Questions outside of Gravy's threads

[Earl The Tall]

I think he has given up this thread and headed back to the flight 93 smoke plum one.

 

[Hishighness]

Noooooooooooo! I NEED KT to tell me the truth! ACK!!!! I want to know THE Truth! The truth is out there, there is no spoon, who's on first? what's in the chicken?

 

[Killtown]

Sorry for taking long to answer this. In the future, it's best to just ask fewer questions at a time.

Comments on each of these points:

71. The interim NIST report you cite indicates that fires were reported visually as they started, and that the standpipe system appears to have been destroyed, from interviews. This suggests that the alarm being in "test" mode did not contribute to WTC 7's collapse -- its notification would have been redundant. Setting the alarm to "test" is not an unusual occurrence and appears to have had no impact on the outcome. Do you disagree?

72. I find nothing sinister in this comment. How much time elapsed between Silverstein's "pull it" order and the collapse? Hours? Your phrasing suggests that the two events were almost simultaneous, though I understand this may not have been your intent.

73. Since the FDNY feared a building collapse and did not want to risk the lives of firefighters, this seems utterly logical. Do you disagree?

74. See 73. above. What do you suggest they should have done?

75. The phrasing is ambiguous. Were the firefighters told, at around 3 PM, that the building was going to collapse? Or were they told that the building "was going to collapse at around 3 PM?" (Moot point, collapse occured hours later than 3 PM.) Given the damage and volume of fire, WTC 7's collapse was indeed expected, as corroborated by interviews and your own selections. What about this claim is surprising?

76. See 73-75. Everybody expected WTC 7 to collapse, leaving a fire to put out. How is this a "smoking gun?"

77. You have changed this to "WTC 7 becomes first steel high-rise building in history to collapse due to mostly fire." (emphasis added) "Mostly fire" is too vague to be objective: the Madrid Windsor Building, if treated as a steel high-rise structure built atop a concrete structure, is one that did collapse due to nothing but fire -- does that fit into "mostly?"

It would be far more correct to say "WTC 7 becomes the first steel high-rise building in history to collapse due to fire after being hit and sustaining significant structural damage by falling debris from a nearby high-rise collapse." However, while true, I doubt many would conclude it never happening before makes it impossible or even suspicious. How is this a "smoking gun?"

78. WTC 7's collapse was overshadowed by much larger, deadlier, more expensive collapses. Are you surprised that WTC 1 and 2 got more media coverage? How is this a "smoking gun?"

79. This phrasing is misleading. You are correct that "debris was removed without investigators having the chance to examine it at the scene" (emphasis added), but investigators were allowed to examine debris after rescue operations were concluded. Again, how is this a "smoking gun?" Are you proposing that rescue operations were unusual?

80. This phrasing is misleading and slightly incorrect. The FEMA Report does not say WTC 7 "was caused by implosion." On pg. 31 it says "The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." (emphasis added) The later NIST results corroborate this suggestion, but it is an "implosion" only in the sense that the building collapsed in on itself following the failure of a major load-bearing column on the lower floors, viz. implosion vs. pancake collapse, which is correct. There was never any insinuation of demolition technique. How is this a "smoking gun?" How is FEMA calling for more data and investigation a "smoking gun?"

71) My point is that it seems suspicious it happened to be put on "test" mode that morning. Agreed?

72) Well I do. I don't know, what does it sound like in his speech?

73 & 74) My point is that they were TOLD is was going to collapse. How did the "tellers" know it was going to collapse?

75) Told around 3pm. How did the "tellers" know hours before it totally collapsed that it was going to totally collapse?

76) answered above.

77) That one would be "only" fire.

78) No of course not, just surprised they didn't revisit the collapse of the 7 later since it has dire importance to the engineering community and safety of all skyscrapers. Wouldn't you agree?

79) seems like they moved it to get it out of there fast when they really didn't need to. I mean why was it cleared "first" if no one had died there?

80) thats why I put it in quotes.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

71) My point is that it seems suspicious it happened to be put on "test" mode that morning. Agreed?

how does it further the "plan" for the day? surely anyone responding to the WTC fires would see the damage to WTC7 and the fires inside, so why even bother putting the alrm into test mode?

73 & 74) My point is that they were TOLD is was going to collapse. How did the "tellers" know it was going to collapse?

75) Told around 3pm. How did the "tellers" know hours before it totally collapsed that it was going to totally collapse?

76) answered above.

the building was severely damaged on the south side, fires on every floor, and it was leaning to the south, why is it unusual for someone to figure its going to collapse?

 

[Killtown]

1) how does it further the "plan" for the day? ...so why even bother putting the alrm into test mode?

2) the building was severely damaged on the south side, fires on every floor, and it was leaning to the south, why is it unusual for someone to figure its going to collapse?

1) Think of bank employees going to rob their own bank in the middle of the night and leaving the alarm off when they closed earlier.

2) Fires on "every" floor??? "Leaning south"???

Why did it implode IN on itself and fall practically straight down if it was "leaning south"???

 

[Cuddles]

Sorry for taking long to answer this. In the future, it's best to just ask fewer questions at a time.



71) My point is that it seems suspicious it happened to be put on "test" mode that morning. Agreed?

No. My work has two test alarms per week. That would make a 2/7 chance of the crash happening at the same time (bearing in mind it was early morning, when most tests are carried out anywhere). Not really suspicious by any standards.

72) Well I do. I don't know, what does it sound like in his speech?

Does this imply that you haven't even listened to/read his speech?

73 & 74) My point is that they were TOLD is was going to collapse. How did the "tellers" know it was going to collapse?

75) Told around 3pm. How did the "tellers" know hours before it totally collapsed that it was going to totally collapse?

76) answered above.

As already pointed out, these were experienced firefighters that could see it ws beyond saving.

77) That one would be "only" fire.

What do you mean? R. Mackey said that you had changed it to "mostly fire". Do you deny this? If you do, Madrid Windsor collapsed only due to fire as already stated. If it was "mostly fire" then this makes it even more likely to collapse since other damage can be considered.

78) No of course not, just surprised they didn't revisit the collapse of the 7 later since it has dire importance to the engineering community and safety of all skyscrapers. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Engineers may have studied it, but there was no reason for the media to do so, the twin towers were plenty for the papers.

79) seems like they moved it to get it out of there fast when they really didn't need to. I mean why was it cleared "first" if no one had died there?

Because it was dangerous. They knew why the building fell, it had a building land on it and caught fire. There was nothing urgent to investigate and plenty of reason to start clearing the area. They also could not have guaranteed there were no people and needed to search the area to be sure.

80) thats why I put it in quotes.[/QUOTE]

So you admit it was a meaningless statement aimed only at misguiding people who read it?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

1) Think of bank employees going to rob their own bank in the middle of the night and leaving the alarm off when they closed earlier.

2) Fires on "every" floor??? "Leaning south"???

Why did it implode IN on itself and fall practically straight down if it was "leaning south"???

1) false analogy, said bank robbers would have to conduct their activities in broad daylight with millions of people watching them and set off the burgler alarms of every building surrounding the bank

2) oh thats right, all the fire fighter reports of the fires and leaning were faked, the photos of smoke pouring out of every floor are faked too right? if it doesnt support your theories it MUST be fake, right?

also, did it fall straight down, or did it damage a number of surrounding buildings? the only footage ive seen of the collapse was from the north, meaning it is very difficult to tell if it fell "straight" down or if it was tilted south

 

[Cuddles]

also, did it fall straight down, or did it damage a number of surrounding buildings? the only footage ive seen of the collapse was from the north, meaning it is very difficult to tell if it fell "straight" down or if it was tilted south

I also haven't seen evidence to prove this, but since the debris from the tower hit WTC7 on the side closest to the tower, obviously, it seems logical that WTC7 would lean in that direction. Since the only building there had already collapsed there would be nothing left to damage.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I also haven't seen evidence to prove this, but since the debris from the tower hit WTC7 on the side closest to the tower, obviously, it seems logical that WTC7 would lean in that direction. Since the only building there had already collapsed there would be nothing left to damage.

i beleive WTC7's collapse damaged buildings to the east and west, as well as block roads leading to ground zero (hardly a perfect implosion) dont have links offhand but im sure someone else here would know where to find it, lol

 

[Cuddles]

Page 24 of MarkyX's 9/11 debunk has a nice map with the collapse footprints. http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/FST.pdf

 

[Gravy]

i beleive WTC7's collapse damaged buildings to the east and west, as well as block roads leading to ground zero (hardly a perfect implosion) dont have links offhand but im sure someone else here would know where to find it, lol

It nearly destroyed 30 W. Broadway, across Barclay street to the north. 30 W. Broadway is still under scaffolding.

 

[R.Mackey]

Sorry for taking long to answer this. In the future, it's best to just ask fewer questions at a time.

Hello again, Killtown. Thank you for answering my earlier message. I apologize for the length, but I didn't have much option -- I'd be glad to take on all 200 of your "smoking guns," but figured doing it all at once would be too long, and 200 individual questions wouldn't be much better. I settled on this intermediate approach.

However, I'm afraid you only gave answers to some of my questions, and those you did give are insufficient. I shall ask again, with clarifications.

71) My point is that it seems suspicious it happened to be put on "test" mode that morning. Agreed?

No, I don't agree, for two reasons. First, fire alarm tests in large structures are common events. Second, as I described previously, the alarm being in "test" had absolutely no impact on the events of the day. You have given me no reason to think this was unusual, unplanned, or in any way suspicious. You certainly have not explained why you feel this is a "smoking gun."

72) Well I do[feel that Silverstein's "pull it" figure of speech was suspicious]. I don't know, what does it sound like in his speech?

Firstly, the phrasing of your list suggests that the "pull it" comment was immediately followed by a building collapse, which is not the case. Had it been, that might have been an odd coincidence, but still inconclusive. Please fix the phrasing on your website.

"Pull it" sounds like an acceptance that the situation in WTC 7 was hopeless, similar to "pull out," "forget it," or "pull back." I don't find this suspicious at all. It definitely is not a "smoking gun." For that matter, even if Larry had said "get everyone out because I'm going to set off demolition charges and collapse the structure" it would not be a smoking gun, because the collapse and debris are inconsistent with explosives. (In that case, the rational conclusion would be that he was indulging in gallows humour.)

73 & 74) My point is that they were TOLD is was going to collapse. How did the "tellers" know it was going to collapse?

(1) WTC 7 was hit by thousands of tons of falling debris, setting it on fire. (2) There were huge holes blown in the structure. (3) The building was burning fiercely on multiple floors for hours. (4) Most significantly, the building was leaning visibly. (5) There were hundreds of firefighters and engineers watching it progress, both on site and remotely.

This would only be suspicious if its collapse was a surprise to the experts -- which, as your own evidence shows, was not the case, since they predicted it. Please explain why you think this is not only suspicious, but a "smoking gun."

75) Told around 3pm. How did the "tellers" know hours before it totally collapsed that it was going to totally collapse?

(emphasis added)

False dichotomy here -- you didn't say the "tellers," as you "call" them, predicted a total collapse, but just any collapse. You are evading my question by moving the goalposts.

Regardless, given the incredible damage suffered by WTC 7 and the fact that so much of it was on lower floors, a structural expert might reasonably have concluded that a total collapse was likely. Again, not even suspicious. Explain why this is a "smoking gun."

76) answered above.

You did not answer the question, you asked one of your own. I answered your question. Please explain why this is a "smoking gun."

77) That one would be "only" fire.

If you admit that the Windsor Tower in Madrid also satisfies this condition, since the Windsor Tower was not destroyed by explosives, psi-weapons, or anything else unusual, you should agree with me that WTC 7's destruction may similarly be unsuspicious. Therefore, please explain how this is a "smoking gun."

78) No of course not, just surprised they didn't revisit the collapse of the 7 later since it has dire importance to the engineering community and safety of all skyscrapers. Wouldn't you agree?

No. The engineering community does not get its marching orders from the evening news. They turn to agencies such as NIST and professional societies like the ACSE, all of which did indeed focus quite sharply on the collapse of WTC 7. Again, not suspicious. You have not explained why this is a "smoking gun."

79) seems like they moved it to get it out of there fast when they really didn't need to. I mean why was it cleared "first" if no one had died there?

My initial reaction was this: How would they know that no one had died there? Impossible to get a headcount in the chaos of that day.

However, I have a stronger argument. As reported by FEMA's WTC Building Performance Survey, the debris from WTC 7 presented a significant static lateral load on other, nearby buildings. Debris removal was essential to prevent further collapses. You can see this in the image that Gravy linked a post or so above.

Point is, debris removal was needed, you haven't provided any backup for your claim that it wasn't, and thus this factoid is not suspicious. Please explain why it is a "smoking gun."

80) thats why I put it in quotes.

Insufficient. You misquoted the report. You also have not answered my question about why FEMA's initial assessment of the WTC 7 failure mode (later borne out by NIST) was suspicious, or why this is a "smoking gun."


Just so there is no confusion of language, let me explain what I interpret as a "smoking gun." From the ubiquitous http://www.dictionary.com,

smoking gun
n. Informal
Something that serves as indisputable evidence or proof, especially of a crime: “There is no smoking gun or paper trail to [the CIA]” (Thomas Polgar).

Having analyzed an entire section of your "200+ Smoking Guns," I find not a single one approaches that definition. In fact, every single one has a mundane explanation.

Please either (1) defend your words, or (2) change your website to reflect its true content. I will be more than happy to clarify further if you are still unsure or have more to say.

Thanks again for your reply.

 

[Killtown]

71) No, I don't agree, for two reasons.
a) First, fire alarm tests in large structures are common events.
b) Second, as I described previously, the alarm being in "test" had absolutely no impact on the events of the day.
c) You have given me no reason to think this was unusual, unplanned, or in any way suspicious. You certainly have not explained why you feel this is a "smoking gun."

72) a)Firstly, the phrasing of your list suggests that the "pull it" comment was immediately followed by a building collapse, which is not the case.
b) "Pull it" sounds like an acceptance that the situation in WTC 7 was hopeless, similar to "pull out," "forget it," or "pull back."

73) (4) Most significantly, the building was leaning visibly.
(6)This would only be suspicious if its collapse was a surprise to the experts -- which, as your own evidence shows, was not the case, since they predicted it.

75) a) False dichotomy here -- you didn't say the "tellers," as you "call" them, predicted a total collapse, but just any collapse. You are evading my question by moving the goalposts.
b) Regardless, given the incredible damage suffered by WTC 7 and the fact that so much of it was on lower floors, a structural expert might reasonably have concluded that a total collapse was likely.

76) You did not answer the question, you asked one of your own. I answered your question. Please explain why this is a "smoking gun."


77) If you admit that the Windsor Tower in Madrid also satisfies this condition, since the Windsor Tower was not destroyed by explosives, psi-weapons, or anything else unusual, you should agree with me that WTC 7's destruction may similarly be unsuspicious. Therefore, please explain how this is a "smoking gun."

78) No. The engineering community does not get its marching orders from the evening news.

79) a) My initial reaction was this: How would they know that no one had died there? Impossible to get a headcount in the chaos of that day.
b) However, I have a stronger argument. As reported by FEMA's WTC Building Performance Survey, the debris from WTC 7 presented a significant static lateral load on other, nearby buildings. Debris removal was essential to prevent further collapses.
c) Point is, debris removal was needed, you haven't provided any backup for your claim that it wasn't, and thus this factoid is not suspicious. Please explain why it is a "smoking gun."

80) Insufficient. You misquoted the report. You also have not answered my question about why FEMA's initial assessment of the WTC 7 failure mode (later borne out by NIST) was suspicious, or why this is a "smoking gun."

1) Just so there is no confusion of language, let me explain what I interpret as a "smoking gun." From the ubiquitous http://www.dictionary.com,

Having analyzed an entire section of your "200+ Smoking Guns," I find not a single one approaches that definition. In fact, every single one has a mundane explanation.

2) Please either (1) defend your words, or (2) change your website to reflect its true content. I will be more than happy to clarify further if you are still unsure or have more to say.

71) a) Source?
b) Huh? I don't understand.
c) Did you see my bank employees robbing their own bank analogy?

72) a) No, immediately follow when "they" gave his order.
b) Yeah, I've noticed "pull it" seems like a lot of things to OCTs other than "pull IT".

73) (4) Photo to prove this?
(6) And how many of these "experts" had witness a skyscraper collapsed from fire and being pelted by debris?

75) a) Sounds like they were saying the entire builinding was coming down to me.
b) That's your opinion.

76) repeat the question and please # your questions for easier replies.

77) Did the WT implode?

78) How often do 47-story skyscrapers collapse?

79) a) Wait, I thought the fire dept pulled it out everybody from the 7?
b) Oh brother.
c) When did I say it wasn't needed?

80) rephase question.


1) On my 'smoking guns' list, do I have "smoking guns" in quotes, or not?

2) I stand by my list.


I think you are trying too hard with your questions pal.

 

[R.Mackey]

71) a) Source?
b) Huh? I don't understand.
c) Did you see my bank employees robbing their own bank analogy?

71) a) Are you seriously asking me to prove that fire protection systems are tested in the normal course of business?? Very well, here is an example from NYU, that shows daily tests of fire systems. QED.

b) The alarm would have been redundant, since the fires were seen as they happened and the standpipes were destroyed. I explained this and referenced it in my first reply. Quit stalling.

c) I saw your analogy. It makes no sense. Once again, you have failed to answer my question: How is the fire alarm test suspicious? How is it a "smoking gun?"

72) a) No, immediately follow when "they" gave his order.
b) Yeah, I've noticed "pull it" seems like a lot of things to OCTs other than "pull IT".

72) a) It did NOT. Over two hours transpired between when he said it, and when WTC 7 collapsed. Now you are making things up.

b) I was referring to meaning, not how it sounded. "Pull It" is not unambiguous and is not typical in demolitions. After all, it's not like he pulled it anywhere... You are equally guilty of changing words to fit your own interpretation, except more so because you cannot allow for any alternate interpretation. Now, if he'd said "Fire In the Hole" I'd have been a little more lenient. Once again, you have not explained how this is a "smoking gun."

73) (4) Photo to prove this?
(6) And how many of these "experts" had witness a skyscraper collapsed from fire and being pelted by debris?

73) (4) No clear photo, though the NIST report has many that show heavy damage and possibly a gross lean. But I have a fireman's unambiguous comments: "Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." (Source: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html)

(6) Irrelevant! You're dodging my question again. All that is needed is an understanding of structural properties and building failure. In that vein, I don't have to see someone jump off of a cliff to understand why that's not a good idea. Again, you have not shown a "smoking gun."

75) a) Sounds like they were saying the entire builinding was coming down to me.
b) That's your opinion.

75) a) You moved the goalposts. I have it in black and white, it is indisputable. Check.

b) My opinion is good enough. All I have to do to disprove your "smoking guns" is show that there is a credible alternative hypothesis. I have, and you have not even attempted to rebut. Therefore, you have not shown this is a "smoking gun."

76) repeat the question and please # your questions for easier replies.

I said: "76. See 73-75. Everybody expected WTC 7 to collapse, leaving a fire to put out. How is this a "smoking gun?"" in my first set of questions. Stop stalling.

77) Did the WT implode?

77) Again, you answer my question with a question -- in other words, not answering it at all. Undaunted, I shall press the point home:

• 
  a) Did the Windsor Tower implode? No. It was constrained to topple by nearby concrete structure. Nonetheless, it "collapsed" from "mostly fire." That's the relevant information. Your "smoking gun #77" doesn't mention implosion. Try to maintain consistency.
• b) You misquoted the FEMA report and have not yet admitted it.
• c) This failure is completely credible within the official theory. You have not shown this is a "smoking gun."

78) How often do 47-story skyscrapers collapse?

78) Once again, answering a question with a question. You lose again. I will answer anyway. The rate of skyscraper collapse is highly correlated with impacts from aircraft or large volumes of debris. Once again, you have not shown why this is a smoking gun.

79) a) Wait, I thought the fire dept pulled it out everybody from the 7?
b) Oh brother.
c) When did I say it wasn't needed?

79) a) I said they might not have an accurate count. Show me evidence that they accounted for everyone, if that's what you "thought."

b) This does not refute my point or FEMA's, that the debris from WTC 7 presented a secondary hazard and required removal. Roll your eyes all you want, it won't change the facts.

c) You said it in this post:

79) seems like they moved it to get it out of there fast when they really didn't need to.

Now that I've shown that, please answer my question.

80) rephase question.

80) Very well: The FEMA Report does not say WTC 7 "was caused by implosion." On pg. 31 it says "The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." (emphasis added) The later NIST results corroborate this suggestion, but it is an "implosion" only in the sense that the building collapsed in on itself following the failure of a major load-bearing column on the lower floors, viz. implosion vs. pancake collapse, which is correct. There was never any insinuation of demolition technique. How is this a "smoking gun?" How is FEMA calling for more data and investigation a "smoking gun?"

1) On my 'smoking guns' list, do I have "smoking guns" in quotes, or not?

You have them in quotes. I fail to see the significance. Are you saying that, by putting them in quotes, they are not actually smoking guns? As in, you are saying they are not proof or evidence of anything? If not, just what do you mean?

2) I stand by my list.

You say you stand by it, but you aren't defending it. Talk is cheap. Show me how these bits of trivia are anything remotely sinister.

I think you are trying too hard with your questions pal.

Hardly! You are presenting these facts as "smoking guns," i.e. indisputable proof, that the collapse of WTC 7 was a crime. Well, I'm disputing them. Every single one falls apart at the most gentle analysis. I haven't yet begun to try. You, on the other hand, have fallen well short of your own claims.

Thank you again for your response.

 

[Killtown]

71) a) Are you seriously asking me to prove that fire protection systems are tested in the normal course of business?? Very well, here is an example from NYU, that shows daily tests of fire systems. QED.
b) The alarm would have been redundant, since the fires were seen as they happened and the standpipes were destroyed. I explained this and referenced it in my first reply. Quit stalling.
c) I saw your analogy. It makes no sense. Once again, you have failed to answer my question: How is the fire alarm test suspicious? How is it a "smoking gun?"

72) a) It did NOT. Over two hours transpired between when he said it, and when WTC 7 collapsed. Now you are making things up.
b) "Pull It"...is not typical in demolitions.

73) (4) No clear photo, though the NIST report has many that show heavy damage and possibly a gross lean.
(6) Irrelevant!

75) a) You moved the goalposts. I have it in black and white, it is indisputable. Check.
b) My opinion is good enough.

77) Did the Windsor Tower implode? No.

78) The rate of skyscraper collapse is highly correlated with impacts from aircraft or large volumes of debris.

79) a) I said they might not have an accurate count. Show me evidence that they accounted for everyone, if that's what you "thought."
b) This does not refute my point or FEMA's, that the debris from WTC 7 presented a secondary hazard and required removal.
c) You said it in this post:
Now that I've shown that, please answer my question.

80) Very well: The FEMA Report does not say WTC 7 "was caused by implosion."

1) You have them in quotes. I fail to see the significance. Are you saying that, by putting them in quotes, they are not actually smoking guns?

2) You say you stand by it, but you aren't defending it. Talk is cheap. Show me how these bits of trivia are anything remotely sinister.

3) Well, I'm disputing them. Every single one falls apart at the most gentle analysis.

71) a) I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough, are these DAILY tests always last 8 hours were any alarms received are ignored?
b) Monday morning quarterbacking.
c) See a)

72) a) Says who?
b) source?

73) (4) No clear photo, but it was "visibly leaning"? Riiiight. Sorry, but I need photo confirmation, not just the words of one/two people.
(6) Oh, I think it is VERY relevant.

75) a) Ok, I'll check.
b) I don't think it is (no offense).

77) That's why the WT is not suspicious and the 7 is.

78) How many times has this happened before, or after 9/11?

79) a) So why did they remove a collapsed structure were they knew had no where near as many dead people in it as the twin towers?
b) I'm not satisfied with their explanation. If it was that bad, they just could have cleared what was on the road and then get back to the twin towers.
c) as in they really didn't need to clear it that fast. It could have waited.

80) And neither do I.

1) No, I'm leaving them up to the viewers to decide if they are a smoking gun or not.

2) I just did.

3) Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Gravy]

I'd like to butt in here with two comments on the Silverstein "pull it" quote.

Here's the quote

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." (Bolding mine.)

1) Larry Silverstein does not make operational decisions for the FDNY.

2) Silverstein was calmly and clearly describing the events to a PBS documentary film crew.

Time to drop it, Killtown.

 

[R.Mackey]

71) a) I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough, are these DAILY tests always last 8 hours were any alarms received are ignored?
b) Monday morning quarterbacking.
c) See a)

72) a) Says who?
b) source?

73) (4) No clear photo, but it was "visibly leaning"? Riiiight. Sorry, but I need photo confirmation, not just the words of one/two people.
(6) Oh, I think it is VERY relevant.

75) a) Ok, I'll check.
b) I don't think it is (no offense).

77) That's why the WT is not suspicious and the 7 is.

78) How many times has this happened before, or after 9/11?

79) a) So why did they remove a collapsed structure were they knew had no where near as many dead people in it as the twin towers?
b) I'm not satisfied with their explanation. If it was that bad, they just could have cleared what was on the road and then get back to the twin towers.
c) as in they really didn't need to clear it that fast. It could have waited.

80) And neither do I.

1) No, I'm leaving them up to the viewers to decide if they are a smoking gun or not.

2) I just did.

3) Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

71) a) Irrelevant, since the building started evacuating long before then. Normal operations ceased within about two hours. That's not at all an unreasonable timeline. You need to show that it is unusual, and you have not even tried.
b) Wrong. This was claimed in the FEMA report, I didn't make it up. The only one "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" is you.

72) a) Darn near everybody. The "pull it" comment was simultaneous with FDNY's decision to back people off, which occured somewhere between 2:30 and 3:30 PM. Collapse was at around 5:30.
b) Even some of your fellow conspiracy-mongers admit this. See http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html and, to quote you, "follow the links."

73) (4) Too bad. Firefighter Hayden actually measured the lean, as shown in my reference. That's the standard to beat. You show me proof that it wasn't, that he's lying, or retract your objection. No photograph is necessary.
(6) I don't care whether you think it's relevant or not. One need not have experienced a skyscraper being smashed by another falling skyscraper and then burning towards a collapse in the past, in order to predict that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Go ahead and try to refute this. You can't.

75) a) Go ahead. I clearly showed you how you changed "collapse" to "total collapse." Shouldn't take you very long to find it.
b) Yes it is. In order to be a "smoking gun," as I've already explained twice, your assertions have to be indisputable. I've shown reasonable doubt by proposing likely alternatives. The defense rests.

77) If your point is that the mode of failure makes WTC 7 suspicious, then change your "smoking gun" to reflect this. You were claiming before that WTC 7 was suspicious because it's "first steel high rise building to collapse due to mostly fire." Nothing about implosion vs. pancake. In any event, the NIST report explains the implosion, or more correctly internal failure, in a completely credible fashion. Explain why this is suspicious.

78) What, jetliners smashing into skyscrapers? Skyscrapers falling into other skyscrapers? Zero, as far as I know. This is meant to defend your conclusion?

79) a) I told you. It was because WTC 7's debris was shoving other damaged buildings, increasing the risk of their collapse.
b) You are not qualified to evaluate their conclusion. You do not have the skill. Therefore, please provide a photograph that shows the WTC 7 debris posed no threat to other structures.
c) Nice backpedal. You wanted me to show where you said that, and I did. Another lost point for you.

80) This statement cannot possibly be connected to my question. Try again.

1) Ah. Well, in that case, this viewer states unequivocally that all ten of them are not smoking guns. I dare you to convince me otherwise.

2) Not at all. You still haven't answered ANY of my questions.

3) If we "agree to disagree," that means you accept that my alternative hypotheses are valid. If so, the debate is over -- because you have just admitted that all of your "smoking guns" are plausibly consistent with the official theory.

Nice talking with you.

 

[Killtown]

Nice talking with you.

Nice talking with you too!