• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

thewholesoul said:
your a petty HYPOCRITE, who COWERS from my questions, and has not the CHARACTER to admit when he is wrong or APOLOGISE for calling someoneelse a liar. you are a NITPICKER and your little one liner arguments are not interesting and once you either run from my challenge to answer post 1057, 1063 i will not respond to you again.

so answer my questons you coward and stop avoiding them.
Click to expand...

TWS - The building was completely pulverised.

Fdf - It was not

TWS - Shift goalposts agin because of a false claim.

If you are making claims and accusing people of criminal acts then you bloody well gets your facts straight. Your english is poor and it has been pointed out to you when you make an incorrect claim. This is not nitpicking it is accuracy and clarification. You are very very poor at this and are getting shown up dreadfully. You are goalpost shifting, hypocritical and lying.

TWS said:
it incompletly explained total collapse
Click to expand...

Apart from the poor spelling, this is not even correct english, it makes your claims of context and correctness even more laughable. The only reason I am running is to catch your moving goalposts.

You need to up your game if a moron like me can show you up.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-...09/now_that_i_have_your_attention_more_on_w_7

"CIA Director William Colby said: “The CIA owns everyone in the major media!" On the 7th of July 2008 the BBC will air a documentary about WTC 7. The BBC has a history of airing very biased documentaries were it concerns the events of 911."

I half-heartedly searched and for the Colby quote and found this:

http://tammybruce.com/fed_incompetence/

Anyone have a link to the Colby quote?
Click to expand...

The earliest citation I have for it is in 2004 by Douglas Herman: Link
 
leonAzul said:
I found an earlier quote dated to 1977 here.
Click to expand...

This link doesn't actually date the quote to 1977. The page contains an excerpt from Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article "The CIA and the Media", followed by a string of relevant quotations from other works. The source of the Colby quote is David McGowan's "Derailing Democracy", which was first published in 2000.

Dave
 
applecorped said:
I don't think you're a moron.
Click to expand...

See, now you're nitpicking.

I just don't think thewholesoul has the brain power to get it. It's like saying "OK, I understand how you pushed me off the cliff, I just don't understand how that proves I fell to the ground".
 
Jonnyclueless said:
See, now you're nitpicking.

I just don't think thewholesoul has the brain power to get it. It's like saying "OK, I understand how you pushed me off the cliff, I just don't understand how that proves I fell to the ground".
Click to expand...

TWS seems to have given this thread a rest for a while. I don't think he/she will come back but I said the same thing about New Kids on the Block and boy was I wrong!
 
Dave Rogers said:
This link doesn't actually date the quote to 1977. The page contains an excerpt from Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article "The CIA and the Media", followed by a string of relevant quotations from other works. The source of the Colby quote is David McGowan's "Derailing Democracy", which was first published in 2000.

Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I mistakenly thought the quotes at the bottom were also excerpted from the RS article and neglected to verify the date the book was published.
 
This was a good thread. Sorry to see it fade away. Thanks to all who contributed. Sorry I personally didn't really have much substance to offer. In the end we all know that WTC7 wasn't a CD (that includes those of you who have been described or are self-described truthers). I'm sure the debate/argument will linger but it is really just an echo reverberating through time.
 
my apologese for delay in responding Par

Par said:
That looks to be an historical copy of a different paper. That’s fine, of course, but the statement in question doesn’t appear to be in that one either.
Click to expand...

Your right the link I posted was a summary report. It must be in the main report since there are numerous statments made in Jones's paper that were also not found in the summary report.

Par said:
I understand that World Trade Center Dust is distinctive; I further understand that the particles that render it distinctive were not airborne prior to September 11th 2001. The problem, however, is that World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.
Click to expand...

bolding added

Par said:
Thank you, again, for clarifying. I now understand why you wish to claim high temperatures were present specifically while the buildings collapsed: it forms the foundational premise of one of your subsequent arguments for explosives. However, I have not asked you for arguments for explosives, but rather for proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.
Click to expand...

bolding added

Par said:
  • If the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed, then the following argument is sound:
    • The eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.
    • While eutectic reactions can occur under lower temperatures, such lower temperature reactions take much longer than the durations of the collapses.
    • Therefore, the reactions required higher temperatures.
    • The only thing that can have caused such higher temperatures is explosives.
    • Therefore, explosives were present.
Congruently, I now understand why you wish to claim the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed: it also forms the foundational premise of one of your subsequent arguments for explosives. However, the matter at hand, again, is not that of explosives. In any event, before we could properly asses this argument, you would obviously need to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.
Click to expand...

bolding added

Par said:
We could, if you like, damn the “official theory” to hell and back. Doing so, however, as I have already explained, won’t tell us when the eutectic reactions took place.
Click to expand...

bolding added

So your position is basically that I must prove that the evaported particles were produced during the collapse.

But what standard of proof do you require? the best I can do is refer you to the RJ Lee study. they asserted, not I, that the particles in question were produced during the collapse. there is a paper on how they collected the samples and arrived at this conclusion, but I cant for the life of me find it again. :confused: in any event they ruled out contamination before and after the collapse.

i believe the most relevant question however is whether or not the evaporated particles were produced during the WTC fires? in the RJ Lee report they do suggest that this could have been the case. unfortunately they never state the temperatures required in order to do so. :( at the end of the day this is an empirical matter and could be solved by exposing the materials in question to the the same temperatures of an office fire for the same duration as the WTC fires.

but the RJ Lee report does seem to contradict NIST which should be apparant from the following statements:

"various metals most notably iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles"

"some particles how evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and and silicates, and vescular particels (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation"

NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires”.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

can they both be right? can materials have melted and not have melted in the WTC fire?

but if I may, it is your contention that office fires can evaporate the materials in question. where is your proof of that? can office fires reach sufficient temperatures to cause the "swiss cheese effect"?

Par said:
In any event, thank you for both your time thus far and your reply.
Click to expand...

not a problem, and thank you for yours. i must say I really appreciate the fact that we can discuss these issues without insults, its like a breath of fresh around here.

peace
 
e^n said:
Firstly thewholesoul let me apologise for the amount of time it has taken me to reply. I wrote about 2-3 pages 2 days ago and then accidentally closed my browser when cleaning up tabs .
Click to expand...

No worries, i apologise for mine. Worse still i dont even have a decent excuse for my delay!

e^n said:
1. The composition and temperature of the molten metal flow from WTC2
I presume your bullet points to be an accurate summation of your position:
Originally Posted by thewholesoul
•the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron
The problem with this position is that there's no way to determine either of these reliably. We can only look at the evidence in favour of each particular element. Furthermore we can't assume that the flow was made from only one element. You have put forward a fair point that aluminium will not glow as readily as steel but this is somewhat irrelevant to the argument. The facts we have to hand are:
• A yellow-orange emissive liquid was seen to pour out of two windows in WTC2
• Materials abundant in the building glow at temperatures expected in office fires (at absolute max, 1200C):
o Aluminium and various alloys (which incidentally have lower reflectivity)
o Glass
o Lead
o Copper
• This liquid moved between these two windows enveloping a perimeter column and the fascia of the building at its exit
• No degradation of these faces was seen
Now, you accuse me of straw-manning your position by claiming your position was that it could only be molten steel. What I don't think you realise is that this is the only point which could have some relevance. If the material flowing out of the window is molten steel then that would be evidence of fire temperatures exceeding the expected range of fires. If your position is simply that it could be steel, then there is little relevance to further discussion. Unless you can present evidence showing it to be steel rather than the variety of other options, we have no reason to conclude the temperatures involved were unexpectedly high.

You also mention unusual flame, pressure and puffs of smoke as a kind of coup de grâce I guess. I don't see what is so unexpected about these effects, the unusually bright flame seen in WTC2 is interesting but in a location absolutely packed with debris and on fire it seems a little presumptuous to be able to claim with certainty what caused it. Anyway you ask for a plausible explanation so I wouldn't be doing my NWO appointed job if I failed to provide one. I think fire is a pretty plausible explanation, it certainly creates flame, pressure and smoke and we have some pretty convincing evidence the building was on fire.
Click to expand...

Ok you make some valid points but as a conspiracy wacko i wouldnt be doing my job if i didnt raise a few objections. But to keep my response in focus allow me to reiterate the claim i wish to defend. Which in effect is actually two claims (a) and (b):

•the molten metal pouring from south tower (a) cannot possibly be molten aluminium but (b) could possibly be molten iron

NIST claim in their final report that the molten metal pouring from the south tower was aluminium mixed with organics. They provided no tests to prove their own claim. This is poor science. Professor Jones did conduct tests and he discovered that firstly, the organics dont mix with the aluminium, and secondly, that molten aluminium does not glow bright yellow-orange in daylight. I have asked anyone who defends the NIST claim to provide tests and photos, just like Jones has done, to support NIST’s claim. No one thus far has provided photos of aluminium mixed with photos with a bright yellow-orange glow.

Now you say that “there's no way to determine either of these reliably”. This may be true in the case for (b) but not in the case for (a). In any event, is not the very function of tests to determine whether something is indeed possible or not? You yourself recognise a key point: “You have put forward a fair point that aluminium will not glow as readily as steel” – this visual indicator is key in establishing whether NIST’s claim is true or false. If it is possible that aluminium mixed with organics can indeed glow bright yellow-orange in daylight then my claim that the molten metal cannot possibly be molten aluminium has obviously been refuted. But until someone proves the NIST claim then my claim [part (a)]remains.

Moving on, in (b) I claim that the molten metal could possibly be molten iron from a thermite reaction. It is clear from the language used that I am not claiming “with certainty what caused it [the molten metal]”. So that was a slight starwman for yours truly. Nevertheless you state that if I am not claiming with certainty what caused the molten metal then there is little relevance for further discussion. I agree, but there is need for further investigation. NIST’s explanation has been proven to be impossible, Dr Greenings explanation that it was aluminium pouring over rusty steel has been proven to be impossible, his latest explanation (i.e. oxygen tanks from the plane) can be discounted on common sense alone, the latest JREFer explanation is the UPS batteries – remains unproven, and then of course we have your own explanation (i.e. that an office with the available materials) – which again remains unproven. All of this cries out for a re-investigation. NIST have been proven wrong hence there is no official explanation 7 years after the event.

So what we have are possible explanations. The observed phenomena to be explained include the bright flame, pressure pulses, white smoke, and the molten metal. A thermite reaction can explain ALL of these observed phenomena, simply watch the following link and you can SEE why http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM You make a valid point about the lack of degradation of the steel fascade. But in the link above note how the metal on the hood of the car around the thermite reaction is not degraded by the molten iron flow.

The only question then is whether the UPS batteries and your explanation produce the observed phenomena via experimentation? Would you support – even hypothetically – that these possible explanations be put to the test? And if – hypothetically – these possible explanations could not be proven sceintifically would you concede that molten iron explanation is the FRONT RUNNER because the bright flame, pressure pulses, white smoke, and the molten metal can all be reproduced by experiments with thermite?

Peace
 
thewholesoul said:
(...)

The only question then is whether the UPS batteries and your explanation produce the observed phenomena via experimentation? Would you support – even hypothetically – that these possible explanations be put to the test? And if – hypothetically – these possible explanations could not be proven sceintifically would you concede that molten iron explanation is the FRONT RUNNER because the bright flame, pressure pulses, white smoke, and the molten metal can all be reproduced by experiments with thermite?

Peace
Click to expand...

I strongly endorse this suggestion. Please proof your "explanation" by an experimentation. I think, it would not be too costly and difficult to try it.

Lets go - debunk us; the nuts. ;)
 
2. The issue of the probability of collapse
e^n said:
Again I will quote your bullet point here for completeness
Originally Posted by thewholesoul
•the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low
Click to expand...
A minor misunderstanding also needs to be corrected here, you say
quote]Originally Posted by thewholesoul
(i)How can you possibly be unconvinced that the towers were unable to handle the speeds of the jet impact when in fact they did handle the speeds of impact as seen by everyone on television?
Click to expand...
Capable is not the same as designed. There is only one piece of evidence to suggest that the towers were designed with impacts of 600mph in mind, and this analysis has never been recovered. It's very hard to know for sure whether the building was designed for this impact, if it was it was done badly. It is obvious though that the building was capable of surviving the initial impact.[/quote]

So you concede that it was capable of surviving the impact but argue that it was not designed for the impact eventhough we have public comments from the people who actually designed the buildings stating that the buildings were designed for the impact of a jetliner? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

e^n said:
The rest of this section is just completely pointless,
Click to expand...

Not when my point is to establish the official hypothesis has a low probability of occurance.

e^n said:
you go on about all these features you feel are relevant, but never show how probability should play any part in this.
Click to expand...

The role probabiltiy plays is nothing more than the estimated liklihood of something or event occuring. And you have not explained why probabiltiy does not play any part?

e^n said:
In actuality a simplistic attempt at probability analysis yields no useful information.
Click to expand...

Really? What aspects are subject to analysis?

e^n said:
Scientific investigation is the correct method to determine what is likely and not.
Click to expand...

When i place a bet on a horse i do not need scienific analysis to determine the probability of my horse winning? We use scientific analysis to prove whether something is possible or not. Probability analysis is used to determine or rather estimate whether the liklihood, for the occurance of a given possibility, is high or low.

So no, scientific analysis is not the correct method to estimate probability – it is however the correct method to determine the possibility of something being true or not.

e^n said:
Even the paper you linked just lists the author's speculations. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

It is a fact, not speculation, that the official explanation requires that a sequence of events and suppositions to occur in order for their explanation to be true. This sequence of events can be read in their Final report. It is a fact, not speculation, that the CD explanation is a parallel explanation. The following is the reason why the author claims the official explanation has a lower probability than the CD explanation:

“If the explanation is in the form of a chain it is only necessary to prove one link wrong to destroy the case. In contrast, with a parallel set of explanations it is only necessary to prove one explanation correct to establish the case”
Click to expand...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/911andProbabilityTheory17Legge.pdf

If you have any objections to this reason then let it be known because merely stating that his paper is just speculation is hardly a rebuttal.

Returning to my claim:

•the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low

The most logical counter argument to this claim would say that - the skyscrapers were not designed to withstand the damage of a plane impact with a combustible fuel load. Given that people who designed the buildings did in fact design the buildings for such an event I cant see how you can establish this approach.

Perhaps you may argue that the probability of three skyscrapers all failing on the same day for reasons they were designed to withstand has a high probabilty of occuring. If so, then you should make that case.

But what most debunkers tend to opt for is that probability is irrelevant because regardless of how low the probability of 911 happening is, it happened nonetheless. This line of argument simply dismisses or ignores the fact that the official hypothesis has a low probability. This is the reason why you cannot provide a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, so lets try it again:

911 aside, would you agree that it is far more probable to totally destroy a steel framed skyscraper suddenly symetrically and in essentially freefall speed with explosives rather than an office fire and aysmetrical structural damage?

conclusion, the second claim you addressed remains.

peace
 
gumboot said:
Not to mention during recovering operations. Steel cutting is a known source for iron microspheres, and there was a whole butt-load of steel cutting during the clean up.

The WTC dust samples were collected a long time after clean up started.
Click to expand...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

“In the appendix: Sample 1 was collected from inside Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was collected by a PHD scientist on 9/14/2001 and before major steel operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were still ongoing at the time of sample collection. Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steel-cutting operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel speheres) can be ruled out with a very high degree of confidence.

Sample 2 was collected about a week after 9/11/2001, from inside her apartment at 113 Cedar st/110 liberty St New York City. In both samples, elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures distinct from that of the structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S). These chemical signatures provide additonal evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up.”

"Sample from broklyn bridge collected 20minutes of the collapse of north tower. These spheres could not have occured from clean up operations".

peace.

p.s. we were discussing the evaporated particles not the iron rich sphericules
 
tsig said:
As soon as the 1/5 hits the floor below it becomes 1/5 +the floor below.
Click to expand...

so 1/5 becomes 1/5+...eventually it becomes 2/5, then 2/5+... and so on

the problem with you answer it that (a) the pancake theroy has been debunked (b) the intact structure below was being pulverised into fine dust.

the official hypothesis is that the falling block remains intact all the way down (crush down) and then after it crushes all the intact building below the ground crushes it (crush up).

peace
 
tsig said:
As soon as the 1/5 hits the floor below it becomes 1/5 +the floor below.
Click to expand...

i almost forgot.

why wouldnt the 1/5 itself become pulverized on impact with the stronger intact structure? so instead of becoming 1/5 + on impact it becomes 1/5 -

peace
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom