Wtc 7

[~enigma~]

Wonder why the most ville, bottom of the barrel truthers are coming out of the woodwork today?

 

[damien pastaume]

How does he died while attempting to rescue others from the WTC site morph into he died in WTC 7? Is it because there was a secret service office there that such a wild accusation is being made? Are you accusing Larry Silverstein of murder?

"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

 

[Turbofan]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

 

[~enigma~]

"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

Yes...and he was part of the rescue effort outside the building according to the secret service. Why do you think he died in building 7?

 

[~enigma~]

RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

What part of the quote are you butchering to claim that anybody asked Silverstein for permission?

 

[Wolrab]

the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled

Gross! Why would anyone want to blow up dogs?

 

[damien pastaume]

Yes...and he was part of the rescue effort outside the building according to the secret service. Why do you think he died in building 7?

Here's exactly what I said:

"As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:"

As per my House of Representatives quote:
"tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."

Neither I nor the House statement says he was in the building - only that he died as a result of its collapse.

 

[~enigma~]

Here's exactly what I said:

"As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:"

So in didn't mean in?

As per my House of Representatives quote:
"tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."

Neither I nor the House statement says he was in the building - only that he died as a result of its collapse.[/quote]
They didn't but you most certainly said "in."

 

[Stellafane]

I long ago stopped trying to actually reason with Truthers, because basically it seemed I had said everything I had to say, and it appeared to make zero impact anyway. So instead I eventually adopted my present persona of semi-articulate doofus. But for some reason, the OP has called me back. So what the hey, let's give logic at least one more whirl.

Let' look at this thing one step at a time. Silverstein said "pull it," which some Truthers take as an industry term for demolishing a building. But even the most die-hard Truther would likely admit (however begrudgingly) that the word "pull" has other meanings beyond demolition, which could be applicable in this context -- "pull out" or "pull back" just to name a couple off the top of my head. Had Silverstein said something more specific like "bring it down" or "blow it up" or "set off the charges now," there would be a lot stronger case here. But he didn't. So at best, Silverstein's words are ambiguous, and open for interpretation -- and thus prove nothing.

But let's say you're one of those people convinced that "pull it" in this instance can mean nothing other than "demolish the building." OK, fine. You now have to explain why Silverstein would openly admit such a thing on television. A momentary lapse in judgement? A slip of the tongue? What, exactly would have possibly possessed Silverstein -- on this one occasion and one occasion only -- to admit complicity in mass murder? So now Truthers have two things to explain: why "pull it" can only mean "demolish it" despite all the other possible meanings, and why Silverstein would actually publically confess this one time.

But let's say you somehow get past those two things. Now you have to explain whether or not WTC7 was in fact a controlled demolision. After all, video evidence and eyewitness testimony abundantly indicate that the building was badly damaged by falling debris, and burned out of control for hours. The vast majority of experts find nothing at all unexpected about the collapse. They are comfortable with the fact the building fell solely because the structural and fire damage it sustained, with no need to invoke a CD to bring it down. So how do you explain why there's no evidence at all that WTC7 was a CD, irrespective of what Silverstein may or may not have meant in his one unguarded moment?

Ah, but it doesn't stop there. If indeed the building was wired for demolition, how the devil did the explosives not go off prematurely, while an uncontrolled conflagration raged away all around them for hours?

But wait, there's more. Now you have to explain why anyone would demolish WTC7. After all, its two vastly more high-profile neighbors had already been destroyed, with spectacular effect. Why, just for good measure, bring down a building that no one had ever heard about? Some have suggested it was to destroy sensitive records, in which case you have to explan why they didn't simply use paper shredders, which not only would have been a lot easier but would also have been far more effective.

So let's sum this up: To believe that Silverstein's comments in any way support the Truther movement, you have to explain why a couple of highly ambiguous words can in this case have only one very uncommon meaning, why the person uttering them is publically confessing to mass murder, why there's no other evidence at all a CD actually took place, how the explosives waited patiently for hours within the inferno until Silverstein gave the magic order, and why anyone would even bother to blow up the building in the first place.

That a college professor could possibly have navigated through those questions and still somehow concluded Silverstein is stating WTC7 was a CD speaks very, very badly of that professor's judgement and reason. And I don't think there's anything at all ad hominem about that last statement.

 

[~enigma~]

That a college professor could possibly have navigated through those questions and still somehow concluded Silverstein is stating WTC7 was a CD speaks very, very badly of that professor's judgement and reason. And I don't think there's anything at all ad hominem about that last statement.

Considering that you are not dismissing his argument because he is a college professor with bad judgement, no it isn't an ad hom and there really were none before the OP's accusation of some.

 

[damien pastaume]

They didn't but you most certainly said "in."

Yes.

In the collapse.

 

[Stellafane]

Considering that you are not dismissing his argument because he is a college professor with bad judgement, no it isn't an ad hom and there really were none before the OP's accusation of some.

I think some people think "ad hominem" means "you said I was wrong and I didn't like it."

 

[~enigma~]

Yes.

In the collapse.

Yes....you said in the collapse of building 7 which is certainly different from during the collapse so.... SPIN UBU SPIN.

 

[damien pastaume]

Had Silverstein said something more specific like "bring it down" or "blow it up" or "set off the charges now," there would be a lot stronger case here. But he didn't. So at best, Silverstein's words are ambiguous, and open for interpretation -- and thus prove nothing.

Agreed. Even with the definition supplied by the Controlled Demolition Inc's spokesperson. Even though little or no firefighting was apparent. Nothing short of a subpoena would help remove the ambiguity.

So how do you explain why there's no evidence at all that WTC7 was a CD, irrespective of what Silverstein may or may not have meant in his one unguarded moment?

Putting Silverstein aside for a moment, what bothers many people is not the fact that WTC7 collapsed - it is the manner of its collapse. In the 100 year history of steel-framed high-rises there have been thousands of such collapses (straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile). Every single one, without exception, has been the result of deliberate demolition.

From a purely statistical point of view this leaves us to ponder the following:

Statistical support for deliberate demolition: 100%
Statistical support for damage/fire demolition: 0%

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?

 

[damien pastaume]

Yes....you said in the collapse of building 7 which is certainly different from during the collapse so.... SPIN UBU SPIN.

I think I'll leave our fellow posters to make their own minds up about this one.

 

[~enigma~]

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?

Many? You mean insignificant few that by and large live in their parents basement until they get real jobs and move out while forgetting about the truther balony. If that is how you define many, I agee...

 

[~enigma~]

I think I'll leave our fellow posters to make their own minds up about this one.

Ok but I hope you understand that it isn't in your favor.

 

[Hokulele]

Answer my questions first.

Show me the video of earthquake buildings creating this pyroclastic flow.

Stop dodging. Start thinking.

Earthquakes do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Building collapses do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Only a volcano can cause a pyroclastic flow. It's kinda part of the definition (Hint, what does the word "pyro" mean?).

Show me where anyone claimed otherwise.

 

[audesapre]

Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.

 

[~enigma~]

Earthquakes do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Building collapses do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Only a volcano can cause a pyroclastic flow. It's kinda part of the definition (Hint, what does the word "pyro" mean?).

Show me where anyone claimed otherwise.

Better I think is to have them explain what in the "pyroclastic flow" were the pyroclasts. That seems to have stopped TF dead in his tracks.