Skeptic4Sure's Gravy Debunking Thread!

[WildCat]

It is. It is directly related to and exists because of it.

So now it's not a PDD, nor an Executive Order, but "related to" a PDD?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Stay out of it, unless you have something you want to contribute tot he debate or I will report your slimey self.

Oh? Report to whom?

This isn't another one of those "all who disagree with us will be shot after the revolution" things again, is it?

 

[jaydeehess]

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building

These firefighters were doing search and rescue NOT fighting fires.

In regards to "pull it", there is oft quoted worker who describes what they are doing to building 6. However it seems this quote is taken out of context and it has to be deliberate.

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

America Rebuilds documentary

In this case it refers to the FACT (CT's are always interested in facts just ask jdx) that the building was physically pulled down using cable attached to it and heavy machinery which in moving away tightened on those cables and quite literally pulled it over. No explosives used at all. So the CT use of this quote of this worker simply does not back up the claim that the term "pull it" is used by demolition teams in the case of erxplosive demolition of buildings. Other reasearchers have contacted major demolition companies and all confirmed that they do not use that term for explosive demolitions.
SO, if it is not a term for explosive demolitions then obviously the contention that Silverstein was using it as such is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it is further quite obvious that another connotation for the term is intended and since throughout the entire quote of Mr. Silverstein the subject is indeed the safety of those who may still be inside the connotation intended is to have those persons exit the building.

S4S states

Did they evacuate "3 hours before" because they knew the WHOLE building was going to fall straight down into a pile? Or were they just unsure of the integrity of the building because they thought a PORTION may collapse OVER or a PIECE OF BUILDING DEBRIS may fall on a firefighter. They had lost hundreds of fellow firefighters, maybe they thought the rescue efforts and safety of the remaining firemen was more important. Does that make them structural engineers that know a whole building is going collapse?

No, it makes them prudent. The safety margin around the entire building was made equal to the height of the building since that would be expected to be the maximum distance any portion of the building could reach if it fell.

The building did NOT fall "straight down". This is obvious even in the videos that only show the east and north exposures ofthe building's collapse. However the about 2/3rds of the north wall leans inward as it falls while the eastern 1/3 of it leans outward . Indeed the western 2/3rds of the north wall is seen on the pile over the original location of the building while the eastern 1/3 hits the building to the north. We are all quite capable of locating pictures of this on your own, I should not have to hold anyone's hand and link them. One should take care to note in any pictures whether or not the roadways have been cleared of debris since such will indicate that clean up has started when the pictures were taken. Some sites have posted such images and claimed it shows that debris from WTC 7 did not fall outside its own footprint (something S4S seems to buy into) when in fact such is not the case.

 

[beachnut]

It is. It is directly related to and exists because of it.

You sound a lot like Docker, just saying stuff and stringing out your weak arguments, but you seem not as smart as Pdoh, or are you just as smart. You want people to look up stuff for your arguments; why?

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh? Report to whom?

This isn't another one of those "all who disagree with us will be shot after the revolution" things again, is it?

Perhaps it is the assumption that the rule ""all who disagree with us will be banned after a short time", which is in effect at some CT forums, is also being utilized here.

 

[jaydeehess]

It should be noted that if the north wall fell southward then since the building was 610 feet tall and 140 feet wide (north-south distance) then debris of the north wall could not hit any further south than 470 feet south of the south wall. BUT that means that a ) it was hitting the building accorss the street and b ) landing within the debris feild of the north tower. So it would break up upon hitting the other building and mix with the debris from the north tower. Within a day the debris in the road south of WTC 7 was cleared of debris and thus any pictures of the WTC debris would now seem to show that no debris of the north wall went any further than the south wall.

The 'critical thinkers' in the CT crowd thus conclude that WTC 7 fell entirely within it own footprint(just ignore that damage to the buildings to the north and east as well).