Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[jaydeehess]

And to think some CDs go off and don't even take down the buildings. It takes a lot to bring a building like WTC 7 down.

Really? How many 47 storey structures have you seen demo'd? How many with open concept/long span floor space and assymmetric girder construction?

 

[jaydeehess]

WTC 7 looks 100% like a CD. No doubt about it. Roof line falling intact. The time it took.

What did the lower floors look like when the facade and roofline began coming down tmd? Oh, you don't know? Of course not because there were no camera angles possible to capture that.

The time it took? You mean 16-20 seconds? Or do you mean the time it took AFTER the internal collapse was well underway with the facade beginning to move, and the time the roof material hit the ground?

I mean think about it there's a reason why companies spends lots and lots of money on CD. I mean why not just light a few fires let them burn and the building will come down nice and intact. Simple right?

False equivocation. There is no reason to suspect that all buildings would react the same way as WTC 7 given that it was
-constructed over and existing structure
-was built with an assymettric placing of floor girders
-was constructed in a long span, open floor space fashion

WTC 7 did not come down intact. It twisted and buckled with the eastern 1/3 falling northeast and the south and west 2/3rds falling to the south. One can note that this means it fell basically towards its long sides and that its short sides were triangular. The split between west and east roughly matches the extent of impact damge from the collapse of the north tower in that it caused much more damge to the western 2/3rds, and the eastern extent of the pre-existing Con-ed building.

As for thermate, again you asked why would thermate still be burning. You kind of gave the answer. It could have simply started the fire and as you yourself said, it would have been hard to put out. Now of course gas from cars..and other things would contribute.

Why ask if thermate caused the fires to start if you agree that much more mundane ignition sources abound in the enviroment of the debris pile and that the source of continuing heat would be the continued burning of materials from the offices and garages?

So I guess the point is, things were burning...who says it was thermate?

Not me. You were the one who stated that Jones and others state the underground fires were too hot to be explained yet now you seem to be saying that it may have been the office and garage debris after all.

Make up your mind.

 

[jaydeehess]

I guess the first thing to address is what the device might actually look like. If you go here you will find a picture of it. Looks like what could be the pod in the picture. http://www.nogw.com/articles/zakheim_911_conspiracy.html Incidentally it is very hard to find a picture of one of those devices.

Really?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/04/airforce_drone_found_041008w/

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-167.html

Are you using the same investigative techniques as your Spanish reporters?

 

[triforcharity]

Isn't that what happened on that day? Hence those in sane amount of variables all must have been in place.

No.

My point was, to get a building to fall like a controlled demolition would, without damaging any other buildings, you would need to calculate for all the known variables, and be able to plan for them.

You cannot plan for wind direction shift.
You cannot plan for a drop in barometric pressure.
You cannot plan for these things.

THAT is my point. Not that these specific conditions had to be met to get the building to fall.

 

[tmd2_1]

I do not understand what your position on Boeing is. Are they covering something up and therefore in on it to at least some extent, or is Boeing in no way involved at all?
A little clarification please.



You, no I was labeling the authors of that page as Jew-bashers. Are you the author of that site?



What concrete are you talking about? The 4 inch thick lightweight concrete of the WTC floors? How is it that you can see a 4 inch thick object in those pictures?


The pictures I posted, especially the last one DO SHOW the wing faring in the exact same location of the supposed 'pod'. In that last photo its also the starboard faring that shows most prominantly because of the lighting and what the background against the faring is.
I have addressed all of your discrepancies about a pod. I have told you my conclusion about the existance of a pod. I am willing to objectively look at all the evidence and come to a conclusion. If you wish to try and make your position more amenable by simply being wishy-washy and refusing to declare any conclusion I suppose that's your perogative. However its quite clear that your position is to simply give some credence to just about any conspiracy contention that might come around and basically only look at conspiracy websites. You say you are not agreeing with such website's conclusions but you steadfastly refuse to give any credence to any facts presented to you to the contrary. That is the reason why many here assume that you are a 911 conspiracy believer. You simply give no one any reason to believe otherwise.

No it's not my site. Boeing is not involved. But are put in a terrible position.

You see by those pictures material (fine I won't use the word concrete) is being pushed in. You have the NIST impact scar, which you don't seem to want to talk about.

I could care less what people believe about me.

 

[tmd2_1]

What did the lower floors look like when the facade and roofline began coming down tmd? Oh, you don't know? Of course not because there were no camera angles possible to capture that.

The time it took? You mean 16-20 seconds? Or do you mean the time it took AFTER the internal collapse was well underway with the facade beginning to move, and the time the roof material hit the ground?



False equivocation. There is no reason to suspect that all buildings would react the same way as WTC 7 given that it was
-constructed over and existing structure
-was built with an assymettric placing of floor girders
-was constructed in a long span, open floor space fashion

WTC 7 did not come down intact. It twisted and buckled with the eastern 1/3 falling northeast and the south and west 2/3rds falling to the south. One can note that this means it fell basically towards its long sides and that its short sides were triangular. The split between west and east roughly matches the extent of impact damge from the collapse of the north tower in that it caused much more damge to the western 2/3rds, and the eastern extent of the pre-existing Con-ed building.


Why ask if thermate caused the fires to start if you agree that much more mundane ignition sources abound in the enviroment of the debris pile and that the source of continuing heat would be the continued burning of materials from the offices and garages?




Not me. You were the one who stated that Jones and others state the underground fires were too hot to be explained yet now you seem to be saying that it may have been the office and garage debris after all.

Make up your mind.

My point is, that it takes a lot of money and planning to bring down a building. If all you need to do is light a few fires why not do it.
You say there's no reason to suspect other buildings to react the way 7 did. You're right, there's no reason to suspect why 7 reacted the way it did either.

Give me a break it came down intact.

All I said was according to NASA photos on Sept 16th it was still hot enough to melt aluminum on top of the pile, and it was still hot enough that a piece of steel was pulled out on Oct 21 glowing (not melted though)

Steve Jones presents data about environmental anomalies he had to file a FOIA to obtain from the EPA. The anomalies continued into February. You know what the funniest thing is? The data he obtained from the EPA (via the FOIA) was higher than what publicly announced at the time. I wonder why that is?

 

[tmd2_1]

Really?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/04/airforce_drone_found_041008w/

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-167.html

Are you using the same investigative techniques as your Spanish reporters?

I was talking about a very specific piece of equipment, these are not it.

 

[tmd2_1]

No.

My point was, to get a building to fall like a controlled demolition would, without damaging any other buildings, you would need to calculate for all the known variables, and be able to plan for them.

You cannot plan for wind direction shift.
You cannot plan for a drop in barometric pressure.
You cannot plan for these things.

THAT is my point. Not that these specific conditions had to be met to get the building to fall.

I understood your point. You said an in sane amount of variables right?

My point is building 7 fell just the way you would want it to fall. So those in sane amount of variables all had to be in place on that day.

 

[WildCat]

Boeing is not involved. But are put in a terrible position.

This makes no sense at all, unless you think Boeing is in on it.

 

[000063]

And to think some CDs go off and don't even take down the buildings. It takes a lot to bring a building like WTC 7 down.

Like debris damage and hours upon hours of fire.

That might do it.

Sarcasm aside, it's not like buildings collapsing from things other than CD is impossible, or all that uncommon. Such as shoddy construction, for instance.

 

[twinstead]

The only thing constructive anybody could ever get out of this thread is learning the difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt.

That's about it.

 

[Myriad]

My point is, that it takes a lot of money and planning to bring down a building. If all you need to do is light a few fires why not do it.

Because it's illegal and unsafe. And by "unsafe" I don't mean "some random bystander might get hurt" (though that's certainly true), I mean "your business will be bankrupted by damage claims from neighboring businesses who were harmed as a result of your arson."

There's nothing particularly difficult about causing a building to fall down. The difficult part, that takes a lot of money and planning, is doing it without causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damages to your neighbors and the public.

The collapse of WTC7 did cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damages to its neighbors and the public. So clearly the necessary variables triforcharity spoke of were not controlled for.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Animal]

I understood your point. You said an in sane amount of variables right?

My point is building 7 fell just the way you would want it to fall. So those in sane amount of variables all had to be in place on that day.

Your point is that you would have wanted WTC 7 to fall on the Verizon building and across the city streets?

 

[jaydeehess]

No it's not my site. Boeing is not involved. But are put in a terrible position.

So you are saying that Boeing knows something about this supposed 'pod' that they are withholding because it would get them in trouble but that Boeing does not know that it has anything at all to do with a conspiracy to fly a large aircraft into the towers that does not match the commonly accepted narritive of what occured on 9/11. If Boeing has such knowledge and is with holding it then they are in-on-the-cover-up are they not?

You see by those pictures material (fine I won't use the word concrete) is being pushed in. You have the NIST impact scar, which you don't seem to want to talk about

.

You must have missed it then.

What concrete? The 4 in thick flooring? You have pretty good eyesight there tmd. OTOH the faring is the location of the wheel assembly and the wheels and the struts they are attched to are responsible for taking the entire weight of the aircraft as it drops onto, and then runs out down, the runway at 200 MPH. Its a very robustly built piece of equipment and quite heavy in its own right. Probably caused a lot of damage when it entered the building. First we are told that the plane should not have sliced neatly into the structure and now you point out that there is a somehow suspicious lack of symmetry in the resultant hole in the building which might also indicate that the plane was coming apart as it impacted the building..

I could care less what people believe about me.

Sorry to hear you care some.

 

[jaydeehess]

My point is, that it takes a lot of money and planning to bring down a building. If all you need to do is light a few fires why not do it.

I answered this ridiculous question already.

You say there's no reason to suspect other buildings to react the way 7 did. You're right, there's no reason to suspect why 7 reacted the way it did either.

Actually the NIST FEA indicates otherwise. Tell me, has Jones or Gage conducted anything similar or just made unsubstantiated pronouncements like you do?

Give me a break it came down intact.

The part of the perimeter and facade above the failure floor fell somewhat 'intact' Of course the interior core volume was in tatters having failed earlier and the supposedly 'intact' upper portion of the building had distinctive kink in it that was visible from roofline to below the level visible in the videos and the part to the east of that kink fell generally to the NE while the part west of that kink fell generally to the south.

Yeah, other than that it came down 'intact'.

Give me a break!

All I said was according to NASA photos on Sept 16th it was still hot enough to melt aluminum on top of the pile, and it was still hot enough that a piece of steel was pulled out on Oct 21 glowing (not melted though)

So you are disavowing the possibility of thermate in the underground being responsible for the heat over several weeks, or not?

Steve Jones presents data about environmental anomalies he had to file a FOIA to obtain from the EPA. The anomalies continued into February. You know what the funniest thing is? The data he obtained from the EPA (via the FOIA) was higher than what publicly announced at the time. I wonder why that is?

I don't know. Does it or does it not mean there was thermate in the underground supplying heat to the debris? If it points that way then why would it be preferentially underground and not visible burning on the top of the debris pile? How much thermate would be required for it to continue supplying heat for weeks or months?
Surely those who do subscribe to thermate in the debris have addressed these striking anomolies in their contentions, right?

 

[jaydeehess]

I was talking about a very specific piece of equipment, these are not it.

the piece og equipment referred to in your link is part, only part, and an interior part, of an Air Force drone of the type I have shown.
What you are saying is similar to saying its hard to get a photo of a gear in an automobile transmission.
Once again you have looked at a conspiracy website and simply swallowed whole whatever they say with no regard to actually doing any personal research to check the veracity of what amounts to a word salad posted on the web.

 

[jaydeehess]

I understood your point. You said an in sane amount of variables right?

My point is building 7 fell just the way you would want it to fall. So those in sane amount of variables all had to be in place on that day.

On the Verizon(to some extent), and Fitterman buildings and WTC 6 (the former of which was a total write off solely caused by impact from WTC 7 debris)?

Actually it fell the way that its construction would dictate it would fall. Not to the stronger, angled short sides but to the long straight sides.

 

[000063]

So you are sayong that Boeing knows somrthing about this supposed 'pod' that they are withholding because it would get them in trpouble but that Boeing does not know that it has anything at all to do with a conspiracy to fly a large aircraft into the towers that does not match the commonly accepted narritive of what occured on 9/11. If Boeing has such knowledge and is with holding it then they are in-on-the-cover-up are they not?

I imagine some guy sitting in a darkened basement somewhere, his face lit only by the harsh glow of his computer's LED screen, catching the smoke coming out of his ears as he tries to reconcile two contradictory ideas.

 

[funk de fino]

Let's look at your post. Even if we accept fire can bring down a building like that (I certainly don't) You mean to tell all these in sane amount of variables just happened to play out on that day???

Do you accept that fire can collapse steel framed buildings?

 

[jaydeehess]

I imagine some guy sitting in a darkened basement somewhere, his face lit only by the harsh glow of his computer's LED screen, catching the smoke coming out of his ears as he tries to reconcile two contradictory ideas.

Inded:
Boeing is not in-on-it and had no involvement in it but at the same time they noticed that there is something strange about the supposed Boeing 767 that flew into the tower and knowing that it could get them into someone's bad books all engineering staff who bring this up are told not to talk about it again for the rest of their lives.

Yeah! People know that something is not what it seems but all of them stay silent for ten years. People know that it was not a standard Boeing 767 of the type used for flight 175 but stay silent for ten years.
I hilite "people" because saying that "Boeing" knows or is/isn't involved is a way of depersonalizing this. "Boeing" consists of people. Lots of them and a good percentage of them would be knowledgable in the design of aircraft and several dozen at least in the specifics of a 767 yet all of these people have stayed silent.
Of course they may have been bought off or threatened by someone, cowed into silence. That would of course mean that they positivley know that something was amiss in the evnts of 9/11.

Engineer: There is something odd about that supposed 767. I'd like to investigate this a little more and perhaps exhonerate Boeing from being the conveyer of death on 9/11.

Supervisor: Hmmm, you could be right.

Upper management: Cease and desist all investigation in this matter. Here's $100,000 to never mention it again. If you do mention it again to anyone, either of you, then you or a loved one might suffer a fatal accident.

Engineer and Supervisor (to themselves): OMG there really is something to the conspiracy theories 'out there'.