Ed Moving On is coming.

[Moving On]

Postponed again until around spring of 07. You might find some of this very interesting (regarding the tests).

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

Scott,

To me the delays are bothersome.

The FBI will ultimately be in charge of what is released. It is likely that is the struggle that is going on now to delay it further. They certainly aren't looking at last minute evidence and trying to figure it out at this late hour.

The NTSB was very candid with me personally about the FBI screening of their releases.

Earlier in this thread we heard it mentioned that photos of WTC had been suppressed by the FBI to the MSM.

The FBI did not allow the BPS team at the Pentagon to photograph the exit hole themselves and provided the column damage reports that were questionable.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/105.html

The FBI has total control of all of this.

The Director, FBI, as head of the investigative agency for terrorism.......

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm

I still go back to the fact that the FBI director was appointed 7 days before 9/11. His "star rose at the Justice Department as the head of the criminal division under President George Bush's father from 1990 to 1993.

And he led the investigations of the 1991 collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International banking and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1424760.stm

When you go to the Bush Sr. library the results of his work back then on cover up appears very complete:

"In its suit, Pan Am alleged that the United States Government had prior knowledge of an impending terrorist attack on a Pan Am airliner". But as luck would have it the, ".....court transcripts, affidavits, depositions, motions, objections, reports, and news clippings.....in addition [to] the remaining NSC files deal[ing] specifically with the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent investigation which led to the indictment of two Libyan nationals..... are closed because of various security classifications".

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/find/foia/1998-0034-F.pdf

Heck, they even got the news clippings.

Combine the certainty of the FBI screening this upcoming report at the end with the perception of the Fire Engineering editor at the beginning, "that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure" and I'm not sure what we'll get.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

I guess I'm a skeptic after all.

Where do you guys get your faith?

Russell

 

[Gravy]

Scott,

I am ultimately waiting for the final report.

When is it due?

The bottom line is we have a bizarre and unprecedented event on film along with a hard to make sense of comment by somebody in relation to it. I have to do some other things here for a bit and I will respond to Gravy about Silverstein later.

Russell

Russell, there was nothing bizarre about the event of WTC 7's collapse to anyone who was there and had been expecting it for hours. Nothing. You would know that if you read the accounts that I took the trouble to compile. I am quite sure you have not.

You've mentioned (and misrepresented) FEMA's WTC 7 report, but haven't mentioned NIST's interim report, which is more thorough and includes evidence that was not available to FEMA.

You say you respect firefighters? It doesn't show. You, who was nowhere near the events, have done nothing but second-guess them, based on what you imagine was happening at the WTC after you watched the same videos we've all seen. You still misrepresent what they say about the building's condition. Why?

I repeat: you cannot support the FDNY and the demolition theory. The two are mutually exclusive.

I hope you choose wisely, based on an honest review of all the evidence and the liberal use of logic.

 

[Pardalis]

The FBI has total control of all of this.

As they should. Do you want terrorists to have acces to such information?

I guess I'm a skeptic after all.

Where do you guys get your faith?

Are you saying the engeneers at the NIST lied?

 

[Kent1]

Scott,

To me the delays are bothersome.

The FBI will ultimately be in charge of what is released. It is likely that is the struggle that is going on now to delay it further. They certainly aren't looking at last minute evidence and trying to figure it out at this late hour.

The NTSB was very candid with me personally about the FBI screening of their releases.

Earlier in this thread we heard it mentioned that photos of WTC had been suppressed by the FBI to the MSM.

The FBI did not allow the BPS team at the Pentagon to photograph the exit hole themselves and provided the column damage reports that were questionable.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/105.html

The FBI has total control of all of this.



I still go back to the fact that the FBI director was appointed 7 days before 9/11. His "star rose at the Justice Department as the head of the criminal division under President George Bush's father from 1990 to 1993.

And he led the investigations of the 1991 collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International banking and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1424760.stm

When you go to the Bush Sr. library the results of his work back then on cover up appears very complete:



Heck, they even got the news clippings.

Combine the certainty of the FBI screening this upcoming report at the end with the perception of the Fire Engineering editor at the beginning, "that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure" and I'm not sure what we'll get.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

I guess I'm a skeptic after all.

Where do you guys get your faith?

Russell

Some points Russell.
First: NIST was missing a lot of information they needed. New information has continued to come in which they didn't have before.
Second: NIST is now looking into some of the claims regarding explosives.
Third: I would suggest you see what Manning has to currently say.
Forth: I hope you are keeping some notes on Steven Jones Dishonesty and re-writing and editing of sources.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

 

[LashL]

For someone who presents as an actual researcher, Russell, you do seem to have a tendency to go off into flights of fancy at times.

Being easily led by conspiracy theory websites, cherry picking from quotes, and tying unrelated items and opinions together to try to come up with a theory which is unsupported by facts or evidence, does not a skeptic make.

 

[Moving On]

Leaving aside the obvious, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

What impact would it have on the government if private security at an office building failed to prevent someone from planting explosives? Wouldn't the government be delighted to be able to point the finger at others and say, "Hey, look, it wasn't our fault. It was those lax security systems; the airplanes were just for show."

/devil's advocate

I don't know.

I was just trying to suggest a reason it might have been valid to look for explosives. Initially nobody took credit for this.

What do you think of the theories on Marvin Bush being related to the security company at WTC? Do you give it any validity. It seems well documented from what I have read?

Russell

 

[LashL]

What do you think of the theories on Marvin Bush being related to the security company at WTC? Do you give it any validity. It seems well documented from what I have read?

No, I do not accord any validity to the "Marvin Bush" theories as they were debunked long ago.

I was just trying to suggest a reason it might have been valid to look for explosives. Initially nobody took credit for this.

The fact that nobody initially took credit for hijacking the airplanes is not exactly a good reason to "look for" explosives. One simply does not follow the other.

The NIST looked at the evidence in great detail, enlisted the assistance of hundreds of experts, conducted thousands of interviews, and came to science-based conclusions. That is what good researchers do. They concluded that there was no basis upon which to believe that there were pre-planted explosives involved.

 

[Crungy]

By self admission they also did not test for the presence of explosives or give a thorough evaluation to a demolition scenario. I wouldn't have expected them to but it is a fact at this point that they did not.

Now we know that much of the evidence is gone. This initially upset some in the firefighting industry.

Russell,

Do you find it suspicious that the official story of the unsinkable Titanic was never questioned? When they discovered her lying at the bottom of the ocean, shouldn't the remote controlled robot searched for clues of torpedo damage? Shouldn't there have been more people who questioned politically and economically who would benefit the most from her sinking?

As I have stated before I have a high regard for firefighters. This observation means a lot to me. I don't mind referencing the general details of the various reports back and forth but I feel the same about them as I do the 9/11 Commission report and the recent revelations from the chair and vice chair of that.

A grain of salt.



Russell

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
[/QUOTE]

The article continues below.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Russell, I'm an HVAC engineer who has also done fire protection design early on in my career. As with many trade magazines, I get a free subscription to Fire Engineering and have followed Bill Manning's editorials on the WTC towers collapse. Russ, you know well enough that after every major fire disaster, fire engineers are looking for a comprehensive study to help further building code and design in terms of life safety. In no way is Bill or any of the fire engineering community demanding a new study because of the belief in control demolition playing any part in the WTC tragedies, which is implied by your partial qoute of the article.

 

[Crungy]

I believe you are incorrect. There were fire dampers in the HVAC systems and duct shafts, but my information is that there were no fire dampers in the elevator shafts.
This is where my information came from just so you know I wasn't making it up.

"On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html
I know it is a CT site so please disregard everything else and do not do a debunking that requires me to be further indebted to you which I have not forgotten.

Russell

LashL,



This is where my information came from just so you know I wasn't making it up.



I know it is a CT site so please disregard everything else and do not do a debunking that requires me to be further indebted to you which I have not forgotten.

Russell

I have never heard of fire dampers being used in an elevator shaft. Besides door openings, what would perforate an elevator shaft?

FYI, standard fire dampers are rated for a typical "life safety" wall construction of 2 hours and have typical fuse rating of 165 deg. F. The next step up for wall ratings is 4 hours. If WTC had these, it was probably very little of the overall floorplan. Fire dampers are UL rated.

 

[Crungy]

For someone who presents as an actual researcher, Russell, you do seem to have a tendency to go off into flights of fancy at times.

Being easily led by conspiracy theory websites, cherry picking from quotes, and tying unrelated items and opinions together to try to come up with a theory which is unsupported by facts or evidence, does not a skeptic make.

Does anyone see an identical match between Russell's conspiracy logic and that "evidence" that Dubya and company set forth to invade Iraq?

All lot of "suspicious connections", "suspicious motives", "suspicious photographs", "suspicious witnesses" and "suspicious minds"

Whoops! Sorry 'bout that last one. It was my Elvis fixation getting the better of me.

 

[Crungy]

Pardalis,

The most basic reason would be the confirmed presence of a terrorist bomb at that location prior to 9/11 in an attempt to collapse the building.

Why would we assume they would not do both?

Russell

Maybe because it failed the first time....

http://911review.com/precedent/decade/imgs/wtc_93_damage1.jpg

 

[Crungy]

What do you think of the theories on Marvin Bush being related to the security company at WTC? Do you give it any validity. It seems well documented from what I have read?

Russell

An uncle of a good college friend of mine was the personal lawyer for George Bush Sr when he was vice president of the USA. Does that make my posts suspicious to you?

Side note. My buddy always had a bunch of stationary with "From the desk of the Vice President of the United States of America" that we used for writing stuff to the lovely ladies. Yes, we were pathetic.

 

[Trifikas]

Snipping the linked article at:
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...ICLE_ID=131225


As I have stated before I have a high regard for firefighters. This observation means a lot to me. I don't mind referencing the general details of the various reports back and forth but I feel the same about them as I do the 9/11 Commission report and the recent revelations from the chair and vice chair of that.

A grain of salt.

Russell

Just to point out, this article was written January of 2002, well before any investigations were concluded. It's not wrong Per Se, but it doesn't take into consideration the new information learned since then.

Trifikas

 

[LashL]

As I have stated before I have a high regard for firefighters. This observation means a lot to me.

Russell,

If you have such a high regard for firefighters, and if their observations mean a lot to you, why is it that you seem to ignore the vast majority of the statements of the firefighters who were there and instead choose to rely upon a few cherry-picked quotes?

If you have such a high regard for firefighters and their observations, why do you ignore 99% of everything they have said over the past several years, which does not conform to the conspiracy theories that you are advancing?

And why didn't you even inquire of them about the (non) existence of fire dampers in the elevator shafts?

Just asking questions. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Kent1]

Postponed again until around spring of 07. You might find some of this very interesting (regarding the tests).
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

I made a mistake here. The next draft report comes out during the spring. Final report unknown.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Postponed again until around spring of 07. You might find some of this very interesting (regarding the tests).
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

A government mandated/funded operation is behind schedule and over budget?

I'm shocked.

 

[Moving On]

Russell, there was nothing bizarre about the event of WTC 7's collapse to anyone who was there and had been expecting it for hours. Nothing. You would know that if you read the accounts that I took the trouble to compile. I am quite sure you have not.

You've mentioned (and misrepresented) FEMA's WTC 7 report, but haven't mentioned NIST's interim report, which is more thorough and includes evidence that was not available to FEMA.

You say you respect firefighters? It doesn't show. You, who was nowhere near the events, have done nothing but second-guess them, based on what you imagine was happening at the WTC after you watched the same videos we've all seen. You still misrepresent what they say about the building's condition. Why?

I repeat: you cannot support the FDNY and the demolition theory. The two are mutually exclusive.

I hope you choose wisely, based on an honest review of all the evidence and the liberal use of logic.

I would propose that respect is subjective in general. But VERY specifically I propose you DO NOT have the ability to see inside me. If you do, then perhaps the Randi challenge is for you.

11 years of trusting fellow firefighters with my life and looking into the eyes of a person whose name I did not even know at times, through a steamed up face piece in the middle of the night on the opposite side of a blackened doorway pumping smoke while the popping and breaking of glass is the only sound you can hear besides your own escalated breathing, and seeing a pair of eyes look back with certainty that we are both coming out or staying in together is something you should probably refrain from speaking about unless you yourself have been a firefighter (maybe you were/are - I don't know).

Rhetoric and fancy names for arguments it is not.

So what is the name for an argument where you force somebody into a false choice and insinuate disrespect as the reason for one of the false choices and wisdom as the reward for the other?

In regards to WTC7, bizarre is my choice of words. If you are satisfied that this is a normal event then that is your choice.

If this were normal I presume the careers of Controlled Demolition Inc. employees might be in question. Do a little damage to a building, set a fire and soon enough it will be essentially in its own footprint. All those weeks of preparation, detonation cord, engineering etc. can just be done away with for a back hoe, some diesel fuel and a pack of matches.

In regards to the final NIST report I'll just wait to see what the FBI leaves in it.

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Russell

 

[uk_dave]

Russell,

Do you support the theory of 'intelligent design over evolution'?
Can you explain how you form your opinion?


Do you agree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change?
Can you explain how you form your opinion?

 

[tsig]

I would propose that respect is subjective in general. But VERY specifically I propose you DO NOT have the ability to see inside me. If you do, then perhaps the Randi challenge is for you.

11 years of trusting fellow firefighters with my life and looking into the eyes of a person whose name I did not even know at times, through a steamed up face piece in the middle of the night on the opposite side of a blackened doorway pumping smoke while the popping and breaking of glass is the only sound you can hear besides your own escalated breathing, and seeing a pair of eyes look back with certainty that we are both coming out or staying in together is something you should probably refrain from speaking about unless you yourself have been a firefighter (maybe you were/are - I don't know).

Rhetoric and fancy names for arguments it is not.

So what is the name for an argument where you force somebody into a false choice and insinuate disrespect as the reason for one of the false choices and wisdom as the reward for the other?

In regards to WTC7, bizarre is my choice of words. If you are satisfied that this is a normal event then that is your choice.

If this were normal I presume the careers of Controlled Demolition Inc. employees might be in question. Do a little damage to a building, set a fire and soon enough it will be essentially in its own footprint. All those weeks of preparation, detonation cord, engineering etc. can just be done away with for a back hoe, some diesel fuel and a pack of matches.

In regards to the final NIST report I'll just wait to see what the FBI leaves in it.

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Russell

Nice fiction, drama queen, now can you prove any of it.

Yeh you say you were a firefighter, but you sure don't sound like one.

JDX redux??

 

[Moving On]

Russell,

Do you support the theory of 'intelligent design over evolution'?
Can you explain how you form your opinion?


Do you agree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change?
Can you explain how you form your opinion?

Dave,

You're kidding right?

After I said, "and the fact that the video of it just plain looks like a demolition. I mean even Dan rather and Peter Jennings said it looked like a controlled demolition immediately after watching it happen" Pardalis posted the following picture:

Then he said, "Russell, could you tell me what this animal looks like?"

Maybe it's just me but this seems a bit off topic. I thought we were talking about 9/11? Now I am accountable for the evolution of species, anthropogenic climate change and species identification? WOW!

"To date, taxonomists have identified less than two million distinct species, mostly mammals and birds."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0305_0305_allspecies.html

There have been only a few controlled demolitions in comparison to these numbers and the complexities of evolution. They have distinct characteristics. Let's look at a few and see why two trained journalists and many others who look at the footage of WTC7 collapse instinctively (there's some animal behavior for you) perceived it as a CD. I think this would actually be useful before we further analyze Silvertein's comments.

Kink, rolling dust cloud and a nice neat pile.

The results of a controlled demolition on the left. The results of WTC7 on the right.

Examples of non symmetrical collapses. The physical and fire damage to WTC7 was non symmetrical.

WTC5 sustained significant physical damage and large fires and is still standing.

I know some of you have seen this before. I know it is all rationalized away with various arguments. It doesn't matter how many times it is brought up, this is the reality of the situation.

WTC7 LOOKED LIKE a controlled demolition. It looks like that to many people. It does not mean it was one but it LOOKED LIKE one. The distraction of species identification and evolutionary theories does not change that fact.

Now take a minute and look at these videos of the Phillips Building and Oslo, Norway and tell me if WTC7 looks similar.

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

It is on the top row on the far right. VERY similar.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2024862568112882772&q=norway+phillips&hl=en

Here it is viewed from down the street. Again, VERY similar.

WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition. No matter what your beliefs, can you honestly tell me it didn't?

Russell