|
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. |
26th July 2008, 01:03 PM | #121 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. I trust you are aware that you must have misunderstood me to make such a ridiculous statement. |
26th July 2008, 01:09 PM | #122 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
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?! Can the same be said regarding WTC7? This is, after all, the topic of this thread. |
26th July 2008, 01:10 PM | #123 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
|
|
26th July 2008, 01:13 PM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
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 |
26th July 2008, 01:14 PM | #125 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. |
26th July 2008, 01:20 PM | #126 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
|
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 |
26th July 2008, 01:23 PM | #127 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
|
26th July 2008, 01:31 PM | #128 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
|
|
26th July 2008, 01:34 PM | #129 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
UA 11 hit the North Tower. WTC 1 eventually collapsed as a result. Its collapse did three important things:
And these three factors ultimately led to WTC 7's collapse. I thought everyone knew that. |
26th July 2008, 01:47 PM | #130 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
|
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. 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? |
26th July 2008, 02:52 PM | #131 |
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 |
26th July 2008, 02:56 PM | #132 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
|
|
26th July 2008, 03:01 PM | #133 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
|
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 @#$%! |
26th July 2008, 03:13 PM | #134 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
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. |
26th July 2008, 03:16 PM | #135 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Apparently you're only looking at it from one angle. Your next statement is another clue to that effect:
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. 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. |
26th July 2008, 08:31 PM | #136 |
Village Idiot.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
|
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 |
|
26th July 2008, 09:06 PM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
No fires in WTC7? 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. 9/11 truth lies, old irony. They know not why! They know not! |
26th July 2008, 10:07 PM | #138 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
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. |
26th July 2008, 10:15 PM | #139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
26th July 2008, 10:25 PM | #140 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
|
26th July 2008, 10:48 PM | #141 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
|
26th July 2008, 11:04 PM | #142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
|
|
27th July 2008, 04:13 AM | #143 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
|
|
27th July 2008, 06:25 AM | #144 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
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." |
27th July 2008, 06:33 AM | #145 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
|
|
27th July 2008, 06:45 AM | #146 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
|
|
27th July 2008, 06:59 AM | #147 |
diabolical globalist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
|
|
27th July 2008, 08:10 AM | #148 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. |
27th July 2008, 09:06 AM | #149 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
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! |
|
27th July 2008, 09:50 AM | #150 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
Quote:
"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? |
27th July 2008, 09:58 AM | #151 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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." |
27th July 2008, 10:05 AM | #152 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
|
|
27th July 2008, 10:08 AM | #153 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
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! |
|
27th July 2008, 04:38 PM | #154 |
Graduate Poster
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. |
27th July 2008, 05:02 PM | #155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
|
|
27th July 2008, 05:49 PM | #156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
27th July 2008, 05:57 PM | #157 |
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. |
27th July 2008, 06:03 PM | #158 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
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. |
|
27th July 2008, 06:13 PM | #159 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
your Silverstein quote is innacurate turbo
|
__________________
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. |
|
27th July 2008, 09:28 PM | #160 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
|
Quote:
OK, emotional moment over. Back to the thread. Bananaman. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|