/11. Evil is evil regardless of the perpetrators of it. It can show itself anywhere, and as I add more and more candles to my birthday cakes, I become less surprised to see evidence of it in places I had previously never imagined it could penetrate. 9/11 is no more or less evil whether it was brought about by terrorists or a hidden government black operation.

And I have not been in denial. I began to research 9/11 when Rosie O’Donnell started raising questions about it on the View. I watched Loose Change, and thought it at least made enough of an argument to merit further research. So I read every site on the web I could find, both for and against conspiracy. I have concluded that the evidence is decidedly in favor of a Jihadist terror attack. The evidence is what is rigid, not my convictions. I would change my mind willingly if there were sufficient evidence to support another explanation for the event.

BTW, I retract my ‘strongest possible use of the word,’ it doesn’t belong in the argument.

That kind of honesty, I respect and I applaud you for your courage in expressing it.

What is possible, is that with sufficient debris damage and with sufficient fire, a modern concrete and steel building could be made to collapse in a debris and fire damage style.

A very big difference.

Again, I agree that a building can of course be caused to collapse if it has been inflicted with sufficient debris damage and sufficient fire.

It is not to be expected that under this natural state of decay, occurring over several hours that the building would be expected to collapse with the elegance of a controlled demolition.

What evidence?

What scenario?

The evidence is mostly based on eyewitness testimony which some consider to be expert and others feel is either disinformation or a loss of objectivity given the shocks of the day.

The scenario posed by Truthers would have us believe the collapse of WTC7 had a more sinister evil purpose, whereas the scenario posed by NIST and those who endorse the Official Story would have us belief anything but evil indent.

Given the two scenarios, and given the extreme public reaction that would be expected if the case for controlled demolition was given more than minimal attention, is it not too surprising that so many would eagerly embrace the Official Story?

So you do acknowledge that there is an amount of debris and fire damage that would make a building collapse. As far as evidence goes, there is nothing in your other statements above relevant to the argument at hand.

 

[pomeroo]

Hey, MM, we notice that you're not responding too well. Here's an easy one, although other conspiracy liars have, for some reason, refused to touch it:

Would the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy have still demolished WTC 7 even if the building had not been hit by tons of debris?

 

[GStan]

Of course there is no "known" evidence of prep work. That would involve "discovery" and "action taken". Obviously such a planned act would be as covert as possible.

I'm not going to rehash all the material that's been presented in this forum and others regarding pre-collapse activity. Each one typically evolves into a thread on it's own. If you haven't exposed yourself to the best from both sides of the issue by now, there is little I can say that will influence you.

Don’t hold out on me. I’m not aware of any pre-collapse activity in WTC7 that is suggestive of CD, other than an explosion in the morning which could just as easily be explained by the debris from Tower 1 hitting the building. If there is something else suggestive of CD, I am willing to look at it. Any links?

Keep in mind that the WTC7 debris was quickly removed and NIST never got their hands on what would have constituted as evidence.

If this is true, it is certainly worthy of suspicion. I have seen some good arguments on both sides of this particular point.

FEMA who got there first was never able to reconcile the collapse with the best evidence that was available. and they publicly admitted it.

FEMA’s primary function is disaster/emergency management, not determining the cause of structure collapses, which would fall under NIST.

Professional, heavily funded government organizations like FEMA and NIST can't reach a conclusion yet you and most of the amateur responders here have no difficulty whatsoever reaching the desired "implied conclusion".

NIST in effect says; "We can't prove it yet but were sticking year after year to our WTC7 working collapse hypothesis" and of course the believers obediently follow everywhere NIST chooses to lead them.

How long should the investigation take? And by the way, they will never be able to ‘prove’ the collapse hypothesis, given all of the variables that will remain unknown. In the absence of definitive proof, the alternative is to review that which is known and present the most plausible explanation of the events. Even if they were to pursue a CD hypothesis, they would only be able to give it a degree of plausibility, not prove it definitively. Do you agree?

“heavily funded government organizations”
“amateur responders”
“desired implied conclusion”
“sticking year after year”
“believers obediently follow”
“NIST chooses to lead them”

Such loaded language cannot be found among the tools used to construct sound critical arguments. It is frequently observed on the downhill progression of a losing argument. You are capable of better than this. And this was just two sentences worth, I wasn’t even paying attention to the rest of the post.

 

[GStan]

There certainly is a great need to exaggerate the damage if you wish to argue with any conviction at all that WTC7 should have collapsed!

Many buildings have been badly damaged in the past...and not completely collapsed.

Many buildings have been extremely badly damaged by long lasting raging infernos...and not completely collapsed.

Prior to 9/11, I don't recall seeing any photo of video evidence that was comparable to what happened to WTC7, that wasn't a controlled demolition.

‘First time in history’ can get someone unfamiliar with the subject to say, “Hmm, suspicious,” but it is not evidence. Everything that happens, happened for the first time at some point.

It didn't break up gradually, or collapse in a piecemeal decay-like fashion over an extended time period as it slowly lost structural integrity.

After the east penthouse dropped from view, the whole 47-story, city block structure imploded from the ground upwards in a rapid, symmetrical, unnatural collapse.

Just like with WTC 1 and WTC 2, NIST and the supporters of the Official Story are attempting to sell the idea of a sudden overwhelming DROP which was too much kinetic energy for the intact structure to absorb.

Actually it did occur gradually, over a period of about 7 hours. The building was collapsing from the moment the debris hit it and started the fires. The debris cause significant damage. The fires caused additional damage throughout the day. One section of the building was confirmed to be buckling/leaning. Buckling is nothing more than the beginning of a collapse that has been arrested before a complete failure of whatever support structure is buckled. It was reported that pieces of the building were falling off during the day. It was also reported to be creaking and groaning. It was in fact slowly collapsing all day. It took 7 hours before the weakened building could no longer support its weight.

Again, who is practising denial?

You admit you have no technical expertise.

Danny Jowenko, is a professional, and whatever you may argue about his occupational experience, he is an expert in structural demolitions, far more than you are.

He has seen those "was not obviously CD" materials. He's been interviewed several times. He's studied the WTC7 plans. He steadfastly stands by his original opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He could have used the word "maybe" but he went with "certainly".

Yes, I am an expert in no applicable scientific field. But you don’t have to be just to spot a fallacious argument. I cannot argue with Jowenko. He’s an expert who’s offered an opinion. He can’t be refuted because he’s given nothing to refute. He’s not written a white paper. He’s provided no explanation for why the collapse had to have been CD. There are experts in structural demolition who believe WTC7 was not CD. That’s not evidence of the debris and fire collapse any more than Jowenko’s opinion is evidence of CD.

 

[GStan]

I have read virtually every scrap of material that has been made available regarding the history of WTC7. Since you can argue that conceivably virtually anything is possible as long as it doesn't violate the laws of nature, then certainly it's not impossible to find conclusions that would support the Official Story.

And apparently expected by non-experts like yourself.

There's a good British TV series running right now, it's called WHISTLEBLOWERS. You might want to watch it and then rethink why people aren't so brave and eager to contradict national opinion.

Just out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the bravery and eagerness of the Truth Movement? Why are they immune from the fear?

The only thing in agreement between the two hypothesis is that ultimately the force that successfully collapsed WTC7 was gravity.

Like any force, it's observed effects will depend on the nature of the object it is working on.

A building suffering from debris and fire damage will feel the downward gravitational pull the greatest at it's weakest points and behave accordingly.

When gravitational force is overwhelming, those weakest points will fail first. If these weaknesses spread, and each reaches a critical level, more and more parts of the building will be pulled downward.

It would not be an expectation that this process would accelerate rapidly over say a period of 17 seconds or less and culminate in the complete and total destruction of this 47-story, city block area building.

WTC7 rigged for collapse would have no problem following the observed timeline. A naturally occurring collapse very much would. If it was that easy, there wouldn't be so few professional engineers that attempt it.

The report I’ve linked for you a couple of days ago demonstrates that the observed collapse sequence could have been brought about by the initial isolated failure that caused the east penthouse to fall through the structure. It does not mean that it did happen that way, but it does mean that the observed collapse sequence did not require CD to happen the way it did. In effort to keep the debate meaningful and focused on things that are actually debatable, you should do one of two things. Acknowledge that the collapse sequence could have been brought about without CD and stop using the ‘style’ and ‘speed’ of collapse as evidence for CD, or, show the errors in the report. There is no point to the style and speed argument unless you can find some errors that invalidate the report hypothesis.

Well I have no intention of "quitting" for you or anyone else.

While you are patiently waiting for me to utter the words; "wow, you're right, the evidence really does favor the debris and fire collapse hypothesis", I suggest you might reflect back on what has lead you to so vigorously embrace that belief.

MM

Again, I have not vigorously embraced my beliefs, nor would any truly critical thinker. Listen to Jason Bermas in a debate. Listen to an Alex Jones speech. There are two guys who have ‘vigorously embraced their beliefs.’ In any case, I’m already saving my money to throw a huge bash to celebrate when I hear a truther say “wow, you’re right…”

 

[stateofgrace]

And your asking me why?

Am I to conclude from your asking that question that unless the motive is known, that WTC7 could not have been felled by controlled demolition?

I can and have speculated numerous times as to what would motivate such an act but my posted speculations usually only serve as fuel for mockery which is, with little doubt, the intention of your question in the first place.

MM

I am asking you because you have read every scrap of paper written about WTC 7. I am asking you because you are a self proclaimed expert.

The mockey comes because it is justifiable when you even attempt to answer this simple question because as you know there is absolutly no sane reason why WTC 7 was demolished, hense the reason you will not answer this question.

You see MM, this simple question is one that will be asked in the real world, it is one that demands an answer and one that you refuse to answer.You are all big on accusing NIST of lying, making silly claims about black ops planting lots of bombs inside WTC 7, all unseen al unoticed, all big on saying there was no damage, no fires, etc ect, but ask a simple question of your theory and you fail.

The question , WHY? is so basic, yet you will not answer. You will not gave a full narrative of WTC 7 again why is that ?

 

[Corsair 115]

Okay maybe eyewitness statements are what you seek?

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

Note this person does not actually say he heard explosions, only that others stated hearing sounds which were like explosions (note the bolded word).

Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it...

Except that 1) demolition charges used to destroy a building go off BEFORE the building starts collapsing, NOT during the collapse, and 2) demolition charges are VERY LOUD, which means EVERYONE would have heard them CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY, and every video camera would have recorded them. There's absolutely no mistaking the sound of a demolition charge.

-Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

"Looked like" does NOT mean it was a controlled demolition via explosives. You are aware that people use analogies to describe events, yes?

A B-17 crewmember during WWII once described the sound of anti-aircraft shranel hitting his plane as sounding like "pebbles thrown onto a tin roof." Does this mean we should conclude that the aircraft fuselage was made of tin and the shrapnel consisted of pebbles? Or should we conclude the crewman was using a convenient analogy to try and describe the sound to someone who was not there to hear it firsthand?

-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder…

Notice how the description "like a clap of thunder" specifically does NOT mention explosives.

...What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

The FDNY is in the business of demolishing buildings via controlled demolition? How long have they had this line of work in addition to fighting fires? Do they have demolition experts on staff? Do they have stores of explosive demolition charges stored at depots or firehouses or something?

By the way, where are the videos which should have recorded the unmistakable sounds of these alleged demolition charges destroying WTC7? There were numerous cameras in the area.

 

[Myriad]

-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor
caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Ah, now the facts become clear. We know exactly what causes all claps of thunder, without exception. Lightning.

An emergency worker in that region of the country would certainly have experienced countless thunderstorms and be intimately familiar with the sounds lightning makes (that is, claps of thunder). It's completely implausible that a person with such experience would mistake some other percussive sound for a thunderclap.

So, we now know for certain that lightning struck the building as it was collapsing. However, lightning has no structural effect on steel-framed buildings so this could not have contributed to the collapse in any significant way. We can therefore conclude that this lightning strike (despite coming apparently out of a clear blue sky, a phenomenon that while unusual has been observed before) was a mere coincidence of no significance.

Unless, of course, MM is calling this heroic emergency worker a liar.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Miragememories]

I know you accidentally overlooked this post--you would never ignore it intentionally. Seriously, why won't any conspiracy liars agree to peddle their snake oil on 'Hardfire,' in a debate with a well-informed rationalist?

(pomeroo wrote)

Hey, MM, I'm trying to put together a 'Hardfire' discussion on the collapse of WTC 7. For the rationalist side, I have Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY battalion chief who has written a book on the subject, and Mark. To date, I have been unable to find a conspiracy liar with the stones to subject his snake oil to critical scrutiny. Are you the champion the fantasy movement has been yearning for? Why not?

I feel it would be inhumane for me to make an appearance on a pseudo discussion show with opponents, of whom from all I've read and seen, are in desperate need of psychiatric treatment.

I already work for a major broadcaster and have no need to appear on some amateur wannabe TV 'construction' streamed for the amusement the few friends of the producer.

Or do you just immediately upload them to YouTube?

MM

 

[Totovader]

I feel it would be inhumane for me to make an appearance on a pseudo discussion show with opponents, of whom from all I've read and seen, are in desperate need of psychiatric treatment.

I already work for a major broadcaster and have no need to appear on some amateur wannabe TV 'construction' streamed for the amusement the few friends of the producer.

Or do you just immediately upload them to YouTube?

MM

You expect people to buy this?

 

[Miragememories]

I am asking you because you have read every scrap of paper written about WTC 7. I am asking you because you are a self proclaimed expert.

I've read everything I've encountered on the subject of WTC7 and it's history. The search for more information never ends.

Oh please show me where I made the claim of being an "expert"?

I guess people who are comfortable accusing others of lying have no issues with lying themselves?

The mockey comes because it is justifiable when you even attempt to answer this simple question because as you know there is absolutly no sane reason why WTC 7 was demolished, hense the reason you will not answer this question.

Duh? Okay I will stop attempting to answer your simple questions. Hmm that might mean no answers at all.

You see MM, this simple question is one that will be asked in the real world, it is one that demands an answer and one that you refuse to answer.You are all big on accusing NIST of lying, making silly claims about black ops planting lots of bombs inside WTC 7, all unseen al unoticed, all big on saying there was no damage, no fires, etc ect, but ask a simple question of your theory and you fail.

The question , WHY? is so basic, yet you will not answer. You will not gave a full narrative of WTC 7 again why is that ?

I've have written at length about all these favourite topics of yours.

You see stateofgrace, I've corresponded with you for too long and I know from experience that it is nothing but a waste of time explaining my views in detail to you.

No doubt you are as up to date as I am on the available factual and theoretical information.

Clearly you are totally opposed to my point of view.

So what is left other than we attempt to push each other's buttons hard enough that a personal response of sufficient unacceptability can be evoked and the JREF Mods will step down hard on the transgressor.

I suppose that's a fun sport for those who participate here for that reason.

MM