Wtc 7

[Stellafane]

Agreed. Even with the definition supplied by the Controlled Demolition Inc's spokesperson. Even though little or no firefighting was apparent. Nothing short of a subpoena would help remove the ambiguity.

Even though you say you agreed with me, your additional comments (and what they appear to imply) border on silly. What's the chances that Silverstein would have used a little-known, insider term that mean demolition, when far more common meanings (pull out, pull back) would make perfect sense, especially when uttered by a "civilian"? And it leaves utterly unanswered my obvious followup question: Why the hell would Silverstein have publically confessed to mass murder? You see, that's the whole point of my post. You can't just raise a bit of gray area about one specific question and then declare you've accomplished anything. You have to address all the other followup questions that must also be true. So even if Silverstein meant "demolish," explain to me why he confessed publically that one time -- and no other.

Putting Silverstein aside for a moment, what bothers many people is not the fact that WTC7 collapsed - it is the manner of its collapse. In the 100 year history of steel-framed high-rises there have been thousands of such collapses (straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile). Every single one, without exception, has been the result of deliberate demolition.

From a purely statistical point of view this leaves us to ponder the following:

Statistical support for deliberate demolition: 100%
Statistical support for damage/fire demolition: 0%

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?

Yes, it is a surprise that any reasonable, informed, and sane person has any question at all about WTC. How many other buildings in history have been struck by flaming debris falling from an adjacent 1000+ foot tower, and then burned uncontrollably for hours? And if you somehow get past that one, there's all those other pesky questions I mentioned. Why do the vast majority of structural engineers accept that the WTC7 fell due to damage and fire, and not a CD? Are they all in on it too? And if it were a CD, why didn't the explosives go off by themselves while being engulfed in flames for hours? And then the biggest question of all, why do this in the first place?

Truthers are fond of claiming they're "just asking questions." But sometimes I think in fact Truthers hate questions, because they always seem to ignore all the followup ones that arise whenever they make a single claim. It's like they see the world in a complete vacuum, where something can be true with no connections or consequences. But the world doesn't work that way. It's like Truthers are more interested in playing "gotcha!" than actually discussing the truth.

So long as my questions remain unanswered (and thus far, every single one of them does), Truthers have contributed nothing to our understanding of how WTC7 collapsed.

 

[Hokulele]

Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.

Good luck!

Better I think is to have them explain what in the "pyroclastic flow" were the pyroclasts. That seems to have stopped TF dead in his tracks.

Nah, too many syllables. Start them off with "pyro" and work from there.

 

[~enigma~]

Nah, too many syllables. Start them off with "pyro" and work from there.

Yeah but unlike every other attempt, it seems mine stopped a truther dead in his tracks and left him (or it) with nothing whatsoever to say.

 

[MarkyX]

(straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile)

That's not what happened to WTC7.

 

[damien pastaume]

Even though you say you agreed with me, your additional comments (and what they appear to imply) border on silly. What's the chances that Silverstein would have used a little-known, insider term that mean demolition, when far more common meanings (pull out, pull back) would make perfect sense, especially when uttered by a "civilian"? And it leaves utterly unanswered my obvious followup question: Why the hell would Silverstein have publically confessed to mass murder? You see, that's the whole point of my post. You can't just raise a bit of gray area about one specific question and then declare you've accomplished anything. You have to address all the other followup questions that must also be true. So even if Silverstein meant "demolish," explain to me why he confessed publically that one time -- and no other.

Beats me. Like I said, short of any new revelations the Silverstein angle is exhausted and remains ambiguous. Time to move on.

Yes, it is a surprise that any reasonable, informed, and sane person has any question at all about WTC. How many other buildings in history have been struck by flaming debris falling from an adjacent 1000+ foot tower, and then burned uncontrollably for hours?

WTC6 to name just one. It was massively more damaged than WTC7 and did not collapse.

Why do the vast majority of structural engineers accept that the WTC7 fell due to damage and fire, and not a CD?

Since when were majorities proof of anything? History is replete with majority opinion being overturned.

And if it were a CD, why didn't the explosives go off by themselves while being engulfed in flames for hours? And then the biggest question of all, why do this in the first place?

We first establish beyond doubt what happened. The hows and whys can then be vigorously pursued. To do so prior to removing doubt is potentially a huge waste of time.

So long as my questions remain unanswered (and thus far, every single one of them does), Truthers have contributed nothing to our understanding of how WTC7 collapsed.

As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

Fundamentals first.

 

[damien pastaume]

That's not what happened to WTC7.

Oh?

 

[Par]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

He’s right! Fire chiefs don’t ask building owners for permission! But fire chiefs do blow up buildings! Of course they do! Asking permission would be unusual. But blowing up the building would be perfectly normal. Why can’t you people understand!?

Look!:

Now look at these:

What's wrong with you people?!

 

[~enigma~]

Oh?

How does a symmetric collapse have the north wall lying atop the pile with the south wall (the damaged one) on the bottom?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.

You're welcome.

Yes, I don't imagine that the professor comes off as stupid. In fact, many of the canards conspiracy fantasists use do indeed sound eminently sensible. For example, it's true that jet fuel/kerosene burning in open air without the benefit of being in an insulative system doesn't reach the temperatures sufficient to melt steel; the problem is that 1. Jet fuel burning in open air was not what happened a the Twin Towers, and 2. Steel melting was not the cause of the collapse. The "fact" by itself, however, makes sense.

That's how so much of this mythology called 9/11 Truth gets across to people. When someone says "The jets flew around the US for 20/30/40 minutes without the Air Force responding", that sounds like a reasonable statement. But when you really dig into the details of the US's response - found in study of the timeline (summed up by Gumboot here), as well as in the basics of NORAD's procedures (also summed up by Gumboot here) and in the confusion every one involved experienced that day (written up by Vanity Fair here) - you realize how it's unfair to characterize things that way. The military had, what, only single digit minutes between the time they were notified of the hijackings and the time the aircraft crashed (and in the case of Flight 93, were only told about the hijacking after it had already crashed). The devil is in the details, and conspiracy peddlers just wave past that in order to state their premises in ways that sound suspicious. Because of that, I have no doubt that an otherwise intelligent person like your professor would buy into such things. It takes time and desire to chase all that information down, and the tretcherous thing is that the pseudoscientific presentation of the evidence makes things deceptively easy to gather and very deceptively easy to think you understand the situation. Just read through some of the other threads here for how many fantasy believers think they know the details of the events that day, and see how so many of them are terribly misled.

Anyway, if I may give some advice, the "Gravysite" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com, named for forum poster Gravy (aka Mark Roberts), the 911 Myths site (http://911myths.com) and others are great resources for discovering the truth behind the claims that are fooling your otherwise fine professor.

Anyway, good luck. Post questions if you have them, but it would also be a good idea to see if they haven't already been answered by doing a search of the forum. If you can't find them, ask anyway; one of us here can point to relevant threads or other resources if necessary.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

Yeah I guess I would be confused too turbo if I lik you hadn't bothered to read the actual conversation between the two guys. But the PFT cult can't sell as many DVDs to idiots if they include that stuff.

I still laugh every time idiots make these kind of claims. The irony being that these people generally think that they have done some kind of research. Too funny!

 

[Turbofan]

What part of the quote are you butchering to claim that anybody asked Silverstein for permission?

I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?

 

[Bananaman]

Oh God, Turbo, you can't be serious.

Tell me you're pulling our legs because this is just on another level of ill-informed rubbish now.

Do some proper research and for God's sake grow up.

Bananaman (who will give Turbo a small clue. Try researching what Silverstein actually meant, and try not to go too red if reality seeps through).

 

[johnny karate]

I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?

Here's the quote in it's entirety:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Note the word I bolded.

 

[R.Mackey]

WTC6 to name just one. It was massively more damaged than WTC7 and did not collapse.

WTC 6, unlike WTC 7, was a traditional post-and-beam structure. It was only a few stories high, and wasn't cantilevered over an electrical substation. Because of its small height, it cannot follow the progressive collapse mechanism of the WTC Towers, and because it was not a perimeter-and-core structure, it was less susceptible to a single internal failure resulting in global collapse than either WTC 1, 2, or 7.

Nonetheless, it experienced significant internal collapses. FDNY was concerned that it could totally collapse, and it came pretty close to doing so as it was, requiring a delicate demolition of the remains.

As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

The collapses were not symmetrical. All three collapses experienced significant tilting. They were partly symmetrical, but this is as expected given the mostly symmetrical distribution of material at the start of collapse. It's all momentum, and gravity pulls straight down. As more of the structure is involved, the vertical momentum gained from gravity naturally dominates the collapse behavior, damping out asymmetries at the start.

Very simple.

 

[damien pastaume]

WTC 6, unlike WTC 7, was a traditional post-and-beam structure.

Well - he did ask.

The collapses were not symmetrical. All three collapses experienced significant tilting. They were partly symmetrical, but this is as expected given the mostly symmetrical distribution of material at the start of collapse. It's all momentum, and gravity pulls straight down. As more of the structure is involved, the vertical momentum gained from gravity naturally dominates the collapse behavior, damping out asymmetries at the start.

Very simple.

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

 

[WildCat]

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises

And did you hear demolition charges? Wonder why you heard none on any video of any of the WTC collapses?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

You might want to tell that to the owners of 30 west broadway and the verizon building. 30 west broadway is still being deconstructed last I heard...

 

[R.Mackey]

I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.

Don't confuse yourself.

Professional demolitions deliberately create asymmetric implosions in most cases. They're trying to keep the debris field inside the original footprint. The best way to do that is to separate the four (or more) walls and have them topple against each other.

Demolitions of core-and-perimeter structures are unusual, since that is a relatively new innovation and the few examples that exist are newer, not needing demolition. It's not clear how they would demo one of these structures, or if they would have to take it apart piece by piece instead.

The point is, you cannot compare the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses to professional demolitions in the past. The phenomenology is totally different. The phenomenology is, however, totally consistent with an initiating failure on the fire-affected floors.

It also wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, "cleaner." If a professional demo company did half as much collateral damage as either Tower, they'd be looking at jail terms.

 

[bio]

And did you hear demolition charges? Wonder why you heard none on any video of any of the WTC collapses?

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges."

 

[bio]

Don't confuse yourself.

Professional demolitions deliberately create asymmetric implosions in most cases. They're trying to keep the debris field inside the original footprint. The best way to do that is to separate the four (or more) walls and have them topple against each other.

Demolitions of core-and-perimeter structures are unusual, since that is a relatively new innovation and the few examples that exist are newer, not needing demolition. It's not clear how they would demo one of these structures, or if they would have to take it apart piece by piece instead.
(...)

thank you for the argument, that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.