david.watts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 293
More than 200 posts have been moved to this split thread from the thread here.
Posted By: LashL
My time has long been up.
I did get waylaid for a while.
……………………..
Preface:
When I saw the towers come down I remember remarking to myself that it seemed ‘strange’ the way they collapsed. They seemed to come straight down directly through the very tall buildings. And they came down in what appeared to be identical fashion. That seemed not just unusual, but almost ‘weird.’ (Huh, “weird” doesn’t follow the “i” before “e” except after “c” and when it sounds …) But, I did not question anything until May, 2007, when I came across video of WTC7’s collapse. It was a shock! It couldn’t have been more than 30 seconds later and maybe only 15, when I vividly remember saying to myself “something’s not right! There better be a good explanation!” I did not have any preconceived ideas.
I want to point out that my “getting in to 9/11” was solely based on the collapse video of WTC7. It had nothing to do with 911truth of which I did not know existed. So it did not start with “lies” from the “truth movement” as beachnut would say; it started with me and “my head.” I will admit, I may have bought into a thing or two along the way that are either false or untrue. Most of you would say not just a “thing or two;” you would say, “ALL of it.” But I did not get into and stay with this without giving it a LOT of thought. (Let’s not get into your opinions regarding “my head.” I think I already know what they are. You think my head is full of pulverized concrete.)
I would guess that at least some, if not most or all of you, start from “9/11 was not an inside job.” Many say “they wouldn’t do that” or “somebody would have talked.” But nobody can say false flags have never occurred. There have been many. And those are just the ones we know of. It is certainly not unreasonable to think there have been others.
I believe a big reason that many of you people here at JREF cannot understand that WTC7 was indeed a controlled demolition, is … physics. With all due respect, I think you are in a big way ‘stuck’ on physics regarding the collapses of the buildings.
In this thread, it was said many times that I have no understanding of physics. I have always been very good with math and sciences. In college, I did study physics and did very well. Granted, I am talking about very basic physics; you know, things like Newton’s laws of motion. Nothing much more complicated than that. But that is really ALL you need. And from a different perspective, you don’t even need that. The point being is that while many of you understand physics at a very high level, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter at least as to understanding what happened (CD or not CD) to the three WTC buildings. Of course it does matter when addressing how the three buildings came down the in the manner that they did. High level physics does matter in showing that the way WTC7 came down is at least possible in a fire induced collapse. And, from the other side, it does matter in trying to prove that NISTs explanations, your explanations, or any other explanation, is valid. But, as to understanding what happened to those buildings, understanding physics at a very high level, doesn’t matter.
(Note: I was asked to point to any CD that resulted in a free fall collapse. I have not looked so I do not know that I can or cannot.
I, of course, can turn that question around and ask any of you if you can point me to a free-fall-fire-induced collapse. And point me to one of a steel framed building. Maybe there is one; I don’t know.
Add symmetry to those questions asked of each other. Which is more likely to result in a relatively symmetrical collapse? (Was WTC7 perfectly symmetrical? Of course not. But it is at least quite or nearly symmetrical for a significant part of the collapse. I ‘softened’ the question by using “relatively” symmetrical. I would think would could agree on at least “relatively.”
Now which type -- fire induced or controlled demolition -- of collapse is (much) more likely to result in relative symmetry? With CD what would have to be done is to put strong enough charges/explosives on all of the critical -- maybe even every -- column or support and have them perfectly timed to remove all of the support simultaneously. I see no reason why that could not be done. It should not be that easy for you to explain how a fire induced collapse could provide such relative symmetry. I am not saying it cannot be done. Use whatever building you like, but preferably a steel framed building.)
Onward. (Hang with me.)
I give up. I cannot prove a CD based on free fall. But I do think that CD provides a much better explanation for the way/manner it collapsed. Even with all the work NIST did, NIST could not come up with a plausible initiation. In fact according to what NIST said, there own initiating event was impossible. They modeled the collapse with an 11” beam seat that required a 5.5” expansion to start the collapse. NIST was shown that in fact, the beam seat was 12” which they acknowledged. So they increased their “required” expansion from 5.5” to 6.25” But they also had said that 5.5” was the maximum possible expansion. But with it now required to be an expansion of 6.25,” and 5.5” was the maximum possible, they did not even acknowledge the obvious, absolutely critical, discrepancy. Mind you, I understand that it is certainly possible that NIST may have been wrong when stating 5.5” was the maximum possible expansion. Maybe it is a lot more. But they never even acknowledged that their model no longer worked.
I understand that if there were no explosions that rules out CD. But, were there really no explosions? What about Barry Jennings and Michael Hess? Both reported an explosion. Jennings and Hess were there. “Debunkers” were not there. The “debunkers explanation: it was not an explosion, it was falling debris from the North Tower hitting building 7. It can easily be shown that Jennings and Hess were down to the 6th floor at least an hour before WTC1 collapsed. And therefore, the explosion Jennings and Hess heard when they got to the 6th floor would have been long before WTC1 collapsed. And would colliding/crashing debris sound like an explosion anyway? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. Imagine being there when the debris crashed into 7. What do you imagine it would sound like? I imagine it would sound a lot like stuff crashing into other stuff over whatever period it occurred. You know what explosions sound like. Just about anybody knows what explosions sound like. It is a very loud ‘BANG!’ or ‘ba BOOM!’ taking just a moment. Debris from the N. Tower hitting 7 would take longer than that with a completely different “crashing” sound. Besides, the debris impacted WTC7 long after Jennings and Hess said they heard the explosion. So falling debris from WTC1 cannot be used to explain what Jennings and Hess heard.
What about the significant damage in the lobby? Jennings said, “I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell.” He also said he asked, “`Where are we?' He said `This was the lobby,' and I said, `You gotta be kidding me.' Total ruins, total ruins. Now keep in mind when I came in there, the lobby had nice escalators. It was a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw was unbelievable.’
Was the extensive damage caused by falling WTC1 debris? I don’t see how it could be. According to NIST: "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited..” And if “no heavy debris” was in the south-side lobby where the falling debris impacted, how could the stair case have been taken out as it was located further towards the north side?
And of course you know about this:
In a CNN video a construction worker turns around after hearing an explosion from WTC 7 and notes “Did you hear that?
Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down soon….” A police officer on the scene then says, “the building is about to blow up. Move it back. ”
Apparently whoever notified this officer also warned FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti who said, “We’re moving the command post over this way. That building’s coming down.”
Another person on-scene who reports being asked to move was volunteer emergency medical technician Indira Singh. In a 2005 interview on Bonnie Faulkner’s radio show Guns and Butter on KPFA, she says, “By noon or one o’clock (WTC7 came down at 5:20) they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down, or being brought down,” Singh said.
Faulkner replied, “Did they actually use the words “brought down?”
“Yeah, that’s what they said,” Singh said. “We’re going to have to bring it down.”
In yet another key eyewitness testimonial, right before the building fell, former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden reports hearing one end of a conversation, on a radio being held by a Red Cross worker, that has serious implications: “At the last few seconds he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard, ‘three, two, one…,’”
Do fires bring buildings down to countdowns? Soon after, McPadden described tremendous explosions boomed. He made it clear that these were explosions, that he was not confusing them with other loud sounds such as floors falling.
In addition, there are quite a few other eyewitnesses saying they heard obvious explosions. Also, sounds of explosions can be heard on at least two videos.
I am sure you will come back with “this has all been debunked.”
But, if so, you have “debunked” a lot of people. Remember, they heard the explosions on 9-11/2001; better known as “9/11”! These were not “truthers.”
Back to NIST.
You make it clear that by saying or proving that NIST is wrong, is immaterial. I actually totally agree. That is not where I am going with this.
But did NIST really do an honest investigation and if not, why not?
Scientific method. Different places say it differently, but I think a well stated good definition of the first two steps I found is this:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
Did NIST follow the principles of the scientific method? Did they account for all of the phenomena? They did not:
1. NIST said 11” vs. 12.” Required walk off distance became 6.25” vs. 5.5.” This completely changed what was required for their model to work. They did not change their report and continued to represent it as valid. Why?
2. Many eyewitness statements reported explosions but they were not included in the report. There were audio detections of sounds of explosions, but they were not included in the report. The sole reason for excluding the many reports of explosions: NIST: no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings [FALSE] during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses [FALSE]. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB [artificially loud parameter] at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. Sounds of explosions were obstructed by surrounding buildings. A major assumption was that the sound would be entirely unobstructed and able to flow freely outside of the building. There was no consideration of possible sound abatement.
3. NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross when asked about reports of molten steel, “I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that’s produced it.” A straight out lie. Anyone paying attention to what happened on 9/11, and that certainly would have to include NIST, would certainly know about the reports of molten steel.
4. False timeline regarding the rescue of barry Jennings and Michael Hess. To say that the explosion that both Jennings and Hess heard was really from collapsing debris from the North Tower, the NIST report required Jennings and Hess to be rescued much later than what had to have been the case.
5. They will not release the model data for their model. Why? It “might jeopardize public safety.” What!? How could that possibly “jeopardize public safety”?
Did NIST follow the principles of the scientific method?
Obviously not. Why?
The above can only mean that NIST was amateurish, incompetent, or fraudulent. The only thing sensible, is fraudulent.
Conclusion.
1. There were explosions.
2. NIST was fraudulent. They did not do an honest scientific inquiry. NIST made no attempt to show what really happened to WTC7. NIST made every attempt to ‘prove’ what they knew was a false conclusion. Their goal was to produce a fraudulent report in an attempt to deceive. My thoughts? The only sensible reason they were fraudulent in their attempt to reach a false conclusion is: They were told what to produce. They were given marching orders. And that can only mean that whoever gave the marching orders, they did not want the exposure of the truth.
Therefore, the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
I have reversed the hypotheses.
The null hypothesis is now Controlled Demolition.
………
I have seen it said that the best hypothesis as to the truth about 9/11, can be found using Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor cuts both ways. Your side is very very dull. Our side is razor sharp. By far the simplest way to see what happened on 9/11, is to accept that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag operation.
You ought to become truthers. It is a much easier position to defend.
Have at it.
The End.
Last edited by a moderator:
