Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[uke2se]

I would say it was a reasonable plan.

[qimg]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3698/gjswtc40rdu8.jpg[/qimg]

Of course if WTC7 failed to be successfully demolished they had a big problem.

MM

Like I said, anything is possible in your imagination.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I can't imagine a FDNY firefighter being that incredibly wrong.

Of course he was wrong and that is not under dispute.

The real, underlying question, is why was he wrong?

The CNN reporter on location, Allan Dodds Frank, phoned in a report that at 10:45 a.m. ET, another collapse or explosion had occurred. He said that a passing firefighter said that a building estimated to be 50 storys tall had just collapsed.

This of course, makes no sense.

Not wanting to see beyond the end of their noses, OCTers can't be bothered to look for answers to questions that make no sense.

Well, I have more respect for the FDNY than that.

What plausible explanation could there be for a firefighter to be spreading such an untruth.

Since we know it didn't occur, the only logical answer is that he did not witness what he was reporting.

So why was he telling a CNN reporter that it did?

Because the information came from someone else. A source that had enough authority that the firefighter was willing to repeat the message.

Of course we have to take the word of the CNN reporter, Allan Dodds Frank, that he actually spoke with this unknown firefighter.

Since the information was 100% false, and since it is inconceivable that someone could be a little wrong when claiming to have eyewitnessed the collapse of a 50 story building, there remains very few logical explanations.

Confusion does not wash.

A scripted, pre-planned cover story does.

A failed controlled demolition of WTC7, timed to be masked by the collapse of WTC1, fits with the failed cover story.

MM

Let me get this straight. As an integral part of the scripted, pre-planned cover story, you are thinking that they planned to spread the story that the WTC7 collapsed too.

Dear lord man that is genius! Nobody would have noticed the building had collapsed otherwise!

wow.... just wow.

 

[jaydeehess]

I can understand a judgement error regarding a collapsing building's height.

But to fear-monger that a 50 story building has just collapsed, when there was no such event?

MM

You must have missed my post where I opined that he is referring to the collapse of WTC 1, and going by what he witnessed just prior to running for his life.
fear-mongering after the collapse of two 110 storey buildings,, riiiight,, nothing at all to do with his own fear, with his own adrenaline pumping, with the emotional turmoil of knowing that co-workers of his will have died.
just a dispassionate fear-mongering designed to confuse the masses.

 

[uke2se]

You must have missed my post where I opined that he is referring to the collapse of WTC 1, and going by what he witnessed just prior to running for his life.
fear-mongering after the collapse of two 110 storey buildings,, riiiight,, nothing at all to do with his own fear, with his own adrenaline pumping, with the emotional turmoil of knowing that co-workers of his will have died.
just a dispassionate fear-mongering designed to confuse the masses.

I would want to be present when MM tells a NY firefighter that his colleagues were part of a conspiracy designed to kill 3000 New Yorkers, including many others of his colleagues.

I would have a video camera and a bag of pop corn.

That's my fantasy.

 

[Miragememories]

You must have missed my post where I opined that he is referring to the collapse of WTC 1, and going by what he witnessed just prior to running for his life.
fear-mongering after the collapse of two 110 storey buildings,, riiiight,, nothing at all to do with his own fear, with his own adrenaline pumping, with the emotional turmoil of knowing that co-workers of his will have died.
just a dispassionate fear-mongering designed to confuse the masses.

Nope.

I saw it.

And I'm sure the CNN reporter saw WTC1 collapse as well.

Duh!

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

No, I can't imagine a FDNY firefighter being that incredibly wrong.

Except he DOES NOT say that a 50 storey building collapsed. He says 50 storeys collapsed. It is patently obvious that most reasonable explanation for what he said is that he , at that time, thought that 50 storeys of WTC 1 had come down. It is also pataently obvious that the reporter mistook this passing comment as referring to a separate structure.

Of course he was wrong and that is not under dispute.

Hmm, you mean you do not believe a separate 50 storey structure collapsed. Either I misread what you posted or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you just cannot express yourself properly.

The real, underlying question, is why was he wrong?

BEcause he saw WTC 1 coming down, turned and ran for his life. All he was wrong about was the amount of damage to WTC 1. I simply do not believe he was referring to a separate structure. YOU DO because YOU require overly complex, vast and unneccessary conspiracies rather than logical explanations.

The CNN reporter on location, Allan Dodds Frank, phoned in a report that at 10:45 a.m. ET, another collapse or explosion had occurred. He said that a passing firefighter said that a building estimated to be 50 storys tall had just collapsed.

This of course, makes no sense.

Right, Dodds was wrong. There was a lot of erroneous information being bandied about that day. It happens a lot in the first few minutes, even hours after an event such as this. I have pointed out before that in Edmonton Alberta Canada a child was kidnapped then later found alive. Two separate news agencies reported the child being found. One said it occured in a gas station in one nearby town while to other said it was a store in another town 50 kilometers away from the other town. ONE of them was WRONG! pure and simple, wrong but both were Edmonton based operations and in the drive to get the story out there first one got it WRONG!.

Not wanting to see beyond the end of their noses, OCTers can't be bothered to look for answers to questions that make no sense.

Unlike you who then devises an 'explanation' that in turn makes no sense.

Well, I have more respect for the FDNY than that.

Once again you do not have the first hand quote from the FF. It is most likely that the reporter, the second hand quote, who was most wrong.

What plausible explanation could there be for a firefighter to be spreading such an untruth.

You would not seem to know plausible when you are shown it.

Since we know it didn't occur, the only logical answer is that he did not witness what he was reporting.

Or, he did not report was what attributed to him.

So why was he telling a CNN reporter that it did?

He most likely did not.

Because the information came from someone else. A source that had enough authority that the firefighter was willing to repeat the message.

Sure, that is more plausible than the idea that the FF was referring to WTC 1 and that the reporter misinbterpreted the FF's statement.
You really believe that? Really??

Since the information was 100% false, and since it is inconceivable that someone could be a little wrong when claiming to have eyewitnessed the collapse of a 50 story building, there remains very few logical explanations.

Or the reporter was 100% wrong in his interpretation of what the passing FF was referring to.

Confusion does not wash.

Sure it does.

A scripted, pre-planned cover story does.

In what paranoid delusionary world?

d controlled demolition of WTC7, timed to be masked by the collapse of WTC1, fits with the failed cover story.

MM

Yes, of course, the conspirators persuaded a lone FF to walk around telling people that a 50 storey(or so) structure had also collapsed so that people would know that WTC 7 had collapsed rather than actually allow the dozens of newsagencies in and around the area to find out for themselves a few minutes later that WTC 7 was also down.
It was soooo very important to have everyone be informed that WTC 7 had also fallen rather than allow that to be discovered a few minutes later when the dust cleared........why again?

 

[jaydeehess]

Nope.

I saw it.

And I'm sure the CNN reporter saw WTC1 collapse as well.

Duh!

MM

, and the reporter may well have had more info about the fate of WTC 1 than the FF. In which case the reporter, upon hearing the FF refer to 50 storeys assumes a separate structure since WTC 1 had all 110 storeys collapse. These guys did not sit around drinking tea and discussing what they saw and what they had heard from others. The FF made a passing comment to a reporter who misinterpretated what was being said.

THAT IS the most plausible explanation here MM, not a fantastical and wholly unneccessary preplanned tale about an unamed 50 storey structure.

 

[jaydeehess]

I would want to be present when MM tells a NY firefighter that his colleagues were part of a conspiracy designed to kill 3000 New Yorkers, including many others of his colleagues.

I would have a video camera and a bag of pop corn.

That's my fantasy.

Not me, it would be like throwing a bunny rabbit into a dog fighting pit.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wow, I miss Christopher 7

 

[Disbelief]

Because of we KNOW that a 50-story building did not collapse at that time. You see, we have the second hand word of a fireman that something collapsed when we know it did not.

Now, since I answered your question, can you please explain how multiple firemen exaggerated the intensity of the fires in WTC7 while having ample time to assess the conditions?

So, now that many have answered your question, are you going to get back to answering this? One firemen, either mistaken or misunderstood, versus multiple firemen exaggerating the intensity of the fires in WTC7 - which is more plausible? So, explain how multiple firemen exaggerated the intensity of the fires in WTC7 while having ample time to assess the conditions.

 

[triforcharity]

As I figured.

You have nothing but hot air.

MM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngiPk6sTBs

Transformer explosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q&p=3EDC01E9342BCA17&playnext=1&index=13

Here you go!

Now, can you elimainate these?

 

[Miragememories]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngiPk6sTBs

Transformer explosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q&p=3EDC01E9342BCA17&playnext=1&index=13

Here you go!

Now, can you elimainate these?

Not even close.

Soft Boom does not equal the hard Ba-Boom heard in the video.

No cigar.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

I was wondering, do you have a coherent alternative hypothesis that better explains the collapse of WTC7? Don't forget, it would have to take ALL evidence into account.

Can you address this?

 

[uke2se]

Not even close.

Soft Boom does not equal the hard Ba-Boom heard in the video.

No cigar.

MM

Ba-Boom of course being the technical term for controlled demolition blast, eh, MM? Just like clunkity-clunk is the technical term for progressive collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6244247&postcount=1696



Okay, explain how any firefighter could make such an error?

Remember, were talking about a claim of seeing the collapse of a 50-story building, when absolutely nothing collapsed.

MM

There were also people who claimed that the State department was bombed, that the White House was attacked, and there was a bomb at the high school in Manhattan.

You have no context to base it off of, so if I were you, I would just STFU.

 

[triforcharity]

No, I can't imagine a FDNY firefighter being that incredibly wrong.

Of course he was wrong and that is not under dispute.

The real, underlying question, is why was he wrong?

The CNN reporter on location, Allan Dodds Frank, phoned in a report that at 10:45 a.m. ET, another collapse or explosion had occurred. He said that a passing firefighter said that a building estimated to be 50 storys tall had just collapsed.

This of course, makes no sense.

Not wanting to see beyond the end of their noses, OCTers can't be bothered to look for answers to questions that make no sense.

Well, I have more respect for the FDNY than that.

What plausible explanation could there be for a firefighter to be spreading such an untruth.

Since we know it didn't occur, the only logical answer is that he did not witness what he was reporting.

So why was he telling a CNN reporter that it did?

Because the information came from someone else. A source that had enough authority that the firefighter was willing to repeat the message.

Of course we have to take the word of the CNN reporter, Allan Dodds Frank, that he actually spoke with this unknown firefighter.

Since the information was 100% false, and since it is inconceivable that someone could be a little wrong when claiming to have eyewitnessed the collapse of a 50 story building, there remains very few logical explanations.

Confusion does not wash.

A scripted, pre-planned cover story does.

A failed controlled demolition of WTC7, timed to be masked by the collapse of WTC1, fits with the failed cover story.

MM

Obviously you have never been in a simmilar situation. Some of the FDNY did not even think that the WTC towers had gone down completely untill they were shown the pictures from live TV later in the day.

How could they be so wrong?

You try walking in their boots for 1 hour during an event like this. You would be crying like a school girl with a skinned knee, ******** yourself because you have had to run for your lives not ONCE, but TWICE in the SAME day!

You would be a blubbering fool by the time the dust settled.

 

[triforcharity]

Wow, I miss Christopher 7

Stop. Just stop.

 

[Christopher7]

No, I can't imagine a FDNY firefighter being that incredibly wrong.

Of course he was wrong and that is not under dispute.

The real, underlying question, is why was he wrong?

The CNN reporter on location, Allan Dodds Frank, phoned in a report that at 10:45 a.m. ET, another collapse or explosion had occurred. He said that a passing firefighter said that a building estimated to be 50 storys tall had just collapsed.

This of course, makes no sense.

Not wanting to see beyond the end of their noses, OCTers can't be bothered to look for answers to questions that make no sense.

Well, I have more respect for the FDNY than that.

What plausible explanation could there be for a firefighter to be spreading such an untruth.

Since we know it didn't occur, the only logical answer is that he did not witness what he was reporting.

So why was he telling a CNN reporter that it did?

Because the information came from someone else. A source that had enough authority that the firefighter was willing to repeat the message.

Of course we have to take the word of the CNN reporter, Allan Dodds Frank, that he actually spoke with this unknown firefighter.

Since the information was 100% false, and since it is inconceivable that someone could be a little wrong when claiming to have eyewitnessed the collapse of a 50 story building, there remains very few logical explanations.

Confusion does not wash.

A scripted, pre-planned cover story does.

A failed controlled demolition of WTC7, timed to be masked by the collapse of WTC1, fits with the failed cover story.

MM

Obviously you have never been in a simmilar situation.

No one has ever been in a similar situation but reporting that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 is very specific and it is not a the kind of mistake anyone would make.

MM laid it out quite well but you will deny this just like you deny everything else that pokes holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT="][SIZE=3]At a Tech briefing on 8-26-08, lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3]
[/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT="]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT][/I][/B][/SIZE][/quote][QUOTE="Gamolon, post: 6243566, member: 13409"]Ok. I'm not a physics guy, so someone please explain what I am missing here. As far as I am concerned, the following are facts. I listened to David Chandler's video a couple of times and took a few things from it.

1. If the roofline fell at free fall, it would have taken 3.9s to fall out of view in the video.
2. The roofline according to the video, fell out of view in 5.4s
3. 5.4s is 40% longer than 3.9s

Here is Chandler's question from the video:

So what did NIST get wrong? It is clear to me that Shyam's answer is about the ENTIRE time it took the visible roofline to go out of view. If that is the case why are you using his reference to freefall, which he stated concerning the entire visible roofline descent in the video, in conjunction with a PORTION of the roofline drop? He is stating that if there was no structural resistance, then the roofline would have dropped out of view in 3.9s. Since it didn't, there was resistance.

What am I missing?

The 2.25 seconds that the entire upper portion of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 45 [pdf pg 87][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible* support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[3] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]*Negligible: too small to be worth considering[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf[/FONT]

 

[GlennB]

I would say it was a reasonable plan.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3698/gjswtc40rdu8.jpg

Of course if WTC7 failed to be successfully demolished they had a big problem.

MM

You're missing the point, which is that if it had been successfully demolished they also had a big problem :

because the impact damage was nothing like enough to explain the collapse of such a building.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you chose such a poor angle to show the dust cloud around WTC7. This makes things much clearer :

The building was visible for a good long time (was it ever fully obscured when viewed from the helicopter?)

More to the point - why? What could possibly be gained from this wildly unpredictable and totally transparent plan?