IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , wtc 7

Reply
Old 26th July 2008, 01:03 PM   #121
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by bio View Post
You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges."
We accept them just fine. However, what you fail to accept is that these accounts are actually consistent with our theory.

Very, very few witnesses actually think, or thought, that there were bombs. None of which -- Zero -- are referring to events at the moment of collapse.

Originally Posted by bio View Post
thank you for the argument, that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
I trust you are aware that you must have misunderstood me to make such a ridiculous statement.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:09 PM   #122
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
The point is, you cannot compare the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses to professional demolitions in the past.
Where did I do any such thing? I did not even mention the towers. I was speaking specifically about WTC7 - as was the OP.

And you advise me not to confuse myself?!

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
It also wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, "cleaner." If a professional demo company did half as much collateral damage as either Tower, they'd be looking at jail terms.
Can the same be said regarding WTC7? This is, after all, the topic of this thread.
damien pastaume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:10 PM   #123
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?
Do you know how to read the question I asked? Transcribe the post please and point out the exact part where he gave permission. BTW...

~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:13 PM   #124
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Firemen were putting water on some of the WTC buildings, not 7! There are clear examples in 5 and 6 of failure of steel in fire! Those who fail to research are doomed to ignorance and prone to believe the liars from the truth movement. Ignorance is personified by lazy researchers, exposing themselves with thoughtless posts of pure ignorance. Glad that does not happen here at JREF. JREF posters are of skeptical thought, the personification of knowledge using sound judgment to combat wild claims made by others. (albeit the goal)

The critical skill; recognizing wild claims! If you fail to recognize wild claims, and those people spewing wild claims as liars, you are doomed to gargantuan faulty analogies. Doomed to support ignorant ideas. This is the trait of the truth movement, parroting failed conclusions like they were facts and evidence. Substantial logical errors, massive failure to exercise sound judgment using knowledge gained by thorough research. Such is the fate of the truth movement, gigantic global breakdown of logical, knowledge based thinking! It is scary to see the truth movement in action. How did education systems fail, and leave these people in the truth movement in the darkness of hopeless ignorance.

We have a student experiencing a professor who is spewing the lies of 9/11 truth. He is picking a few pointers to counter the lies of 9/11 truth. He is smart, he is using the posters presenting usable facts. Wish I had been a supply of useful information he can use, but my smart remarks only contain limited value, meant to support his effort to exercise sound judgment based on knowledge! I apologize for not being as concise as those who post the best information you can use. I envy you for being able to weed out the ignorant posts from those who think they are pure logic, but are spewing the very ignorance you are combating. Good luck. Have fun, do not get discouraged if you discover some will not yield to logic and knowledge, they enjoy knowing they are right, and ignorant of their plight.

No reason to argue, the ignorant on 9/11 will bring up topics out of the blue to defeat you. They spew lies faster than you can counter and look them up in a 1 minutes debate, as they spew more stupid ideas than you can summarize in days; beware, the ignorant are just that, not be debated, but in need of education they don't want or think is needed. Beware, the skill to be diplomatic is needed, not as ignored by me. Be patient, you can earn much respect by just knowing and trying to help, the same as you still feel for your professor; who hopefully has few flaws past his temporary insanity on 9/11.

I hated teachers who would not own up to mistakes. When I teach and kids tell me I am suppose to know everything, I tell them the truth. I am there to help them learn; that is all. My existence as a teacher, to adapt to their needs and help them learn. Hope your professor shares your need to learn, and can adapt and gain knowledge on an event that takes years to understand when so many stupid questions and lies are generated from people with dumb ideas on the topic.


good luck new guy
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:14 PM   #125
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Where did I do any such thing? I did not even mention the towers. I was speaking specifically about WTC7 - as was the OP.

And you advise me not to confuse myself?!
I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.

Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Can the same be said regarding WTC7? This is, after all, the topic of this thread.
Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:20 PM   #126
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.



Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.


Professional means you do it for a living, itS how you earn a pay check. A guy who squirts mustard on burgers at McDonalds is a professional mustard squirter. There are obviously some better than others, i have had mustard only be in one corner.

Whoever did 7 did a great job as they cant have had any experience taking down a 47 story building, i give tham at worst an A-.


So is your implication that whoever imploded 7 did it for free
roundhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:23 PM   #127
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
So is your implication that whoever imploded 7 did it for free
Ignoring the leading nature of your semantic argument, I agree. The terrorists on board UA 11, who were ultimately to blame, were not compensated for their effort. As to whether or not they were professionals, is terrorism a profession? Does it matter?
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:31 PM   #128
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Ignoring the leading nature of your semantic argument, I agree. The terrorists on board UA 11, who were ultimately to blame, were not compensated for their effort. As to whether or not they were professionals, is terrorism a profession? Does it matter?


People, pay attention, news alert.


Mackey is now stating the terrorists on flight 11 took down wtc7. What information to you have to make such a wild claim?
roundhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:34 PM   #129
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
People, pay attention, news alert.


Mackey is now stating the terrorists on flight 11 took down wtc7. What information to you have to make such a wild claim?
UA 11 hit the North Tower. WTC 1 eventually collapsed as a result. Its collapse did three important things:
  1. Heavily damaged WTC 7,
  2. Started large fires in WTC 7, and
  3. Destroyed infrastructure that prevented effective firefighting.

And these three factors ultimately led to WTC 7's collapse.

I thought everyone knew that.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 01:47 PM   #130
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.
Your good grace is appreciated. Re-watching the footage of WTC7s collapse still leaves me convinced I'm witnessing a high degree of symmetry. It feels a little like being told that Godzilla is actually not all that big, or that the ocean is not actually all that wet.

Symmetry or no, what I'm seeing is the near-simultaneous destruction of the entire infrastructure.



Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.
I'll look into that aspect of the FEMA report.

As for being nothing like a professional job, I'll leave you with a quote from CDI's own Mr Loizeaux:
"When you take a building, break it up into millions of pieces and put it into its basement"

Nothing at all?
damien pastaume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 02:52 PM   #131
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
If an arsonist lights one house a blaze, and the fire spreads to another house, HE IS INDEED guilty of destroying the second house as well.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 02:56 PM   #132
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
It feels a little like being told that Godzilla is actually not all that big
Well...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg political-pictures-condoleeza-rice-godzilla.jpg (29.5 KB, 4 views)
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:01 PM   #133
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.
Ok, I'm not going to dispute the former part of the above sentence. Claiming to have witnessed an explosive demolition is not that extraordinary of a claim. But there is an apperant implication in latter portion of this sentence that is just not true.

You did not witness the collapse of WTC7.

Let me say that again...

You did not witness the collapse of WTC7. You were not there in New York on 9/11. You neither saw nor heard even the minutest portion of that days events. All you have seen is archival footage on TV and grainy youtube videos.

I read a study once that suggested that the number of people who claimed to have been at Woodstock outnumber the people who really were there by 10-to-1. 9/11 is rapidly becoming the Woodstock of the 9/11 twoofers. If the number of twoofers who act and talk like there were there that day really were there, the casualty count would have doubled and the most common article removed from the debris pile would have been crushed tinfoil hats.

This goes for all twoofers, none of you were there. You all don't know @#$%!

Last edited by Sword_Of_Truth; 26th July 2008 at 03:03 PM.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:13 PM   #134
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bio View Post
You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges."
That's because no one did. The detonation charges of a controlled demolition are very loud and very distinctive. They can be heard for miles around and occur in rapid succession prior to the collapse. Had this taken place on 9/11, there wouldn't be these scattered and vague reports of "explosions". Every single person in lower Manhattan would have heard them.

To claim otherwise makes one either dishonest or stupid.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:16 PM   #135
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Your good grace is appreciated. Re-watching the footage of WTC7s collapse still leaves me convinced I'm witnessing a high degree of symmetry. It feels a little like being told that Godzilla is actually not all that big, or that the ocean is not actually all that wet.
Apparently you're only looking at it from one angle. Your next statement is another clue to that effect:

Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Symmetry or no, what I'm seeing is the near-simultaneous destruction of the entire infrastructure.
No, you are not. The core failed first. I'm sure you know, since no doubt hundreds have already pointed this out to you, but the penthouse failures many seconds before the perimeter moved proves that the interior failed first. And, of course, a good portion of the structure was destroyed by debris, hours before the rest collapsed. Not "near-simultaneous" at all.

Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
As for being nothing like a professional job, I'll leave you with a quote from CDI's own Mr Loizeaux:
"When you take a building, break it up into millions of pieces and put it into its basement"

Nothing at all?
Nothing at all. Some portions of WTC 7 that remained were several stories high, and spread well beyond its original footprint.

I guess one could argue that in a collapse, and in a professional demolition, both cases destroy the building. But beyond that, there are few similarities.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 08:31 PM   #136
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
...As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

Fundamentals first.
Ah, here we have it, the crystalized moment that may neatly symbolize the difference between the way Truthers think and how the rest of us do. It's rare that it presents itself so obviously and unambiguously, so I feel an obligation to discuss it for a minute, even though that discussion may not be received in the way I might hope.

You say my questions may or may not be relevant. But you see, they cannot not be relevant. Yes, that's a double negative, but there's no better way to express it. Every claim ever made by anyone anywhere carries with it a whole slew of connections and consequences that also must be true for that claim to be valid. For instance, suppose I were to suddenly announce "I am president of the U.S.!" For that claim to be true, a number of questions must be answered. What has become of George W? How did a complete nobody like me get elected (especially since it isn't even November)? How come no one has reported this amazing and unprecedented event? And so on. I can't just wave away those questions and say "Fundamentals first." If I want my claim to be taken seriously, I have to explain how that whole chain of questions can be answered. And here's the important part: If I can't answer a single one of those questions, then my whole claim collapses like a house of cards. I can't just pick and choose what I feel like answering and what I don't. If just one of those followup questions cannot be answered, boom! there goes my claim.

Now back to Silverstein. OK, maybe "pull it" to some people in some very specific context means "demolish." But it can mean a whole lot of other things, most of which are far more likely in the situation Silverstein spoke the phrase. So at best, you have a tiny spot of gray on an otherwise black-and-white situation. But this immediately raises all sorts of followup questions -- each one of which must be answered, or all go out the window. You can't simply ignore it. And as I pointed out, those questions cannot be navigated by a reasonable mind and still at the end of the day conclude "pull it" has anything at all to do with demolition.

Since this responds to the original claim by the professor mentioned in the OP, I suppose I could end here. But since you've gone beyond this, I'll address what you feel is another anomaly, the fact that WTC7 collapsed at all. You dismiss the fact that virtually all the experts in the world accept the reason for collapse as structural damage and fire, stating that the majority is often wrong. But far more often, the majority is right! Simply being considered wrong by the majority gives you no special standing at all, since for every Galileo that turns out in the end to be right, there's 1000 Bozos that were wrong all along, like everyone thought. And when it comes to an expert majority, you're facing an uphill battle -- especially when you have zero evidence on your side, other than the fact that a large building collapsing is unusual. Well, guess what? September 11, 2001 was a highly unusual day. And implying that something has never happened before, so it couldn't possibly ever happen, is to say that nothing ever happens for the first time. Sure, first times can be surprising to some people -- but when there's a very rational explanation for the event, you don't have to invoke some unseen forces. And in the end, you still have all those other questions to answer.

So you see, building a case on what Silverstein may have meant when he said "pull it," or pointing out the obvious fact that large buildings don't collapse very often, is attempting to build something out of nothing. You have to answer all the questions -- every one of them -- because if even a single one of them is impossible to explain in Truther terms, the whole thing vanishes into thin air. It's all or nothing -- that's the way reality works.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 09:06 PM   #137
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122

No fires in WTC7?

Originally Posted by jujigatami View Post
I walked right by WTC7 on 9/11 at around 2pm. Just looking at it, seeing all of the debris piled up against it, and the inferno it was, was more than enough to tell me and those with me that it was going to collapse.

It was also bulging/buckling at the corners.

I seem to remember a firefighter quote saying they put a transit on a point and it was moving over a small period of time.

...
That alone is MORE than enough to "know" the building was going to collapse.
Witness confirms the photo. Witness confirms WTC7 was on fire, out of control, as does the FDNY. Lack of knowledge, is personified in 9/11 truth.
Originally Posted by jujigatami View Post
… I was at the WTC on 9/11.
Originally Posted by jujigatami View Post
I witnessed the entire chain of events.

I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER!!! I had a PERFECT vantage point. Even then, I couldn’t actually process what I had seen. I kept thinking it couldn’t have been an American Airlines plane, sure that’s what I saw, but it just couldn’t have been. It had to be something else.

I didn't know what to do. Should I get back on the ferry and go home or should I go to my office? I went to my office. I found a group of co-workers standing behind our building on Greenwich and Rector street looking at the burning building, and we started talking about what happened. Some saw the crash, and some just saw the fire. The ones that didn't see the crash didn't believe me and those of us that did see it that it was a jetliner. They assumed, as I did before I saw the plane, that it was a private or military plane. They couldn't imagine it was a jetliner. Of course, they didn't actually see what I and the others did.

We all thought it had to be an accident. I was talking about how the buildings are designed to survive a hit like this and how it would be OK.

Smoke was pouring out, debris was flying everywhere, we were joking around saying its like Godzilla has attacked. We were all looking up at the towers. From our vantage point we had a perfect view of both towers (google map 45 Broadway and you'll see where I was).

It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. The force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.

That’s when we all realized we were under attack.

My coworker looked at me and said "was that another airliner?" I said yeah, I thought it was a US Airways plane, but another coworker said it was a United plane.

… . Sure enough an F-16 flew by.
… The flames were intense coming out of the south tower (2wtc) and even being blocks away and much lower, I could feel the heat on my face and it was hot. It was like being in front of a roaring fireplace. I remember thinking “how the hell are they going to repair this?” It was then when I commented to another coworker about all of the debris still falling out (it had been a while now, almost an hour) and he said “Mike, those are people!” I said “No way!” He said, “Look that one has arms and legs!” And then I saw that the debris I was looking at was actually people falling or jumping out of the building.

That’s when I needed to go inside.

About 15 minutes later, we felt the earth shake. …

After a while I decided to go back upstairs to our office. Power in our building was fine, and there was no damage to our building. The lobby was like a refugee center. …

A little while later the second building came down, and the dust hit and made all of the windows black again. This time it wasn’t so bad since we knew what was happening.

I don’t really remember much of what we did between the time the second tower came down and when a cop finally came in to our office and said we had to evacuate the building since all of downtown was being shutdown, and cleared out. That was around 2:30 IIRC.

All I knew was that I had to somehow get to my wife in Brooklyn. So we started walking up Broadway when a cop told us it was closed and we had to go east. So we went over to Nassau St. When I hit the area near Cedar St, I could start to see the devastation. There was giant beams and junk everywhere. When I hit Fulton St. (I think) I could finally get over to Broadway to see the damage. There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it. And these were piled up against the building and sticking out of it at some levels. I can’t stress enough how enormous these beams and debris were. All of the pictures show the pile, but without actually seeing it, it is truly indescribable. WTC7 had granite of marble façade and there were HUGE cracks going up and down the façade too.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did.

… Then I saw it was an F-15 and all of a sudden, all was well. I truly felt like I had been given a new life.
9/11 truth lies, old irony. They know not why! They know not!
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 10:07 PM   #138
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Do you know how to read the question I asked? Transcribe the post please and point out the exact part where he gave permission. BTW...
Permission? Why does the fire commander need to call Silverstein to ask
him, tell him, whatever...they he's going to "pull it" (his human crew) out
of a building?

You think the fire commnader would have more on his mind than to track
down Larry in the middle of a crisis and "shoot the breeze".

Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building
them completely.
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 10:15 PM   #139
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
...
Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building them completely.
You understand fire as well as you do FDRs, and physics.

Outstanding post.

Last edited by beachnut; 26th July 2008 at 11:05 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 10:25 PM   #140
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I apologize. You were speaking about symmetry, and since WTC 7 was actually not all that symmetric, I had assumed you were talking about WTC 1 and 2.

Absolutely. WTC 7 inflicted damage on several other structures. In fact, as reported in the FEMA Report, one of the reasons why the debris was cleared so quickly (though not the only reason) was that the debris field was exerting pressure on several nearby structures, and it was feared that it could lead to additional, secondary collapses.

However, being so much lower to begin with, and falling into an area already heavily damaged by WTC 1 and WTC 2's collapses, WTC 7 did less secondary damage. Still, nothing like a professional job. Nothing at all.
Was the "collapse" of WTC 7 not symmetric for you or just a little symmetric or mainly symmetric? How can you say,the collapse was "actually not all that symmetric".
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 10:48 PM   #141
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Was the "collapse" of WTC 7 not symmetric for you or just a little symmetric or mainly symmetric? How can you say,the collapse was "actually not all that symmetric".
Are you familiar with the sequence of collapse? The final spread of debris? The wall sections lying on top of the pile afterward?

If you were, you probably wouldn't ask such a question.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 11:04 PM   #142
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building
them completely.
Are you Zennsmack, P'doh or just mentally retarded?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 04:13 AM   #143
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Permission? Why does the fire commander need to call Silverstein to ask
him, tell him, whatever...they he's going to "pull it" (his human crew) out
of a building?
He didn't need to but he did it out of something you and your truther buddies have never seen nor neard of. Common courtesy.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 06:25 AM   #144
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
He didn't need to but he did it out of something you and your truther buddies have never seen nor neard of. Common courtesy.
Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters.

Fire Fighter - "Commander, can we come out now, it's really bad in here!"

Commander - "Hang on guys, I'm trying to get a hold of Larry. Hang in there, I'll let
you know when to come out after talking it over with Larry."
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 06:33 AM   #145
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters.

Fire Fighter - "Commander, can we come out now, it's really bad in here!"

Commander - "Hang on guys, I'm trying to get a hold of Larry. Hang in there, I'll let
you know when to come out after talking it over with Larry."
You have a problem with it...tell someone who cares cause your hangups are not anybodies problems but your own.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 06:45 AM   #146
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post

Wow, look at those raging camp fires on a couple of floors. I guess we
better stay out of steel framed buildings from now on...or maybe stop building
them completely.
Wow look at the imbecile.

Oh, and hey...if you see a steel building on fire, I encourage you to run right in.
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 06:59 AM   #147
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters.

Fire Fighter - "Commander, can we come out now, it's really bad in here!"

Commander - "Hang on guys, I'm trying to get a hold of Larry. Hang in there, I'll let
you know when to come out after talking it over with Larry."
So what are you saying? That the FDNY is in Silverstein's pocket, willing to do his bidding?
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 08:10 AM   #148
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Right...he called Larry before removing his crew that was in this supposed
'danger'...because it's more courteous to please one man, than your crew
of fire fighters.
There is no evidence that the conversation happened before or after the actual decision on the ground, or that the two were in any way correlated. It appeared to be a courtesy call. It's also not at all unusual for the IC to keep in contact with building owners, particularly if there are questions about tenants and occupancy, or potential hazardous materials.

Furthermore, the operation that was "pulled" wasn't fighting the building fire anyway. Most of it was a rescue effort, as firefighters searched for victims caught in the debris field outside WTC 7. Those firefighters knew of the danger of collapse, yet were reluctant to leave, and went right back to it the instant WTC 7 finally came down. Nobody was working against their will until Uncle Larry decided to give them a pass.

This is all clear from the firefighter testimonies. You should also take a look at Mr. Scheuerman's book on the subject.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 09:06 AM   #149
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by bio View Post
You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges."
bio, actual demo charges wouldn't have just been heard by a few people very close to them. They would have been heard from miles away, and every video camera recording the scene would have recorded the sounds of the explosions.

They would have been an order of magnitude louder than the "explosions" heard by witnesses, most of which happened long before the towers collapsed.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 09:50 AM   #150
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
There is no evidence that the conversation happened before or after the actual decision on the ground, or that the two were in any way correlated.
So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with?
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 09:58 AM   #151
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with?
The call had nothing to do with the decision to "pull" the firemen. The decision would have been made, the same way, regardless of what Mr. Silverstein said. Chief Nigro, who made the decision, has confirmed this.

There is nothing about that statement that says "pull"ing was dependent on Mr. Silverstein's acquiescence. All he says is that he agreed with them, a decision was made, and hours later the decision turned out to be fully justified as the structure did indeed collapse as expected.

There are no different versions of the story. The distinctions you claim to have are your own misunderstanding, caused by obsession over "anomalies."
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 10:05 AM   #152
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by bio View Post
they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs,
Saw?

Spin much?
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 10:08 AM   #153
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with?
You claim Silverstein ordered the Fire Department to blow up WTC 7 in this call, and at this point firemen ran into the burning building and planted demo charges, correct?

Of course, you'll run from this question just like the Pentagon narrative you avoid like it was herpes. Truther "theories" sound mind-boggling stupid when you flesh them out a bit, don't they?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 04:38 PM   #154
Magenta
Graduate Poster
 
Magenta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,305
Turbofan and his ilk are too wilfully obtuse to take in any information that might conflict with their beliefs. However, if the OP is still following this thread then they might want to took at Arthur Scheuerman's interview on Hardfire. He gruffly dismissed any suggestion that a fire chief would be asking the building owner for permission to withdraw firefighters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...78134516&hl=en

Also, in the BBC documentary linked on the first page of this thread, Chief Nigro made it abundantly clear that the firefighters were pulled away from search and rescue work because of the imminent collapse of WTC7. He has also confirmed (again, this was on page 1 of this thread) that he had no recollection of a conversation with Silverstein and would not have consulted with him about such an evacuation in any case.

At this point in the thread, Turbofan is just playing silly buggers and it's pathetic.
Magenta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 05:02 PM   #155
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with?
You can't even get the quote right, Silverstein said "they made the decision". How many different versions of the quote are you guys going with?
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 05:49 PM   #156
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
"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/...:FLD001:H51497
from your link

Quote:
On September 11, like any other morning, most of the Secret Service employees were either settling into their offices or still making their way to work. Others were about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. At 8:48 a.m. their offices in Building 7 shook and the lights flickered. Most of them stopped for a quick moment but quickly returned to their work.

However, after realizing that a plane had hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, they very quickly went into an alert mode. Although most other tenants started to evacuate the building, the men and women of the Secret Service instinctively grabbed first aid trauma kits and other emergency equipment.
Special Agent in Charge, Steve Carey, and other managers ran from one floor to another, and room to room, to ensure that everyone was moving to safety. Once outside, they saw the sky engulfed by flames and smoke. Some of the agents ran into the north tower to assist in the evacuation process. Others began to execute the emergency medical skills that they had been trained to perform and set up small triage units on West Street to assist the injured.
Tragically, as the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has said, the Secret Service lost an employee, Master Special Officer Craig Miller. Officer Miller was on a temporary assignment in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and was nearby at the Marriott Hotel when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Although the hotel was evacuated, it appears that Officer Miller stayed behind to help. Because of his military background and extensive emergency medical training, those who knew Officer Miller believe his life was taken while trying to assist the wounded. In fact, some of the medical equipment was later found in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel that that particular officer had in his possession.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 27th July 2008 at 07:30 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 05:57 PM   #157
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
You guys have to remember that little old Turbofan here is getting his info from the cult tabloid PFT. So he isn't going to have the full quotes or understand what happened. he is only going to know what the PFT cult says, which is about as wrong as it gets. How is he supposed to know that Silverstein wasn't commanding or making decisions? Of course PFT is not going to include that part. Of course he's going to think the dust was moving upwards because that's what the idiots at the PFT tabloid are saying.

Now if you were discussing this with someone who actually researched the issue, it would be understandable. But then again, if someone had researched the matter, they wouldn't be bringing up the laughable arguments that Turbo is bringing up.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 06:03 PM   #158
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Well - he did ask.





I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.
And if you knew even the very basics of building demolition. You would know there is a very good reason for asymmetric demolition. There may be underground utilities adjacent to the footprint of the structure on which hundreds of tons of debris can do great damage if dropped on it. Or there may be adjacent high rises only 8 feet away that must of course not be damaged. This would mean charges on that side of the building would be set to blast last. causing the building to cascade away from adjacent structures and utilities.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 06:13 PM   #159
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
your Silverstein quote is innacurate turbo

Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
So you don't agree with most people here that it was a call to pull the firemen?

"I remember getting a call from the commander...so much loss of life...
maybe the best thing to do is "Pull it"...and then the decision was made to pull...and we watched the building fall."


How many different versions of this story are you guys going with?

this one

Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 09:28 PM   #160
Bananaman
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
Quote:
I hated teachers who would not own up to mistakes. When I teach and kids tell me I am supposed to know everything, I tell them the truth. I am there to help them learn; that is all. My existence as a teacher, to adapt to their needs and help them learn.
Just wanted to say I liked that quote from Beachnut. It made me feel good.

OK, emotional moment over. Back to the thread.

Bananaman.

Last edited by Bananaman; 27th July 2008 at 09:29 PM.
Bananaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.