Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Sorry , but it is you who wishes to ignore the preponderence of evidence and focus in on one item in the report that does not agree totally with other statements and which has little bearing on the final possible sequence of collapse that NIST came up with.
,,,,, You do this solely to attempt to imply that there was a deliberate attempt by NIST to mislead people as that caused the collapse was a 10 story gouge in the center of the south face of WTC 7. Once again I state that anyone who actually read the report, even read about the 10 most significant paragraphs concerning the collapse would not have this idea. Once again I state that anyone who just looks at the pictures and draws conclusions from that is not doing their research. In your case you seem to have read at least a good portion of it but with a mindset bent on finding any item at all that you can twist in any way so as to cast doubt on the veracity of the report. Since you cannot attack the actual conclusions of the report you try to attack the integrity of the authors.
Sorry , but it is you who wishes to ignore the preponderence of evidence and focus in on one item in the report that does not agree totally with other statements and which has little bearing on the final possible sequence of collapse that NIST came up with.
I'm tired of OT'ers refering to the massive debris damage atributed to the 10 story hole.
It's not like i'm asking you to give up your belief in God.
Yes, it's just one item, but it makes two points.
There was no 10 story hole
No one here, other than yourself, is willing to give an inch and acknowledge that there was no 10 story hole in spite of the preponderance of evidence that it did not exist
You do this solely to attempt to imply that there was a deliberate attempt by NIST to mislead people
No. I want OT'ers to become aware that the 10 story hole did not exist
Yes, i do believe it was included the graphic and in the summary to mislead people. Perhaps the 10 stoty hole thread will show how sucessful this tactic was.
Once again I state that anyone who actually read the report, even read about the 10 most significant paragraphs concerning the collapse would not have this idea.
BS If that is the case, then why is everyone here denying or avoiding the evidence?
Where does Gravy stand on this issue? Do you know?
I just started a new thread "10 story hole in WTC 7"
Will you please state your position there.
Once again I state that anyone who just looks at the pictures and draws conclusions from that is not doing their research. In your case you seem to have read at least a good portion of it but with a mindset bent on finding any item at all that you can twist in any way so as to cast doubt on the veracity of the report. Since you cannot attack the actual conclusions of the report you try to attack the integrity of the authors.
How were the explosives planted and how long did it take?
How did the explosives resist the fire for so long?
The FDNY stopped searching for survivors in the area around WTC7 several hours before the building collapsed. Why would they do this if they didn't believe the building was going to collapse at some point?
Is it obvious that Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind?
If it's obvious, why aren't several controlled demolition companies saying it was a controlled demolition?
NIST are examining hypothetical blast situations as part of their invetsigation, will you accept their conclusions?
This is a controlled demolition:
originally posted on this thread:
So, the question is: why aren't there recordings of similar explosions in WTC7?
see also this thread:
How were the explosives planted and how long did it take?
How did the explosives resist the fire for so long?
The FDNY stopped searching for survivors in the area around WTC7 several hours before the building collapsed. Why would they do this if they didn't believe the building was going to collapse at some point?
Is it obvious that Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind?
I know at least two who has done that. First this Dutch fellow Jowenko? And Romero before he changed his mind, he seems to have been payed off.
Why not a few more? We both know that this is a very sensitive issue. You are seen as unpatriotic if questioning the official version.
Demolition companies are often dependent on Government contracts.
Accept NIST's conclusions? Yes, if they use a correct scientific method etc. It is certainly news to me that NIST is considering controlled demolition. I find this a bit hard to believe. It has been unthinkable.
I assume that the demolition in your video is a fairly typical demolition. The thing with the WTC7 demolition is that it is so perfect. I have seen quite a few exemples on the net by now. I've yet to see a better one.
Yes, it is true that the sound of the blasts isn't that loud. But, remember our main hypothesis (Steven Jones). A combination of thermite and explosives. I don't think thermite is used in typical demolitions. According to Jones, the main Steel colums were taken out with termite and the concrete with ordinary explosives.
The pools of molten iron (a byproduct from a thermite reaction) was found under WTC7 and both of the towers. It strongly suggest that some sort of thermite was used. A thermite reaction is not as loud as a blast.
Well, I can only speculate how long it took and how they were planted. It would require a criminal investigation.
It is not a serious obstacle. We are suggesting that certain elements within the Bush adm were responsible. For exemple the company responsible for the security for the whole WTC complex (Securacom?) Was headed by the brother and cousin of Dubya. They of course had full access day and night.
The fires in building 7 were very small. As seen on the videoclips.
I would say the opposite. That it is very incriminating if they thought or knew that building 7 would collapse.
Uri? Of course he does. Uri is DA SHOWMAN and the real deal.
Care to explain how thermite, which "burns" downwards, can be used to cut through vertical columns, Pagan?
That's just one simple query I'd like cleared up, for starters.
ETA: You've not even read LooseChangeGuide.com or 911Myths.com (let alone the NIST report) have you? I can tell, because you're spouting stuff that's been disproved and rejected even by most CTers - such as the old chestnut that Bush's brother ran the WTC security. It's not true. It just isn't. And it takes 5 seconds to check. I get you not understanding physics, or structural engineering (I don't, hence I trust those who actually do!), but how you can't understand something really basic like that is bizarre.
I know at least two who have. First this Dutch fellow Jowenko? And Romero before he changed his mind, he seems to have been payed off.
Why not a few more. We both know that this is a very sensitive issue. You are seen as unpatriotic if questioning the official version.
Demolition companies are often dependent on Government contracts.
All the demolition companies in the world? And you really believe that they would knowingly keep quiet about something that implicates people in mass murder for the sake of government contarcts.
I believe Jowenko was misled, from another thread:
The top-down thing is clearly nonsense. Oliver's thread has a pretty good (if distressing) video clip that shows both the bowing in of the walls and the lack of flashes and explosions immediately before the collapse starts.
As far as Jowenko confirming anything by phone goes - if it can't be verified on the record, it doesn't count. The fact remains that he was shown a video of the north side of WTC7 with no sound, cutting out the earlier collapse of the east penthouse. The video also doesn't show the lower floors of the building.
You can see it here:
Jowenko says "they blew out the interior columns and it went down". This is entirely consistent with the NIST hypothesis that global collapse followed a failure of the system that transfered the loads laterally between supporting columns that didn't line up, across the 4th to 7th floors.
As far we can see: Jowenko isn't given a view of the damage to the south face, of the smoke pouring from the building or of the rubble falling onto from the collapse of the towers. He isn't told about the large amounts of fuel that could well have been pumped into the 4th floor. He also isn't told that the building was leaning over and that several firefighters testify that they knew the building was going to collapse and that this was why an area around it was cleared and the search for survivors in that area was abandoned.
Jowenko says it would need 30-40 people, and doesn't sound too sure if it is possible - when he is told that the building was also on fire it looks as if he can't make sense of it. Note that they also talk about the FEMA report and not the interim NIST report (which, presumably, wasn't released). How well they discuss even this with Jowenko we aren't shown. Nor do we know if he is given any idea of the extent of the fire.
Jowenko hasn't publicly commented since this clip. As I said before, a report of a phone call doesn't count.
Accept NIST's conclusions? Yes, if they use a correct scientific method etc. It is certainly news to me that NIST is considering controlled demolition. I find this a bit hard to believe. It has been unthinkable.
They are detailing possible blast hypotheses - they've stated there is no evidence for demolition. I expect their analysis of the hypotheses to show what would have (and didn't) happen in certain blast scenarios - is the closest you can get to proving a negative.
I assume that the demolition in your video is a fairly typical demolition. The thing with the WTC7 demolition is that it is so perfect. I have seen quite a few exemples on the net by now. I've yet to see a better one.
Yes, it is true that the sound of the blasts isn't that loud. But, remember our main hypothesis (Steven Jones). A combination of thermite and explosives. I don't think thermite is used in typical demolitions. According to Jones, the main Steel colums were taken out with termite and the concrete with ordinary explosives.
The pools of molten iron (a byproduct from a thermite reaction) was found under WTC7 and both of the towers. It strongly suggest that some sort of thermite was used. A thermite reaction is not as loud as a blast.
Jones is wrong. First, there is no evidence for pools of molten iron. - some moltne metal perhaps, but nothing to prove it is iron. Thermite cannot be used to cut steel columns horizontally (it moves downwards, with gravity). Thermite also releases its heat very quickly, so the iron doesn't stay molten for long - plus the volume of iron produced is less than the volume of thermite used. How would the thermite have survived the fires for so long?
Well, I can only speculate how long it took and how they were planted. It would require a criminal investigation.
It is not a serious obstacle. We are suggesting that certain elements within the Bush adm were responsible. For exemple the company responsible for the security for the whole WTC complex (Securacom?) Was headed by the brother and cousin of Dubya. They of course had full access day and night.
Or are you saying that Marvin Bush ordered his subordinates to plant these bombs, depsite their lack of expertise in demolition and, also, that none of them talked about it?
Or, finally, are you saying that Marvin Bush ordered his subordinates to provide access and concealment for a specialist demolition company to plant explosives and experimental thermite devices in a building larger than any that have been demolished before? And that none of the people involved have talked about it?
And nobody else noticed?
What could possibly be worth the risk of doing that?
By the way, WTC7 housed organisations who had workers in the building 24/7.
You can't just demand an investigation - you have to have a basis for asking for one ie a plausible hypothesis and evidence.
The fires in building 7 were very small. As seen on the videoclips.
There was a vast quantity of smoke billowing from the building for hours. What do you think that indicates. Plus there is plenty of firefighter testimony to indicate there were serious fires in the building.
That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that the element within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.
That is beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.
That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that the element within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.
That is beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
