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

[Miragememories]

You expect people to buy this?

Too funny.

Obviously you haven't watched the show.

MM

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

So what are you saying here? That the thousands of FDNY members who worked at ground zero on 9/11 and the days/weeks/months after are all covering up the murder of 347 members of their own department? And why, to protect their city pensions?

And how would a TV show, airing in another country, six years after an event have any influence on 9/11 witnesses?

 

[twinstead]

I'm sure there must be some show or book on those who use the "people know the truth but are afraid to come forth" argument because their theory cannot exist without them. It's just another angle on the "well, I don't know how they did it. It only seems impossible because they are using some kind of exotic, high-tech device" argument.

Rational people just call it denial.

 

[Miragememories]

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.

I think the only thing we can reach agreement on here is that the roof at that location, for whatever reason, was no longer able to support the weight of the east penthouse.

If you look closely at this composite photo below, you should be able to see how the squibs progressed in less than a second revealing preliminary demolition activity prior to global collapse.

The image on the left is the start of the first visible explosive squib activity.

Less than a second later, the middle image shows the peak of the squib development.

The wide shot on the far right is a reference image which matches the middle image.

These screen captures were taken after the east penthouse had fallen and midway through the collapse of the west penthouse. Global collapse was yet to occur or not visible yet. No visible floor collapse argues that the squibs which were moving up the side of WTC7 were not the result of compressed air from dropping floors.

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.

This is why?

Your idea of what constitutes as "useful time measurements" is highly questionable.

From the start of the east penthouse collapse to the start of the west penthouse collapse about 7 seconds later, your supposedly useful list raises the assertion that 0.9 seconds into the east penthouse collapse, 2 windows broke 7 floors below and specifically draws our attentions to the columns they were near (44 & 45).

At 1.2 seconds, the list then mentions 4 more broken windows but interestingly makes no mention of their related column position on the 40th floor?

I guess that information is only of interest to you when the broken windows occur near to what you deem to be a significant column?

At 1.7 seconds in, the list reveals 3 windows break on floors 41,43 & 44. Again, interestingly, no mention of their position on those floors in relation to columns?

At 4.0 seconds windows break (curiously no number of broken windows given?) on floors 37 & 40 "along column 46". I guess that 'suggests' proximity to your preferred column failure path (44 & 45) and for that reason the list mentions a column number.

This is all nicely cherry picked to 'shape' support for your chosen belief.

Why sometimes identify column proximity to broken windows and sometimes not?

What about the fact that following the collapse of WTC1, windows had been observed and heard on video breaking throughout the day. A result of debris damage and all those raging fires?

It's a rather meaningless list of times. No doubt we could time stamp hundreds of trivial occurrences which like this list amount to nothing more than bluster.

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.

Too funny!

You attempt to make it sound like the collapse of this 47-story, city block area building can be summed up in the small collapse of the east penthouse.

This occurs while the whole WTC7 mega structure waits to begin global collapse which you attempt to diminish by describing it as nothing more than an excalating "end-stage".

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.

Here's another good photo to add to your collection.

"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and
implosion." - FEMA (05/02)

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.

The building was supposedly badly debris damage on the south side.

Hours before it collapsed, the collapse was predicted.

The measures taken were in anticipation of a topple.

No where is anyone quoted as suggesting that WTC7 would collapse in a non-topple fashion.

The experts on the scene, saw fire, smoke and debris damage predominantly on the south side, and used that as sufficient argument to declare WTC7 was going to collapse.

Poorly executed controlled demolitions result in topples or partial collapses.

A building such as WTC7, expected to collapse from debris and fire damage, can be compared to a building about to suffer a badly executed controlled demolition!

Therefore a topple or partial collapse would have been the expected result.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Too funny.

Obviously you haven't watched the show.

MM

I've seen Hardfire- and I've seen you dodge just about every question or rebuttal made in this thread.

Any reasonable person will see that you're not too good for a Hardfire debate- you're just too scared. You can't even keep up with your lies in a message board, putting you on the spot in an interview would be too much.

 

[A W Smith]

Squibs? Top down demolition now ?

MerrieMelodies your composite shows the location of your 'squibs' is the last portion of the building to fall. In every demolition I have seen charges distributed at several story levels immediately causes those story levels to collapse. This does not happen in that video.

 

[Mancman]

I think the only thing we can reach agreement on here is that the roof at that location, for whatever reason, was no longer able to support the weight of the east penthouse.

If you look closely at this composite photo below, you should be able to see how the squibs progressed in less than a second revealing preliminary demolition activity prior to global collapse.

[qimg]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1796/wtc7squibcomp2it0.png[/qimg]
The image on the left is the start of the first visible explosive squib activity.

Less than a second later, the middle image shows the peak of the squib development.

The wide shot on the far right is a reference image which matches the middle image.

These screen captures were taken after the east penthouse had fallen and midway through the collapse of the west penthouse. Global collapse was yet to occur or not visible yet. No visible floor collapse argues that the squibs which were moving up the side of WTC7 were not the result of compressed air from dropping floors.

Our survey says.....not there!

Global collapse HAD already began when those 'squibs' appeared. How do we know? Both penthouses are gone - the penthouses were directly supported by the core of the building. The core had already failed when these insignificant puffs of dust were seen.

And here's another thing. The 'squibs' were on the southwestern corner, on the 45th floor, of a building which collapsed towards the southeast from below the 13th floor. There is NO structural deformation around these puffs. That corner stays in one piece until it meets the ground! They are simple ejections of debris from already open windows. Nothing more to it.

911myths puts this one to bed:http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html
Use the white building in the foreground as a reference, the entire building was moving downwards when those puffs of dust appeared.

 

[Miragememories]

I've seen Hardfire- and I've seen you dodge just about every question or rebuttal made in this thread.

Any reasonable person will see that you're not too good for a Hardfire debate- you're just too scared. You can't even keep up with your lies in a message board, putting you on the spot in an interview would be too much.

I'm sure you are a devoted fan.

Think what you will.

I've seen much better discussion shows produced by the local high school.

You go ahead and believe all you like that I live in fear of the great pom.

Your absurd comments reveal much about the quality of thought you bring to the table.

Carry on Toto!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

MerrieMelodies your composite shows the location of your 'squibs' is the last portion of the building to fall. In every demolition I have seen charges distributed at several story levels immediately causes those story levels to collapse. This does not happen in that video.

Get over it.

Apparently your not the expert you imagine yourself to be AS.

MM

 

[Totovader]

I'm sure you are a devoted fan.

Think what you will.

I've seen much better discussion shows produced by the local high school.

You go a head and believe all you like that I live in fear of the great pom.

Your absurd comments reveal much about the quality of thought you bring to the table.

Carry on Toto!

MM

Your pathetic attempts to insult me and the show are just projections of your own inadequacies and self-esteem. I don't need to pretend to myself that you're incapable, I can see it from your unsubstantiated claims and outright refusal to address the topic at hand. How you think that translates into a holier than thou attitude that reasonable people will actually buy is a mystery. Clearly- the alternative is the case: you can't keep up here, and there's no way that you could keep up in a televised debate on any show.

That being said- if we are to believe that you are not scared of the debate and the facts- and are just concerned with your appearance on a show you think is not up to your standards- then what show will you appear on?

I'll set my TiVo.

I'd be willing to bet money that it's not Hardfire or Ron that you have a problem with- it's those pesky facts. Appearing on a show would be a terrible inconvenience for people like you.

 

[A W Smith]

Get over it.

Apparently your not the expert you imagine yourself to be AS.

MM

Nice dodge

show that your squibs have any effect on the collapse.

 

[Miragememories]

Global collapse HAD already began when those 'squibs' appeared. How do we know? Both penthouses are gone - the penthouses were directly supported by the core of the building. The core had already failed when these insignificant puffs of dust were seen.

Speculation on a sharp angle image as to what is occurring. Obviously the building, other than the penthouses is still there. The squibs are real enough and I have little doubt they were occurring before and during global collapse.

And here's another thing. The 'squibs' were on the southwestern corner, on the 45th floor, of a building which collapsed towards the southeast from below the 13th floor. There is NO structural deformation around these puffs. That corner stays in one piece until it meets the ground! They are simple ejections of debris from already open windows. Nothing more to it.

Use the white building in the foreground as a reference, the entire building was moving downwards when those puffs of dust appeared.

Okay I concede that global collapse was in it's initial stages. Nothing you have said proves the squibs I referred to or those that appear on the north face were "puffs of dust"!

Given how dark they are, how large they are, how rapidly they formed, and the relatively slow dropping speed of WTC7 at that early stage, demolitions would seem to provide a far more plausible explanation than air pushed out from floors that haven't yet dropped on top of floors.

MM

 

[DGM]

Given how dark they are, how large they are, how rapidly they formed, and the relatively slow dropping speed of WTC7 at that early stage, demolitions would seem to provide a far more plausible explanation than air pushed out from floors that haven't yet dropped on top of floors.

MM

What makes you think the floors have not started to collapse? Both penthouses and their contents went some where. Theres also a kink in the building. It's more likely that the face of the building we're seeing just has not caught up to the interior.

 

[Totovader]

Obviously you haven't watched the show.

I'm sure you are a devoted fan.

Every time MM contradicts himself, God kills a puppy.

 

[Miragememories]

What makes you think the floors have not started to collapse? Both penthouses and their contents went some where. Theres also a kink in the building. It's more likely that the face of the building we're seeing just has not caught up to the interior.

Well we know the penthouses were no longer on the roof.

The whole north face of WTC7 for that brief moment shows no hint of massive floor collapse pulling in exterior walls and shattering windows floor by floor.

How many interior floors do you figure have to pancake before we see some indication on that vast expanse known as the WTC7 North Face?

MM

 

[Corsair 115]

If you look closely at this composite photo below, you should be able to see how the squibs progressed in less than a second revealing preliminary demolition activity prior to global collapse.

Now you just need to explain why these apparent explosives, powerful enough to sever the columns of the building to cause it to collapse, do not make any noise. Nor distinctive flashes of light either for that matter.

Explosives that produce no blast waves which escape out the many available windows and which produce no discernable noise nor light nor eject any kind of debris... got any theories on what kind of explosives those might be?


By the way, you ought to stop misusing the term "squib." That term most commonly refers to the small explosive charges used in the film industry to simulate bullet hits on people.

 

[Miragememories]

If you look closely at this composite photo below, you should be able to see how the squibs progressed in less than a second revealing preliminary demolition activity prior to global collapse.

Now you just need to explain why these apparent explosives, powerful enough to sever the columns of the building to cause it to collapse, do not make any noise. Nor distinctive flashes of light either for that matter.

Explosives that produce no blast waves which escape out the many available windows and which produce no discernable noise nor light nor eject any kind of debris... got any theories on what kind of explosives those might be?

By the way, you ought to stop misusing the term "squib." That term most commonly refers to the small explosive charges used in the film industry to simulate bullet hits on people.

Yes yes I have a dictionary. I know the traditional definition of what a squib is. Words change with usage. Are you gay Corsair?

Get my drift smart boy?

You seem to have a real problem with loudness.

Your a one trick pony and you seem to think that the lack of accountability for explosive noise reports means there were no explosives.

So tell me how you expect these explosions to evidence themselves in an environment filled with prevailing noise from sirens, debris falls, buildings on fire, and all the other sounds a big city makes during an emergency like 9/11?

We can't rely on recording devices, though there are recordings of explosions. Microphones set to normal background audio levels are easily overwhelmed by a situation that raises ambient levels as high as they were in lower Manhattan on 9/11.

We can fall back on eyewitness testimony.

When we do, we get contradictory remembrances, and like the election of 2000, you can probably find more quotes for no explosions than you can for "yes I heard them".

This is really a fruitless quest. We have quite a quantity of testimony regarding WTC 1 & 2 for instance that cites a great deal of explosive activity yet that gets ignored here as well.

What's the point?

I have no evidence that you haven't been presented with.

I'm basically saying the required audio occurred to fit the controlled demolition and you are saying that because you saw the controlled demolition but didn't hear it, no such thing occurred.

Well we've all watched thoses numerous videos of buildings that have been brought down by controlled demolitions. One thing I've noticed is that prior to the event, it's usually very quiet. During the event, it's visually spectacular but the explosive sounds are largely muted inside the building since they are focused mostly at ground level near the core.

In lower Manhattan we have a wall of noise as a backdrop and a controlled demolition that doesn't want to be advertised as such. I'm suggesting your deafness is a result of background noise, stealth and maximum use of sound deadening controlled demolition technology.

Expense was not a consideration as it is with commercial controlled demolitions.

Anyone prepared to be involved in something as major as this were unhesitatingly prepared to pay any cost to get the best technology with the least conspicuous display.

Of course I don't expect you to agree with anything I've said for a moment, but you asked and I'm providing the best answer I can.

MM

 

[Jono]

I think the only thing we can reach agreement on here is that the roof at that location, for whatever reason, was no longer able to support the weight of the east penthouse.

Or whatever reason? Certainly, nothing of substance suggest thermate or otherwise shaped charges, while substantial evidence suggest there was a huge hole in the building, the floors above collapsed gradually and soon this was noticable from the outside as the penthouse and roof-floor gave in in that end, spreading to west-penthouse etc with more sub-roof floors collapsing, due to the internal implosion, which then swiftly escalated in a global collapse.

There, it isn't that odd is it?

If you look closely at this composite photo below, you should be able to see how the squibs progressed in less than a second revealing preliminary demolition activity prior to global collapse.

Squibs? What, you mean the poofs of air breaking the window, or the gradual sagging of the building breaking the windows? The entire building had begun tilting some time before any signs of a collapse were noticeble, it only stands to reason that when the internal collapse brought down floors and thus the roof-penthouse east and later west. It would be safe to assume this means the windows of the exterior face aren't going to be unaffected by the internal collapse.

Here's a good explaination on the squibs-thingy;

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

Excerpt hereof; (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm)

North west video screen shot South west photo

"Squibs? Or a damaged window area doing what a damaged window area would do during a collapse, falling apart... Still not convinced? Look at a higher resolution of the video...

http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi

The video image Jones shows is also zoomed, creating artifacts off the damaged area. This is clearly shown on 911myths.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html "

These screen captures were taken after the east penthouse had fallen and midway through the collapse of the west penthouse...

... No visible floor collapse argues that the

You are rebutting your statement, imo.
No visible, true, but is it that hard to understand that if the east penthouse collapsed into the building (without any signs of explotion) then it would mean the building had actually begun to loose floors to collapse which gradually picked up?

Your idea of what constitutes as "useful time measurements" is highly questionable.

They are specific and timed.

I guess that information is only of interest to you when the broken windows occur near to what you deem to be a significant column?

Not really since that's a non-sequitor when arguing wether time measurements are questionable or not. Does it matter wether columns of the given floors were mentioned or not, when the time-measurements deal with what's visible?

This is all nicely cherry picked to 'shape' support for your chosen belief.

Why sometimes identify column proximity to broken windows and sometimes not?

It's not cherry picked, they were all signs of internal collapse which gradually begun and picked up in intensity more and more as the measurement details.
It doesn't matter if the sequence mentions interior columns of the floors or not in proximity to windows since we know the floors must have been collapsing when you got a tilting, sagging building where the eastern penthouse suddenly drops into the buildings inner sections. Followed later by the western penthouse and screenwall beginning to sink into the building as well.
Why are you arguing about wether it informed on the column-sections or not?

It's a rather meaningless list of times. No doubt we could time stamp hundreds of trivial occurrences which like this list amount to nothing more than bluster.

It's not meaningless, they all detail the gradual stages of the visible collapse, giving us a rather rock-hard understanding of the fact that the floors must have begun collapsing before the roof caved in and screenwall sagged and sunk into the building.

You attempt to make it sound like the collapse of this 47-story, city block area building can be summed up in the small collapse of the east penthouse.

Of course I'm not attempting to make it sound like that. Why do say something irrational like that? Are you upset or otherwise distressed?

It's a part of the collapse, you can't just ignore it and just focus on when the rest of the buildings structure came down, you have to count the beginning of the notable and visible structural collapse. Are you calling the collapse of the roof into the buildings interior to be irrelevant in terms of the subsequent global collapse? That's not logical dear Mirage.

This occurs while the whole WTC7 mega structure waits to begin global collapse which you attempt to diminish by describing it as nothing more than an excalating "end-stage".

How is that diminishing it? It was the unavoidable end-stage brought on by a gradual progressive collapse which escalated and escalated, more and more visible signs of the collapse appeared the closer it got the global collapse.
The building tilts to the south, much later the east penthouse collapsed into the building (why would it had the floors below been intact?), windows suddenly break (yes, where important columns were located, well duh?), the west penthouse then begins to sink into the building as well, and the screenwall, the north face begins to move, both east and west roof sections begin to move (this should be warning ticket that something is about to drop), westpenthouse and screenwall become submerged and then the building shows the ultimate signs of an inward collapse (which we knew by know was happening) and crashes down, notably to the south.

It wasn't symmetrical, it wasn't free-fall and it wasn't really in its own footprints.

Here's another good photo to add to your collection.

Yes, that's a good one yet one needs to evaluate more photos to see the extent of the damage from the debris of WTC7 which blocked the surrounding streets, crushed large holes into the Verizon building, permanently disabling the 30 West Broadway building and cluttering the faces, roofs and sides of several other buildings.

"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and
implosion."

Yes, the above confirms me to be correct and you to be incorrect.
But... why did you bold the latter part? It only states that there was a small debris field too, as the facade was pulled downard, it doesn't negate the rather sizable chunks of debris which went to the west and south.

No where is anyone quoted as suggesting that WTC7 would collapse in a non-topple fashion.

The experts on the scene, saw fire, smoke and debris damage predominantly on the south side, and used that as sufficient argument to declare WTC7 was going to collapse.

It did collapse more to the south than just straight down, more notably than your CD-collapses.

Yes, it was expected to come down as the firefighters anticipated, they noticed the building had started to lean more and more, that the fires became too severe and widespread for them to handle and that there was an almost 20-story hole in the middle of the structure;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk (look at the short interview, which was done prior to the WTC7 collapse).

Nobody said, to my knowledge, the way it would come down, though why would anyone do that?

"Omg, this building is going to collapse, but let me just say that I personally think it will not topple, it will collapse more downward".


However, they did pull the perimeters, rescue-workers and firefighters far back enough to secure distance for any kind of collapse.

"I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro"

 

[pomeroo]

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

It would be suicidal for an empty-headed fool like yourself to attempt to debate Mark, or even me! Although you are a coward and a liar, you display a basic instinct for survival.

 

[pomeroo]

I'm sure you are a devoted fan.

Think what you will.

I've seen much better discussion shows produced by the local high school.

You go ahead and believe all you like that I live in fear of the great pom.

Your absurd comments reveal much about the quality of thought you bring to the table.

Carry on Toto!

MM

Let's be precise. You are terrified of any well-informed rationalist who can expose the baseless rubbish you peddle.