Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Confuseling]

you include Venezuela? and Iran?

oh missreaded it,

you include AQ? i heard they was upset about Iran for spreading woo.

Your confusion is probably my fault, before the edit my post implied the opposite of what i meant; sorry.

ETA: And yes, Iran are (to be more precise Ahmadinejad is) spreading the woo, but in the clear knowledge that it's woo. If they believed it they wouldn't be crowing about it in rhetorical speeches, they'd be assembling a case, with evidence, and bringing it to the UN, other potential peacemakers, even the US population in the hope of fomenting revolution and getting themselves out of the tight spot they're currently in. Conversely, if any Islamist faction (including Al-Qaeda, even if they were CIA funded) knew that it was true, it would clearly be in their interests to speak up about it; they're peeved with Iran for spreading it specifically because it isn't true.

There is no country on the planet behaving as if it believes the US has undergone a crypto-fascist coup, ergo it hasn't, or they all have. It's inescapable. And I'll believe in scientology before I believe we have a unified global system of governance

 

[DC]

Your confusion is probably my fault, before the edit my post implied the opposite of what i meant; sorry.

no problem
you choosed the right name

 

[Confuseling]

Why would China want to believe them? Because if they could find evidence that it was true and present it to the American people, it would bring most of the body politic of America down (the Dems are guilty of silent assent, as are the media, academia and so forth), causing internal strife, potentially even civil war, to the huge geopolitical benefit of China.

 

[DC]

Why would China want to believe them? Because if they could find evidence that it was true and present it to the American people, it would bring most of the body politic of America down (the Dems are guilty of silent assent, as are the media, academia and so forth), causing internal strife, potentially even civil war, to the huge geopolitical benefit of China.

oh yes like China would point with fingers, they are prolly pretty happy we all nice shut up about Tibet and other violations of human rights and keep doing good bussines with them. an we all can happy watch the olympic games.

they even destroyed 9/11 Evidence, WTC Steel

 

[pomeroo]

REPLY TO R.MACKEY
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3685247#post3685247

Scheuerman is or knows a good writer, and has a book to sell.

NIST knows how to write politically 'safe teflon' reports.

My biggest problem with all 3 of those building fires, was that regardless of the observed precursors, the collapses were so "sudden."

I don't expect my incredulity to carry any weight with you, but on the other hand, you admittedly are making a presentation based on "some assumptions" about the "initiating failure event" and "the condition of the structure", and you further qualify your remarks "to be somewhat speculative."

We know to produce the type of collapse observed with WTC 7, it's necessary to create structural damage which acts in the same manner, close your eyes, as a controlled demolition.

We know there must have been a lower core failure.

We know that controlled demolition is capable of generating such an instant core failure, and that depending on how it was orchestrated, could have produced the observed collapse results, including the pre-collapse of the east penthouse.

Unlike your hypothesis, the 'ability of a controlled demolition' to produced the observed collapse results, requires no assumptions or speculations.

We also have testimony from an acknowledged expert in controlled demolitions who unhesitatingly states his conviction that the observed collapse was a result of a controlled demolition and not the consequence of debris and fire damage.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/3/#new

We have testimony from an NYPD police officer and a radio report, that there were explosions occurring just prior to the observed collapse of WTC 7.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3685514#post3685514

Regardless, you prefer to support the NIST and Arthur Scheuerman hypothesis which eliminates any notion that unknown others, besides the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists were involved in the destruction at WTC Ground Zero.

That hypothesis centers around the premise that a single core column failure lead to the global collapse of WTC 7.

That hypothesis requires fires of extremely high temperature that were supposedly capable of forcing a major core support column to buckle and snap.

NIST in it's public memorandum explaining the further delay in it's final draft WTC 7 Collapse Report, indicated that they were no longer considering diesel fuel as a factor in the fuel that supplied the known fires.

This leaves us with office contents as fuel, and if you allow me to extrapolate from NIST's WTC Collapse Report, NIST found that individual fires had a life expectancy of approximately 20 minutes before peaking and moving on. In WTC 7 we aren't dealing with the reasonable assumption of some initial core damage (as would have occurred with aircraft impacts) and we don't have the NIST argument of bowing trusses.

You say the whole building was sagging. Why? What does that really mean? Why would a mammoth building like WTC 7 sag and create a 3 story "bulge" based on the limited structural damage it sustained?

Much like the Official Story's view of the Twin Towers collapses, I see this as another hypothesis that is reverse engineered based on a pre-conceived modus operandi.

It starts with the premise that fire caused the core failure and proceeds to create a very elaborate working hypothesis that confines itself to supporting that highly questionable assumption.

It's very easy to make argument supporting assumptions once you commit yourself to a "why" conclusion.

My impression is that all these assumptions are being too casually embraced because to do otherwise leads in a direction that you and those who follow your beliefs, absolutely do not want to go.

MM

I like the part where Bartmer says, "And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'..." Yeah, this guy knows from explosions.

What did Arthur get wrong?

 

[DC]

I like the part where Bartmer says, "And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'..." Yeah, this guy knows from explosions.

What did Arthur get wrong?

oh pomeroo, did we missunderstand Bartmer? was he talking about the Radios that exploded? he didnt talk about boom boom boom boom from the building? where he then added, i know when i hear an explosion.

 

[Confuseling]

oh yes like China would point with fingers, they are prolly pretty happy we all nice shut up about Tibet and other violations of human rights and keep doing good bussines with them. an we all can happy watch the olympic games.

they even destroyed 9/11 Evidence, WTC Steel

Yeah, alright, they're getting richer. They'd also be the global superpower if America fell.

Even if you can somehow reason that they don't want America to fall, that's a single country. Do you honestly believe there isn't a single group on the planet that would gain from exposing this? You're left with two options: the evil neo-con conspiracy is actually useful for Americas enemies - presumably they're a false flag operation subtly steering America away from its psychopathic propensity to invade places; or there's no evidence.

 

[Miragememories]

Reply to R. Mackey

Miragememories wrote; Scheuerman is or knows a good writer, and has a book to sell.

R.Mackey writes; "I remind you, as I remind everyone periodically, to keep this thread respectful."

Since I have to assume you are suggesting my above reference was showing disrespect for Mr. Scheuerman, let me quote the man as a means of explaining the lack of warmth in which I regard him;

On April 17, 2008, Mr. Scheuerman, a retired battalion commander from the FDNY wrote; "Now if the ‘troofers’ were in charge of the fire in building 7, we can only assume they would have fought the fire,- since they believe that no fire resistive buildeing could collapse from fire-"

R.Mackey writes; "There is a fundamental confusion that you have, and that is that a fire-induced collapse would be gradual. This simply is not expected under almost any conditions."

Am I confused---or are you displaying some of that disrespect you periodically feel compelled to remind others about?

Must I remind you that prior to 9/11 there were no comparable fire induced building collapses to base your; "This simply is not expected under almost any conditions", statement on?

On Feb.13, 2008, Mr. Scheuerman, said; "You are right fireproof buildings, if they are built right, don’t come crashing down during fires."

Much like the NIST 10,000 page WTC Twin Tower Collapse Report, I continue to find your responses to be similarly voluminous, especially in their repetition of textbook knowledge yet still failing to address my points.

R.Mackey writes; "When only a single column buckles, the amount of displacement in the structure -- again, in a well-designed building -- is minimal. The load formerly borne by that column is distributed to other, nearby columns. So the building's appearance only changes slightly. At least, it does until it has no more load-sharing to give. At that point, the next buckling failure will immediately cause motion, and unless the horizontal connections all break before the remaining columns (which are already loaded to the brink) fail, the whole thing will come down. This is exactly what we expect in a steel-framed structure. Under no circumstances do we expect a partial or a gradual collapse."

Up until 9/11 we expected the fire-induced collapse of such structures to be an impossibility!

So you're saying that inside WTC 7, the heat was so great, and was sustained over a sufficiently long period of time, that a major column buckled, and that the re-distributed load it formerly supported, was so immense, that all the other major supporting columns failed within seconds resulting in a high speed, symmetrical, total building collapse?

You are saying that the WTC 7 structural engineers must have been aware that a single column failure in this lower location, if it should occur, would lead to a catastrophic total collapse of the whole building, and yet they didn't sufficiently over engineer this vulnerability to reasonably withstand the danger you perceive---office furniture fires?

Now that does stretch the imagination, especially given that NIST has now ruled out the on site diesel fuel as a factor. Obviously you appear to have no problem embracing the notion of such an engineering gamble.

R.Mackey writes; "we know for a fact that several floors low in WTC 7 were burning continuously for several hours. Some of this is going to be due to slow spread of fires. Some will be due to the more oxygen-starved nature of WTC 7. There also could have been a much higher fuel load in WTC 7. Nonetheless, direct visual evidence confirms that some areas of WTC 7 were exposed to heat for much, much longer periods than 20 minutes. In my mind, there is little doubt that it was one of these regions where the initial failure occurred."

You respond with many words but when they are carefully examined, there is an absence of supporting argument and a surplus of speculation. They also read like someone re-writing material that they themselves don't completely understand.

"Unspecified floors had several hours of continuous fire."
That sounds impressive but it leaves out the important specifics. What floors? Which hours? How much of the floors were effected and when?

"Some will be due to the more oxygen-starved nature of WTC 7."
That statement suggest fires that were restricted in their intensity.

"There also could have been a much higher fuel load in WTC 7."
Why? There could have been any number of things in WTC 7 but we have nothing to base a higher fuel load speculation on. In the case of the Twin Towers, there is at least the argument that the wide profile and horizontal nature of the high speed aircraft impacts could have compacted more of the floor's contents. In WTC 7 the impacts were primarily a vertically gouging falling debris type with a much narrower profile.

"...direct visual evidence confirms that some areas of WTC 7 were exposed to heat for much, much longer periods than 20 minutes."
Which areas and for how long? After all, there are only a few locations where your point has any relevance to a potential core failure.

FEMA stated that; "The Port Authority informed the BPS Team that New York City Building Code Construction Classification 1B (2-hour rating for beams, girders, trusses, and 3-hour rating for columns) was specified for WTC 7 in accordance with the architectural specifications on the construction notes drawing
PA-O."

This we all know; FEMA also stated that; "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "

As of December, 2007, NIST states that; "The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

"Photographs of the building's north face show only small, barely visible fires. Photographs of the building's east face, apparently from the mid-afternoon, show flames emerging from an isolated section of the 11th floor. Photographs of the building's west face, apparently from the late afternoon, show several areas with smoke stains, but don't show any flames. There appear to be no photographs of Building 7 from a time shortly before its collapse that show large active fires."
http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

I really fail to see any strong case from you that suggests that fire stayed at a single critical column support location long enough to overcome the 3-hour fire proofing and raise temperatures sufficiently to cause the column to buckle.

R.Mackey writes; "The bulge can only mean that the structure was deforming, and therefore some parts of the structure were no longer able to carry their load. There is no other explanation possible. That this occured about five hours before the eventual collapse should give you some pause."

At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors.

R.Mackey writes; "Tilt in the structure compresses the perimeter along one side, creating a visible bulge in the exterior."

And it's not possible that this reported bulge on the southwest corner between the 10th & 13th floors was localized debris-related damage?

NIST has publicized a photo of the WTC7 southwest corner that conveys the impression of a severe gouge from the 18th floor downward making the observation of a bulge just below the 13th floor a questionable interpretation. Photo analysis and comparison with other images of a higher quality indicate the NIST are using a photo that if not intentionally doctored, is intended to exaggerate the true extent of the damage.

This is the photo NIST still uses to promote the severity of the southwest corner damage.

MM

 

[quicknthedead]

Miragememories,

To think WTC7 was a CD is illogical and does not make sense.
Please see my post on this other thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113396

No one has refuted this yet; perhaps you can.

 

[Miragememories]

Miragememories,

To think WTC7 was a CD is illogical and does not make sense.
Please see my post on this other thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113396

No one has refuted this yet; perhaps you can.

Well I took a look at that thread and in typical 'kneejerk' fashion,
the usual cast of clowns are re-establishing their ability to post
absolutely nothing of substance regarding this topic.

Your points are nothing special and I see no difficulty in responding to them.

I'm not so foolish as to expect my responses to carry any weight but for the odd visitor who may be interested, I'll provide a response.

quicknthedead writes; " If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare."

Preparation time is dependent on the number of participants, their level of expertise, the amount of continuous time available and the method used to remove the core support. You have no idea what the answer is to any of these points is, so your statement is pure speculation. Danny Jowenko, regardless of how you interpret his reaction to the information about the WTC 7 fires, his expert opinion was that it would have been possible to successfully prep WTC 7 in the time available on 9/11.

quicknthedead performs an act of mindreading; "...for he [Danny Jowenko] then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was."

Danny Jowenko has never said or given any contrary indication that he changed his mind about the possibility of a same day CD preparation of WTC 7.

Assuming that you are not an expert in controlled demolition methodology, you have no credibility in claiming you know the sole basis for Danny Jowenko's determination that the WTC 7's collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.
Danny Jowenko, when interviewed several months later, stated that he absolutely stood by his original controlled demolition belief. As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD.

quicknthedead writes; "If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible."

Your thinking here is really missing the point.

Obviously, if WTC 7's collapse was a CD, then it was part of the larger 9/11 plan.

Yes, it reveals that those responsible must have known about the fate of the WTC Twin Towers. It does not mean that the perpetrators expected aircraft crashes were going to bring about the collapses of the Twin Towers. The aircraft attacks served the primary purpose of "shock and awe" and they succeeded brilliantly. They also provided a cover story for the demolition of the Twin Towers. They had to be certain the Twin Towers would collapse and they had no reasonable expectation to base a belief that the aircraft impacts would achieve that result. The plan called for certainty, and not "let's see what happens." Therefore, it's logical to assume that if the WTC 7 collapse was a CD, then so were the Twin Towers collapses. The perpetrators planned the future in advance and they obviously did so in great detail. I don't understand why you would expect them not to?

quicknthedead writes; "In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD."

I'm arguing MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose), so I have no reason to argue against LIHOP scenario.

You continue to lock your belief to the Official Story idea that the collapses of the Twin Towers were the consequence of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

Regarding WTC 7; given it's proximity to WTC 1, and given the knowledge that WTC 1 was prepped to completely collapse, it was understandable that a CD of WTC 7 could easily be masked if it occurred under the umbrella of the huge collapse of WTC 1. This is where the plan must have hit it's first real snag.

For some reason the CD of WTC 7, timed to follow closely behind that of WTC 1, failed. This problem was corrected but the planned cover story was gone.

The apparent contingency plan was to let the fires become the reason for a collapse. Therefore they had to allow sufficient time for the fires to burn and create some credibility, if only a little, for their case.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.

MM

 

[beachnut]

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.
MM

Do you make this up as you go, or is there a 9/11 book of fantasy statements you have?
The fire in WTC is a fact, your ideas are pure fantasy, some sort of pathetic fiction.

 

[Belz...]

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.

Gosh it's so fun to make stuff up...

 

[Miragememories]

Gosh it's so fun to make stuff up...

It's called speculation.

I'm sorry Belz if that fact was only abundantly clear to everyone but you and Beachnut.

I suggest you advise R. Mackey that he should also stop "making stuff up", since he openly admits to using speculation in his WTC 7 collapse scenario.

Come to think of it, you might write the NIST a letter as well, since their WTC Collapse Report relies heavily on speculation and assumption.

speculate to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

MM

 

[Myriad]

Regarding WTC 7; given it's proximity to WTC 1, and given the knowledge that WTC 1 was prepped to completely collapse, it was understandable that a CD of WTC 7 could easily be masked if it occurred under the umbrella of the huge collapse of WTC 1. This is where the plan must have hit it's first real snag.

For some reason the CD of WTC 7, timed to follow closely behind that of WTC 1, failed. This problem was corrected but the planned cover story was gone.

The apparent contingency plan was to let the fires become the reason for a collapse. Therefore they had to allow sufficient time for the fires to burn and create some credibility, if only a little, for their case.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.

I think I can help you fill in some of the gaps here.

The most likely cause for the failure to set off the CD charges for WTC7 immediately was that someone suddenly realized, at the last moment, that setting off the demolition charges would spray everyone and everything in the streets for blocks around with high-velocity glass shards, which would not be explainable as a result of collapse from structural damage.

So, there was several hours' delay while dozens of work crews wearing invisibility cloaks hastily set up invisible scaffolding and hastily removed hundreds of massive plate glass panels from the wired floors.

Find out which construction equipment supplier has records of last-minute rentals of invisible mobile cranes that day, and you'll bust the conspiracy wide open.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[applecorped]

It's called speculation.

I'm sorry Belz if that fact was only abundantly clear to everyone but you and Beachnut.

I suggest you advise R. Mackey that he should also stop "making stuff up", since he openly admits to using speculation in his WTC 7 collapse scenario.

Come to think of it, you might write the NIST a letter as well, since their WTC Collapse Report relies heavily on speculation and assumption.

speculate to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

MM

Everyone?

 

[johnny karate]

And now all MirageMemories has to do is explain why the very loud and distinctive detonation charges that always accompany a controlled demolition were absent at WTC7, and why not a single firefighter who was on the scene has expressed any suspicions about the collapse. Then he'll have me convinced.

 

[Miragememories]

So, there was several hours' delay while dozens of work crews wearing invisibility cloaks hastily set up invisible scaffolding and hastily removed hundreds of massive plate glass panels from the wired floors.

Find out which construction equipment supplier has records of last-minute rentals of invisible mobile cranes that day, and you'll bust the conspiracy wide open.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Come back when you can post respectfully.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Come back when you can post respectfully.

MM

So the truth your ideas are nothing but fantasies make you send people away. Try bouncing your ideas off some rational people before being surprised they are just pure fantasy.

Do not get upset and tell people to go away, come up with some facts.
Oops, I see, you mean to spread fantasy, you are making it up without evidence. cool-like I said, and you have proven, Clancy's books are based on more facts than you ideas on 9/11.

speculate to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
MM

So you just make it up without evidence? So you did not sign the petition that says 9/11 truth has "ample evidence"?

 

[Myriad]

Come back when you can post respectfully.

What do you mean? You're allowed to speculate and I'm not?

Okay, I'll let you do the speculating. How do you speculate the planners of the conspiracy did plan to prevent the hail of high-velocity glass shrapnel that setting off CD charges in the otherwise intact building would have caused?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry Belz if that fact was only abundantly clear to everyone but you and Beachnut.

So, you speak for everyone, now ?

I suggest you advise R. Mackey that he should also stop "making stuff up", since he openly admits to using speculation in his WTC 7 collapse scenario.

For your information, truther, speculation and making things up are not the same thing. YOU are making stuff up because there is no reason whatsoever to believe that your scenario is in any way credible or consistent with reality.