WTC 7 report aftermath - Truthers claims that we'll be hearing

[Pardalis]

So what evidence do you have left RedIbis?

You got no evidence of CD. You got no evidence of thermate/ite-induced CD. You got no evidence of an "unknown" method of CD.

So why are you clinging to this silly idea that it was brought down intentionally?

Usually in science (and in mostly anything, really), when there's no more evidence or reason left to support one's hypothesis, this hypothesis should necessarily have to be discarded. A reasonable person should be able to cease to consider it.

So why are you still considering it?

 

[tsig]

Of course. They'll deny these conclusions because they must. No evidence will be required, I just saw someone saying that even if WTC7 only fell at 40% of freefall speed that's still impossible. How do they know that? They didn't say, but like "the WTC collapsing couldn't throw steel beams hundreds of feet" there's no need to produce math showing that: the true believers will swallow it whole anyway. They're desperate and there's no alternative.

Of course while they might want to delude themselves, it's going to get more difficult to fool others now. They've resolutely ignored the full collapse process so they can focus on the final part, for instance, but the NIST animations will make that impossible. So I expect we'll see some new fallback positions developing, for example attacking the animations, complaining that we don't have the models, etc etc.

We'll see how this unfolds in the next couple of weeks, though. I expect people like Jim Hoffman will have their own critiques up soon, and remember the BBC had planned to redo their WTC7 programme with the NIST conclusions. If I remember correctly, that's due out in September.

The new fallback position seems to be that all the evidence was destroyed so no conclusion is possible. Therefore the joos did it all somehow prolly just by being evil.

 

[tsig]

im not finished reading the report. But the FE sim looks already interesting, the way i expected to look. asymetrical.

Well if it agrees with you it must be the Truth, no?

 

[tsig]

where will it lead to?

Lost in the woods?

 

[roundhead]

OK, gotcha. In that case, why not make your cover story consistent with terrorists blowing up the building? I mean, they tried it before, right? So if you have the expertise and skill and will and execution to somehow blow up these huge buildings without anyone noticing the preparation beforehand or detecting the signs after the fact (except, of course, for a handful of apparently extraordinary investigators who nowadays go by the name "Truthers") why bother with all the rigamarole of airplanes and hijackers and all that other stuff that just complicates things and makes it easier for said extraordinary investigators to catch onto you? Why not just blow the damn buildings up, and say the terrorists did it???

Square peg, meet round head.

I am 100% convinced the two plane impacts were nothing more than shock and awe, big fireballs, mean ole terrorists, blah, blah.

Nobody remembers the 93 bombing hardly, no real shock and awe.

Once the planes hit, and didnt do squat to the towers (as was well know they wouldnt), they were then imploded to rid NY of asbestos problems not otherwise able to be dealth with.

Its hard to find a lot about the towers locals liked. They were losing money, under tenanted, enviromnental nightmares, and more.

Silverstein and his Aussie partner made a fortune off a small investment, in short order.
The only building he actually owned was 7.

Financially, the 9/11 attacks were a great thing for city investors, other than loss of life, it couldnt have been a better scenario for them.

It rid the city of old buildings they wanted to and coudnt get rid of otherwise, it galvanized the public against the mean old Arab radicals.
Got us into Afghanistan with no public outcries(is was planned ahead anyhow)and allowed Bush to lie through his teeth regarding Iraq, by continually reminding us about terrorists, and our "homeland"..souNd like a familiar script.

It lauched a series of wars that make Govt allied war profiteers rich, is exactly the outcome our Israeli allies and lobby couldnt have wished for in a million years(the US timelessly mired in the middle east), and allowed a tighter vice to be placed on the constitution to protect our homeland.

All at the minor cost of 3000 lives. Sadly, i view these events as even more than the sad loss of these lives, it ushered out a time in our history unlikely to ever be revisited again..thats the one that drives a stake in my heart........

 

[tsig]

I dont know that i would agree that its fooled everybody. The Govt has going into this a level of credibility that to most people would seem above reproach. Much like an 80 year old man that has led a perfectly innocent life by all acounts, then runs into a supermarket and kills 5 people. It is completely unexpected.

Couple the Govt doing something most everyday people would consider unthinkable, lay down a huge smokescreen of "seeming plausibility" via MSM, and the truth is accordingly going to have a tough time rearing its head and being seen through the smoke.

Fortunately, the 9/11 attacks were carried out so poorly, that there are a ton of cracks that the truth has opportunity to reveal itself from.

My hope is that in the near future these chinks in the official armour become so apparent they will force themselves to be dealt with.

It simply a matter of time till this happens, how much time is the million dollar question.

All those like myself, who are well aware the official story stinks to high heaven can do till then, is to continue point out the idiocity of the official explanation, and hope we daily convert somebody else to sensibility.

We are so honored to have you to enlighten us. We were lost and in the dark slurping on Bush's bad parts till you came along and set us free.

What's are next action? Suld we tade our evidence to court or just whine on teh interwwwebs.

I await your command.

 

[tsig]

There are plenty of 9/11 whistleblowers.

Well they ain't blowing very loud. Maybe they are blowing the wrong whistle.

 

[tsig]

Heck the Govt lied, and continues to lie to this day about the MLK murder. Even CNN, who recently did a piece about him, lied and distorted the truth about this sad affair.

Yet, as huge of news as it was, not one mainstream US source reported from the courtroom, regarding a trial, once they were made aware and presented all the evidence, took a jury only an hour to find the Govt lied about Ray.

Its a good example of how an extremely newsworthy event, was extorted from public view, as it proved the Govt lied about the case, and still does, and its bought and paid for media still shills to his day.


Once one sees something this cut and dried laid bare for what it was, and not reported on, one becomes aware of the circumstances facing the truth emerging from the shadows on any matter

Why was the truth hiding in the shadows to begin with?

 

[beachnut]

I wonder how the conversation went when they decided to start a war without any evidence Iraq had WMDs or a connection to 9/11.

No one liked Saddam anyway, even his own generals thought he had WMDs. Do you like Saddam?
I wonder if you would support the American Revolution, or do you have an aversion to freedom. Albeit naïve to think freedom comes cheap, but why not give it a chance? Guess you did not sign up to join the army or the air force.

9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq, except for you and a bunch of truthers without knowledge on 9/11.

What does Saddam have to do with your inability to understand WTC7 fire?

 

[tsig]

I think the real question is, why was this collapse so odd and extraordinary?

I don't expect you to actually answer that.

I saw nothing odd or extraordinary other than planes being flown into buildings.

After that it was just physics.

 

[beachnut]

I am 100% convinced the two plane impacts were nothing more than shock and awe, big fireballs, mean ole terrorists, blah, blah.

.....

At least you are always 100 percent wrong. The terrorist flew the planes and caused all the damage on 9/11. It was not expected, even you never saw it coming. Now you have tons of evidence you ignore and you want to remain in ignorance on 9/11.

 

[tsig]

It could be 93 was planned to hit it

damage was done on the 23rd floor that was meant to act as the "control for the demo"

many things could explain why 7 was imploded later all by itself

any guess is pure speculation , it obviously was rigged in advance of 9/11, unless some weapon we dont know about was used.

Well if "some weapon we dont know about was used." I guess we'll never know so how do you?

You seem to be retreating into a cloud of unknowing.

 

[T.A.M.]

Unfortunately, that's probably not far off the mark. If they could so casually spare the lives of over 4100 US military personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, why is the 9/11 Inside Job theory that much of a stretch? Evil is evil.

I did not say one way or the other, that to do so would be beyond the moral compass of Cheney. However, that said, it is one thing to send soldiers to war, it is another to kill 3000 innocents (ie. non-military). That said, Heroshima and Nagazaki are proof that innocents are not always the factor that prevents either.

The difference, IMO, however, is that there is evidence surfacing all the time, legitimate evidence, concerning Iraq, and the MSM are picking it up and running with it.

With the 9/11 crap, I have seen no plausible evidence. Given how zestful Olbermann and others have been to nail Bush etal for Iraq, you think they wouldn't metaphorically orgasm at the chance to nail them for 9/11?

TAM

 

[tsig]

I am 100% convinced the two plane impacts were nothing more than shock and awe, big fireballs, mean ole terrorists, blah, blah.

Nobody remembers the 93 bombing hardly, no real shock and awe.

Once the planes hit, and didnt do squat to the towers (as was well know they wouldnt), they were then imploded to rid NY of asbestos problems not otherwise able to be dealth with.

Its hard to find a lot about the towers locals liked. They were losing money, under tenanted, enviromnental nightmares, and more.

Silverstein and his Aussie partner made a fortune off a small investment, in short order.
The only building he actually owned was 7.

Financially, the 9/11 attacks were a great thing for city investors, other than loss of life, it couldnt have been a better scenario for them.

It rid the city of old buildings they wanted to and coudnt get rid of otherwise, it galvanized the public against the mean old Arab radicals.
Got us into Afghanistan with no public outcries(is was planned ahead anyhow)and allowed Bush to lie through his teeth regarding Iraq, by continually reminding us about terrorists, and our "homeland"..souNd like a familiar script.

It lauched a series of wars that make Govt allied war profiteers rich, is exactly the outcome our Israeli allies and lobby couldnt have wished for in a million years(the US timelessly mired in the middle east), and allowed a tighter vice to be placed on the constitution to protect our homeland.

All at the minor cost of 3000 lives. Sadly, i view these events as even more than the sad loss of these lives, it ushered out a time in our history unlikely to ever be revisited again..thats the one that drives a stake in my heart........

So you are a vampire sucking on the blood of innocents. Nice to admit it.

Let's see:

The joos did it to get rid of old and money losing buildings and allow the US to invade other countries and because "they hated our freedoms".

In light of these world shaking facts why are you just whining on the internet?

 

[RedIbis]

I saw nothing odd or extraordinary other than planes being flown into buildings.

After that it was just physics.

We're talking about 7 here.

 

[pomeroo]

When you get tired of the vacuous ramblings of garden-variety dunces who won't read anything and know absolutely nothing, but know that the mainstream account of the events of 9/11 is wrong, try some of the good stuff: pure, laugh-out-loud, 190-proof bat-guano lunacy.

For your entertainment and edification...


WTC Technical Information Repository, Attn: Stephen Cauffman, NIST, 100
Bureau Dr., Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Dr. Cauffman:

Re excerpts in notes below, we have comments on the NIST analysis of the WTC#7
collapse.

Our research suggests the building was demolished at 5:20 pm on 9/11 on orders
from the Blackstone Group (owner of the WTC#7) mortgage and KPMG the allegedly
bogus escrow for syndicated lenders who used AMEC-Citigroup as prime contractor
and a fake diesel-system project to camouflage arson and sabotage of the
building and the destruction of evidence of ongoing securities frauds.

KPMG had used its insider escrow position to double up insurance on the WTC#7
mortgage so that its demolition would generate an estimated $400 million in
profits shared with the demolition team and Blackstone private equity
investors.

We notice that the NIST analysis excludes what could not have explained anyway
the observed characteristics of the demolition i.e. no percussive sound effects
heard therefore not due to explosives, not enough heat from fires fed by the
fuel supply tanks therefore not due to fires fed by the fuel supply tanks and
not enough structural impact therefore not due to damage from the falling
debris of WTC 1.

What you did not address is the fact that AMEC was conducting sabotage
vulnerability testing on 9/11 in all the WTC buildings using ultra high
temperature accelerants developed by Molten Metal Technologies sponsored by Al
Gore and Maurice Strong and wepaonized by Lockheed Martin.

Kindly ask your NIST scientists to examine the hypothesis that the central
columns were melted or even vaporized with UHTA reaching temperatures up to
5,800 degrees Fahrenheit consistent with the use of solid propellant rocket
fuel in the elevator shafts (No percussion heard, pools of molten-steel found
and KPMG-AMEC spoliated evidence of escrow and mortgage and insurance fraud.

Thank you

Field McConnell and David Hawkins
Forensic Economists at Hawks CAFE
http://www.captainsherlock.com/

 

[tsig]

We're talking about 7 here.

Yes and planes being flown into buildings happened the same day and was the reason WTC7 came down.

You do understand cause and effect? Or are you claiming that if the planes had not hit then WTC7 would have been blown anyway?

 

[tsig]

When you get tired of the vacuous ramblings of garden-variety dunces who won't read anything and know absolutely nothing, but know that the mainstream account of the events of 9/11 is wrong, try some of the good stuff: pure, laugh-out-loud, 190-proof bat-guano lunacy.

For your entertainment and edification...


WTC Technical Information Repository, Attn: Stephen Cauffman, NIST, 100
Bureau Dr., Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Dr. Cauffman:

Re excerpts in notes below, we have comments on the NIST analysis of the WTC#7
collapse.

Our research suggests the building was demolished at 5:20 pm on 9/11 on orders
from the Blackstone Group (owner of the WTC#7) mortgage and KPMG the allegedly
bogus escrow for syndicated lenders who used AMEC-Citigroup as prime contractor
and a fake diesel-system project to camouflage arson and sabotage of the
building and the destruction of evidence of ongoing securities frauds.

KPMG had used its insider escrow position to double up insurance on the WTC#7
mortgage so that its demolition would generate an estimated $400 million in
profits shared with the demolition team and Blackstone private equity
investors.

We notice that the NIST analysis excludes what could not have explained anyway
the observed characteristics of the demolition i.e. no percussive sound effects
heard therefore not due to explosives, not enough heat from fires fed by the
fuel supply tanks therefore not due to fires fed by the fuel supply tanks and
not enough structural impact therefore not due to damage from the falling
debris of WTC 1.

What you did not address is the fact that AMEC was conducting sabotage
vulnerability testing on 9/11 in all the WTC buildings using ultra high
temperature accelerants developed by Molten Metal Technologies sponsored by Al
Gore and Maurice Strong and wepaonized by Lockheed Martin.

Kindly ask your NIST scientists to examine the hypothesis that the central
columns were melted or even vaporized with UHTA reaching temperatures up to
5,800 degrees Fahrenheit consistent with the use of solid propellant rocket
fuel in the elevator shafts (No percussion heard, pools of molten-steel found
and KPMG-AMEC spoliated evidence of escrow and mortgage and insurance fraud.

Thank you

Field McConnell and David Hawkins
Forensic Economists at Hawks CAFE
http://www.captainsherlock.com/

"solid propellant rocket
fuel in the elevator shafts (No percussion heard, pools of molten-steel found"

Finally they have an explanation for "faster than free fall"

 

[e^n]

Once the planes hit, and didnt do squat to the towers (as was well know they wouldnt)

What evidence do you have for this? How do you reconcile your belief with the fact that every study of the aircraft impacts has indicated extensive damage, and in fact people responsible for safety in the WTC had expressed concerns about its stability before collapse. At least one of whom died as a result of the collapses.

they were then imploded to rid NY of asbestos problems not otherwise able to be dealth with.

This is another truther canard. There was relatively little asbestos in the towers and it was removed as was appropriate. Again you don't actually have evidence here, this is just truther talking points that you have picked up.

Its hard to find a lot about the towers locals liked. They were losing money, under tenanted, enviromnental nightmares, and more.

More stuff that is simply not true, the towers were nearing full occupancy only a few months before 911, they were generating profit and were considered healthy.

Silverstein and his Aussie partner made a fortune off a small investment, in short order.
The only building he actually owned was 7.

How did they manage to make this fortune considering they have obligations to rebuild and in fact even rebuilt WTC7 without any major occupants?

As usual it's just "spray and pray" debating. You make a bunch of false claims and when we spend time showing you that you're wrong, you either move on to another topic or handwave.

 

[Pardalis]

Red?

So what evidence do you have left RedIbis?

You got no evidence of CD. You got no evidence of thermate/ite-induced CD. You got no evidence of an "unknown" method of CD.

So why are you clinging to this silly idea that it was brought down intentionally?

Usually in science (and in mostly anything, really), when there's no more evidence or reason left to support one's hypothesis, this hypothesis should necessarily have to be discarded. A reasonable person should be able to cease to consider it.

So why are you still considering it?