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

[Miragememories]

Except that they detected that the burning building was also creaking and leaning. These are very bad signs for a building.

However, you know best it seems. The FDNY were either deluded or duped. Right.

The NIST declared that a single internal column failure around 5:20 p.m.
was the initiating factor behind the collapse of WTC7.

The NIST declared fires to be the primary cause of the collapse event.

The only significant structural damage to WTC7 prior to its collapse at 5:20 p.m., was, to quote the NIST;
"debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed...".

I guess you must be noting some dislocation in the facade because the loss of seven exterior columns certainly
would not cause the whole structure to lean.

MM

 

[Bell]

Do we even know he (the firefighter) did not say "15 storeys"?

After all Dodds was wrong about a 3rd collapse, he could easily be in error about what a 'passing' firefighter said.

15, 50, 150... doesn't matter.

Miragememories, Christopher7 and all the other little truthers are grasping at last straws. They have nothing and they know it. So now they are scrutineering each and every little detail in the hope to find something that still does not prove a 9/11 conspiracy.

 

[Disbelief]

If 9/11 was an inside job, as I believe the collapse of WTC7 proves it must, then there must have been an overall plan of battle.

A battleplan requires players and a script.

Once in motion it requires coordination and people following a script based on the assumption that certain objectives will be achieved.

Reinforcing the lie that WTC7 collapsed during the collapse of WTC1, would be a logical part of such a script.

If the firefighters were incredulous, reporters would be less likely to support the Official Conspiracy Theory.

WTC7 was expected to be felled in the aftermath of WTC1's collapse.

Had that occurred, the CNN report would have fit nicely. Certainly the CNN reporter, Allan Dodds Frank, appeared unsurprised about this 50-story collapse.

The planners of 9/11 hoped to shock 'n awe the public and the press into believing that the 19 arab terrorist-hijackers with box cutters story was the cause of the WTC Tower collapses, but it also must have crossed their minds that people might be incredulous.

It might not be believed that 2 planes crashing into the towers could make them collapse. A very reasonable concern.

By spreading plausible-sounding disinformation while the shocking events unfolded, there would be a greater likelihood of acceptance.

This was readily observed over the 7 hours that WTC7 remained standing. There were numerous reports by firefighters and their superiors of how WTC7 was definitely going to collapse.

Reports supported by emotion rather than experience-based deduction and logical expectation.

MM

So, you still can't answer how they exaggerated. You laugh when I say one firefighter making a heat of the moment comment, yet you are saying multiple firefighters over hours are more prone to use emotion? That is your explanation?

Once again, go to the FDNY and ask the firefighters themselves. You won't, as that would mean actually doing something in your search for the truth besides being a keyboard combatant.

 

[Miragememories]

Do we even know he (the firefighter) did not say "15 storeys"?

After all Dodds was wrong about a 3rd collapse, he could easily be in error about what a 'passing' firefighter said.

Now look who is playing the speculation game.

We know Dodds was misinformed about the 3rd collapse.

It was the basis of that misinformation that was the underlying issue.

That was the whole point of our discussion.

MM

 

[dafydd]

The NIST declared that a single internal column failure around 5:20 p.m.
was the initiating factor behind the collapse of WTC7.

The NIST declared fires to be the primary cause of the collapse event.

The only significant structural damage to WTC7 prior to its collapse at 5:20 p.m., was, to quote the NIST;
"debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed...".

I guess you must be noting some dislocation in the facade because the loss of seven exterior columns certainly
would not cause the whole structure to lean.

MM

Would you care to give me your complete theory about the events on 9-11.Be brave,break the mold and be the first truther to answer that question for me.

 

[GlennB]

I guess you must be noting some dislocation in the facade because the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean.

I am not 'noting' anything. It wasn't any measurement of mine. I'm referring to the transit (surveying tool, a kind of theodolite) that the FDNY were using.

 

[Miragememories]

I am not 'noting' anything. It wasn't any measurement of mine. I'm referring to the transit (surveying tool, a kind of theodolite) that the FDNY were using.

Yes I know what you were referring to Glenn.

I read about that years ago as well.

Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.

I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.

Like I said, "the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean."

MM

 

[Disbelief]

Yes I know what you were referring to Glenn.

I read about that years ago as well.

Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.

I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.

Like I said, "the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean."

MM

So now, the firefirghters were not only exaggerating and fooled by disinfo, they were also lying. Keep going MM, you are making the TM look great.

 

[dafydd]

Yes I know what you were referring to Glenn.

I read about that years ago as well.

Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.

I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.

Like I said, "the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean."

MM

You are dodging my question.That speaks volumes.You are floundering around.
Here it is again in case you missed it.

Would you care to give me your complete theory about the events on 9-11.Be brave,break the mold and be the first truther to answer that question for me.

 

[Justin39640]

Yes I know what you were referring to Glenn.

I read about that years ago as well.

Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.

I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.

Like I said, "the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean."

MM

I live in NY and listened to 1010 WINS all day on the 11th. A fair amount of time before the collapse they reported it was leaning, The collapse of WTC 7 was far from unexpected that day. "Some" people tend to forget that. (conveniently)

 

[jaydeehess]

Now look who is playing the speculation game.

Did I state that it was "15" rather than "50"?
No, but it would certainly not be the first time in the English language that someone mistook one for the other.

OTOH, your speculation makes no sense whatsoever.
So I ask again, what possible gain would there be in 'planting' a report suggestive of WTC 7 collapsing when in mere minutes it will be revealed to all whether or not WTC 7 is still standing?

We know Dodds was misinformed about the 3rd collapse.

I did not say "mis-informed' I said he most likely, probably, all but certainly, mis-interpreted the information given to him.
That is what you cannot seem to grasp and is the the whole point of the discussion.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes I know what you were referring to Glenn.

I read about that years ago as well.

Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.

uh, yeah it kinda DOES

I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.

NIST does of course mention this leaning. Your statement once again belies your politically motivated prior assumption that NIST is part of a cover up of a vast, over complex and wholly unneccessary conspiracy.

Like I said, "the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean."

MM

,,, and you are more qualified to state this as fact than is Glenn, or I or others here?

 

[jaydeehess]

I live in NY and listened to 1010 WINS all day on the 11th. A fair amount of time before the collapse they reported it was leaning, The collapse of WTC 7 was far from unexpected that day. "Some" people tend to forget that. (conveniently)

Nah, MM does not deny these reports, he just states that they are dis-information designed to prepare people to believe that the fire damage caused the structure to fail when in fact the structure was supposed to be demolished as WTC 1 fell to the ground but that part of the plan failed so they had to re-enter a building with prior structural damage and multiple fires to re-rig silent explosives. All this was done because there was 'evidence' in WTC 7 that could only be assured of complete destruction of that evidence by collapsing the structure.

Yeah, I know ....

 

[tfk]

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

Ever considered that perhaps he thought that only 50 stories of one of the towers went down? (Instead of the whole thing.)

The timing is right.

 

[Miragememories]

So now, the firefirghters were not only exaggerating and fooled by disinfo, they were also lying. Keep going MM, you are making the TM look great.

Where did I say they were lying?

That is such a favorite OCTer tactic; make it sound like the FDNY
is being slammed by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The only disrespect I see, comes from people like yourself who use the FDNY as pawns for your pathetic slurs.

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

SOME points on the structure can be shown to have experienced very short durations of free fall.
Some points were falling faster than free fall acelleration Chris. What do you make of that? Rocket motors attached to them?

You are aware that twisting/rotating objects will have portions moving faster than other portions of that object, right?
There is a whole thread dedicated to determining a much better resolution of what WTC 7 was doing over this 7 second period. How come you haven't shown up there? Want a link?

Ever considered that perhaps he thought that only 50 stories of one of the towers went down? (Instead of the whole thing.)

The timing is right.

tfk, the answer is "No", he will not consider that at all.

You can also note that Christopher 7 has no comment at all concerning the detail to which you and femr have submitted the last seven seconds of WTC 7's collapse or what implications of a faster than free fall acelleration of parts of the structure are.

 

[Miragememories]

You are dodging my question.That speaks volumes.You are floundering around.
Here it is again in case you missed it.

Would you care to give me your complete theory about the events on 9-11.Be brave,break the mold and be the first truther to answer that question for me.

No, I only dodge idiot questions.

Continue on in the same vein and you can count on a similar response.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I live in NY and listened to 1010 WINS all day on the 11th. A fair amount of time before the collapse they reported it was leaning, The collapse of WTC 7 was far from unexpected that day. "Some" people tend to forget that. (conveniently)

I've also heard that many people have a problem with one leg being shorter than the other.

That might account for the observed leaning.

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

Where did I say they were lying?

That is such a favorite OCTer tactic; make it sound like the FDNY
is being slammed by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The only disrespect I see, comes from people like yourself who use the FDNY as pawns for your pathetic slurs.

MM

Have you or have yu not opined that the FF who spoke to Dodds was passing dis-information concerning 50 storeys of a structure falling?

Either he did see this occur or he did not but is saying he did.
We absolutly know that no 50 storey structure did collapse so the choice is either he was referring to 50 storeys of a structure that did fall(WTC 1 or 2) OR he is lieing.

You choose!

 

[jaydeehess]

No, I only dodge idiot questions.

Continue on in the same vein and you can count on a similar response.

MM

So you either will not or cannot offer a comprehensive conjecture of what did occur?