New Member

[Hyperviolet]

Hey to all your JREF members. Been a reader of this board for the past few months and finally decided to join up.

My personal position in the topic is 9/11 is there is likely some government/military intelligence involvement (guess that makes me a Woo hehe) however, contrary to the believes of many conspiracists i believe there was real hijacked planes, real passenger victims, a plane hit the pentagon and 93 came down in Shanksville.

Ive come to realise this forum has some of the most intelligent posts on the topic (most notably "Gravy" and "Gumboot") and i'm interested in healthy discussion on such a vast topic with you all.

As a stauch atheist and general skeptic for the most part i feel almost dirty being "conspiracy theorist" haha.. though i have to be honest with myself and beliefs. I absolutely support the call for a truly independant investigation into the tragedy of September 11th 2001. If the family members feel that their questions have not been answered (and i dont think everything really has been fully investigated) then i feel there is no real grounds not to grant this request.

I have come here not as a preacher but as a student, and hope to earn the respect of the JREF community.

Cheers!

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

If the family members feel that their questions have not been answered (and i dont think everything really has been fully investigated) then i feel there is no real grounds not to grant this request.

First of all, welcome!

Secondly, what questions do you think haven't been answered?

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by WildCat

First of all, welcome!

Secondly, what questions do you think haven't been answered?

Thanks for the kind welcome WildCat!

Actually, its not so much my questions, but those of the family members ( as put forth in the film Press For Truth). I would definetely like to see a more conclusive narrative of the funding. Look at the claim of ISI involvement in more detail (find out if it really is just a biased claim by an Indian paper).

I feel the families effected by the event should really have priority in this national tragedy. If they feel some of their questions were watered down or simply ignored - we should seek to answer them comprehensively.

[Minadin]

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

In the case that you're not the latest and greatest incarnation of that fool, however, welcome aboard, and would you mind telling us what you mean by "some government involvement" and what specifically makes you suspect this? We don't normally use "unanswered questions" to base any sort of belief upon; rather we strive to answer those questions with real evidence.

Do you have any evidence you would like to share, or is yours just a gut feeling, like mine, which you could admittedly be wrong about?

[juryjone]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Actually, its not so much my questions, but those of the family members ( as put forth in the film Press For Truth). I would definetely like to see a more conclusive narrative of the funding. Look at the claim of ISI involvement in more detail (find out if it really is just a biased claim by an Indian paper).

I would like to add my welcome also.

Funding, it seems to me, is a tough thing to follow all the way through conclusively (conclusively enough to prove malice aforethought on the part of the funder). To use an example, if I paid a guy to build a fence for me to separate my yard from my obnoxious neighbor's, and the guy uses the money to buy a car that he then uses to run over my dear sweet grandmother, am I at fault?

Funding , IMHO, is not enough to prove that the specifics were known about and condoned.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Minadin

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

In the case that you're not the latest and greatest incarnation of that fool, however, welcome aboard, and would you mind telling us what you mean by "some government involvement" and what specifically makes you suspect this? We don't normally use "unanswered questions" to base any sort of belief upon; rather we strive to answer those questions with real evidence.

Do you have any evidence you would like to share, or is yours just a gut feeling, like mine, which you could admittedly be wrong about?

Hi Minadin - no, i am not P'Doh. I have been a reader of these forums and know exactly who your are referring to and his past "revelation."

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

I am also intrigued as to the collapse of building 7 ( i have seen the comments of Chief Nigro and the burning south face) and the conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

You are right, many of my beliefs are based on "gut." As an atheist i have criticized creationists on this many a time. However, i do not claim my beliefs are solid evidence. But they are my beliefs, forcing myself to accept something i really don't believe won't make what i accept true.
Should i learn more on the topic that sways me. I will accept it and leave my current persuasion.

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

How exactly was Military Intelligence involved in Iran Contra? How did Iran Contra "show" you that you cannot trust "Military Intelligence"?

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hi Minadin - no, i am not P'Doh. I have been a reader of these forums and know exactly who your are referring to and his past "revelation."

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

I am also intrigued as to the collapse of building 7 ( i have seen the comments of Chief Nigro and the burning south face) and the conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

Are you familiar with NIST's current hypothesis on the collapse mechanism? If not, I suggest you read it through. Their final report on building 7 is due this Spring. I also suggest that you ponder if anyone plausibly had the means and opportunity to rig the building for demolition, and what possible, real-world motive anyone would have had to demolish it.

Quote:

You are right, many of my beliefs are based on "gut." As an atheist i have criticized creationists on this many a time. However, i do not claim my beliefs are solid evidence. But they are my beliefs, forcing myself to accept something i really don't believe won't make what i accept true.
Should i learn more on the topic that sways me. I will accept it and leave my current persuasion.

Welcome to the forum.

[JAStewart]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

Well, he is the only one thats really said anything about it with any credibility, and he doesn't even think that WTC1+2 were CD's, so he's useless for a woowoo

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

There is good points on both sides.

I would be interested in what "points" you feel are "good" on the CD side. Points that are supported by facts, evidence, analysis along with (if possible), any peer reviewed discussion. By "peer" I'm referring to structural engineers, demolitions experts, etc.

Thanks and welcome.

[Garrette]

I would be interested in the lack of faith in "Military Intelligence."

I suspect you are using the term improperly. In discussions at the bar with your friends, that is fine, but in seriously exploring a hypothesis it isn't.

Iran/Contra did nothing to impugn Military Intelligence.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome Hyperviolet. For all the info you could ever want on WTC7, See Gravy's paper on the same. After you have read that, if you have questions unanswere, I am sure Gravy, or someone here, could help answer.

TAM

[Pardalis]

Welcome Hyperviolet. It's always appreciated when a new poster introduces himself. Usually twoofers start right away with insults, so your politeness is refreshing.

Be sure to read these links for your questions about 9/11.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s.php?catid=18

and the stickies.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I would be interested in what "points" you feel are "good" on the CD side. Points that are supported by facts, evidence, analysis along with (if possible), any peer reviewed discussion. By "peer" I'm referring to structural engineers, demolitions experts, etc.

Thanks and welcome.

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

[fuelair]

Welcome in - enjoy - harrass not that ye be not harrassed!

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Welcome Hyperviolet. For all the info you could ever want on WTC7, See Gravy's paper on the same. After you have read that, if you have questions unanswere, I am sure Gravy, or someone here, could help answer.

TAM

Hello T.A.M, thanks for your welcome

I have read Gravy's paper on WTC 7. It makes many good points and is supported throughly with firefighter eye witness accounts. Should he have any additional information on the topic, i will be glad to listen.
For now, i will like to "sit on the fence" (hehe) until the NIST final report on WTC 7 is released.

Thanks again!

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry).

Key word is "looks". Why does it look like a CD? (it wasn't symmetrical btw). Because in all demolitions, it all has to do with GRAVITY. Gravity brings things down.

That's where the similiarity ends. There is no "sameness" in the speed either.

Quote:

My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

the steel portions collapsed. Like how they failed in the WTC towers

Quote:

Have a look at this :

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

fixed

Quote:

Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

Jowenko was given a video taken from several angles and he didn't even realize that hte building fell down on 9/11. He was then told that the building contained offices for the CIA / or Fbi and contained secrete documents. So his conclusion is based on
1) looking at a video
2) and the hearsay from the people who interviewed him

His opinion that it was cd is as worthless as anyone else watching just Video alone. To prvoe CD, you need to prove that explosives wree planted. His investigations didn't take him to new york to inspect hte rubble for this evidence

Again, all CD "looks similar" because in all CD's, they rely on GRAVITY.

Quote:

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

The preliminary report is pretty much good enough to address the points you just raised.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

relink:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Why do you feel the "the speed [and] the symmetry" of the WTC 7 collpase represents collapses only seen when controlled demolition is the cause?

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

Jowenko is an interesting point. He was initially given no details of the collapse what so ever, simply shown the video and asked what he thought caused the collapse.

After he was told teh circumstances around it, he became very withdrawn on the matter. After some time, and I assume he did some reading, likely some CT reading, he has openly admitted that he believe is was a CD because of the important info that he has been told was held in WTC7.

Now there were many Demolition companies involved in the clean-up of Ground Zero, and Implosionworld created an excellent report on some of the CT allegations. One thing they did was ask a number of the Demolition Teams if there was any evidence of CD, or if the words "pull it" mean to demolish the building with explosives, and they uniformly agreed there was no evidence of a CD, and that the term "pull it" does not refer to explosive demolition of a building, but rather to "pull" the building in a certain direction with steel cables.

Like I said, the Implosionworld paper is a good start, and Gravy's paper on WTC7.

TAM

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I would be interested in the lack of faith in "Military Intelligence."

I suspect you are using the term improperly. In discussions at the bar with your friends, that is fine, but in seriously exploring a hypothesis it isn't.

Iran/Contra did nothing to impugn Military Intelligence.

Hi Garrette,
It is my understanding that the CIA had involvement in the Iran Contra scandal. As did Oliver North.
If i am incorrect, could you please point me to a thread which i can read more about?

Thank you.

[T.A.M.]

You are VERY WELL READ, Hyperviolet. How long have you been following the issues of 9/11 in this detail?

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

My personal position in the topic is 9/11 is there is likely some government/military intelligence involvement (guess that makes me a Woo hehe) however, contrary to the believes of many conspiracists i believe there was real hijacked planes, real passenger victims, a plane hit the pentagon and 93 came down in Shanksville.

Hello and welcome. You mention below that you've been reading this forum for a while now, so you may be familiar with the "Mark of Woo", that being the behaviour of coming in and sounding reasonable at first, and then evolving into a full-blown woo. I mention this, as it seems you may be showing some signs of The Mark.

You start out as above, a nice, reasonable LIHOPer, but then you go on:

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hi Minadin - no, i am not P'Doh. I have been a reader of these forums and know exactly who your are referring to and his past "revelation."

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

I am also intrigued as to the collapse of building 7 ( i have seen the comments of Chief Nigro and the burning south face) and the conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

So now you're suggesting that there may be something to the CTs about WTC7 collapsing.

I'd suggest that there's one important difference between LIHOP and MIHOP: You can be just "a little LIHOP", but you can't be "just a little MIHOP".

LIHOP is based mostly on believing that some people in positions of power are more interested in their own gain than in their responsibilities. As such, it doesn't require much in the way of woo thinking, except when the question comes up of how many people would be needed to "let it happen" without others catching on.

MIHOP, however, requires a qualitative difference: you must have people taking an active role: Planting explosives, or whatever. And once you postulate an active role, there really is no limit to what you must start claiming.

I'll explain.

You suggest there was something untoward about WTC7. Let's assume you mean it was a CD, made to look like a result of fire and impact damage.

Well, then, you need to make sure that there was some fire and impact damage, right? Where does that come from? From the collapse of WTC1&2. So we'd better make sure they collapse. Since we can't just assume the planes alone will do the job, we'll have to help them along.

Of course, for the collapse of WTC1&2 to be plausible, they must be hit by planes, or else it'll give the whole game away. So we'll have to make sure they get hit by planes. Can't just try to "let it happen", because you never know when some do-gooder on the plane will screw up your plans (flight 93, right?).

And to make sure we have the planes, we have to make sure we have hijackers, which means we have to make sure they get on the planes. To get on the planes, we have to make sure they're not in prision, so we have to make sure no one arrests them. And we have to make sure they get into the country....and on, and on....


Allow for any part of the day to be MIHOP, and you end up needing almost everything else to be MIHOP, because losing any one link risks exposing the whole plot for all to see.

So I'd suggest sticking with LIHOP. It's just barely plausible, while any MIHOP scenario just gets more crazy as time goes by.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Jowenko is an interesting point. He was initially given no details of the collapse what so ever, simply shown the video and asked what he thought caused the collapse.

After he was told teh circumstances around it, he became very withdrawn on the matter. After some time, and I assume he did some reading, likely some CT reading, he has openly admitted that he believe is was a CD because of the important info that he has been told was held in WTC7.

Now there were many Demolition companies involved in the clean-up of Ground Zero, and Implosionworld created an excellent report on some of the CT allegations. One thing they did was ask a number of the Demolition Teams if there was any evidence of CD, or if the words "pull it" mean to demolish the building with explosives, and they uniformly agreed there was no evidence of a CD, and that the term "pull it" does not refer to explosive demolition of a building, but rather to "pull" the building in a certain direction with steel cables.

Like I said, the Implosionworld paper is a good start, and Gravy's paper on WTC7.

TAM

Thanks again TAM

I have not read the Implosionworld paper, yet. I shall have a read through it either tonight or tomorrow!
Let it be stated that I in no way support the bogus Silverstein - Pull It -"evidence."

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry).

What other CD have you compared it to?

Quote:

My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

The Windsor had a concrete core. WTC 1,2 and 7 didn't.

Quote:

Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

He concluded that WTC 1 and 2 were not CD. He said WTC looked like CD, but he didn't know he was looking at a video of WTC7. Furthermore, this was not in a published journal based on his scientific analysis. It was from an interview with at CTer.

I think Mr Jewenko made an offhand comment without the full facts and now his pride won't let him retract it.

And keep in mind he is one of only 3 people in a relelvent field to take the CD position, and none of them have published a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

Quote:

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

I believe Gravy thuroughly addresses your concerns.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

Are you aware of any analysis that Jowenko has performed? Are you aware of who (other engineers, demolitions experts) he may have consulted in reaching his conclusion? Are you aware of anything he did to reach his conclusion, other then, like you watching a video?

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

So you agree that your "good points" are limited to what you and others perceive by watching video, and you are satisfied with that? Have you read the preliminary NIST reports? Have you consulted with anyone who has knowledge and experience in structural engineering and demolitions?

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Thanks for the welcome!

My pleasure.

[scooby]

Originally Posted by Minadin

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

No thats me remember?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hi Garrette,
It is my understanding that the CIA had involvement in the Iran Contra scandal. As did Oliver North.
If i am incorrect, could you please point me to a thread which i can read more about?

Thank you.

You are correct; the CIA did have involvement.

But the CIA is not remotely equivalent to Military Intelligence. That's my point. If you are going to seriously discuss topics like this, you need to be clear about your terms.

To clarify: Military Intelligence (MI) is one branch (sub-branch) of the U.S. Army which, on a tactical level handles both security and intelligence analysis, as well as limited OPFOR (opposing forces) simulated play. At higher levels, it deals primarily with determination of collection requirements, tasking of organic collectors (primarily electronic and not human), and analysis of enormous amounts of collected data.

MI does not have operatives or agents in the sense the CIA does, nor does it get involved in training of foreign covert groups as the CIA did with Battalion 316 in El Salvador.

Hope that helps.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Hello and welcome. You mention below that you've been reading this forum for a while now, so you may be familiar with the "Mark of Woo", that being the behaviour of coming in and sounding reasonable at first, and then evolving into a full-blown woo. I mention this, as it seems you may be showing some signs of The Mark.

You start out as above, a nice, reasonable LIHOPer, but then you go on:




So now you're suggesting that there may be something to the CTs about WTC7 collapsing.

I'd suggest that there's one important difference between LIHOP and MIHOP: You can be just "a little LIHOP", but you can't be "just a little MIHOP".

LIHOP is based mostly on believing that some people in positions of power are more interested in their own gain than in their responsibilities. As such, it doesn't require much in the way of woo thinking, except when the question comes up of how many people would be needed to "let it happen" without others catching on.

MIHOP, however, requires a qualitative difference: you must have people taking an active role: Planting explosives, or whatever. And once you postulate an active role, there really is no limit to what you must start claiming.

I'll explain.

You suggest there was something untoward about WTC7. Let's assume you mean it was a CD, made to look like a result of fire and impact damage.

Well, then, you need to make sure that there was some fire and impact damage, right? Where does that come from? From the collapse of WTC1&2. So we'd better make sure they collapse. Since we can't just assume the planes alone will do the job, we'll have to help them along.

Of course, for the collapse of WTC1&2 to be plausible, they must be hit by planes, or else it'll give the whole game away. So we'll have to make sure they get hit by planes. Can't just try to "let it happen", because you never know when some do-gooder on the plane will screw up you plans (fligth 93, right?).

And to make sure we have the planes, we have to make sure we have hijackers, which means we have to make sure they get on the planes. To get on the planes, we have to make sure they're not in prision, so we have to make sure no one arrests them. And we have to make sure they get into the country....and on, and on....


Allow for any part of the day to be MIHOP, and you end up needing almost everything else to be MIHOP, because losing any one link risks exposing the whole plot for all to see.

So I'd suggest sticking with LIHOP. It's just barely plausible, while any MIHOP scenario just gets more crazy as time goes by.

Hello Horatius!

I actually havent heard of "The Mark Of Woo" haha. I hope it isnt deadly!
My position on WTC 7 is not that is was a controlled demolition. But that, it interests me and i am keen to learn more on the topic. I shall remain on the fence till i read the NIST final report.


Thank you

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Finally, reason!

Remember that Jowenko just saw video from one angle of the building, he didn't see the extent of the damage http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Also remember that something isn't necesserally what it looks like. If you dig deeper and analyse thoroughly, you might be surprised of what you find.


To the others: where's is Steve Spak's video of the burning WTC7? It's not on youtube anymore!

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Garrette

You are correct; the CIA did have involvement.

But the CIA is not remotely equivalent to Military Intelligence. That's my point. If you are going to seriously discuss topics like this, you need to be clear about your terms.

To clarify: Military Intelligence (MI) is one branch (sub-branch) of the U.S. Army which, on a tactical level handles both security and intelligence analysis, as well as limited OPFOR (opposing forces) simulated play. At higher levels, it deals primarily with determination of collection requirements, tasking of organic collectors (primarily electronic and not human), and analysis of enormous amounts of collected data.

MI does not have operatives or agents in the sense the CIA does, nor does it get involved in training of foreign covert groups as the CIA did with Battalion 316 in El Salvador.

Hope that helps.

My apologies for the sloppy reference, Garrette.

Man, you really have to be on your game in this place haha

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by scooby

No thats me remember?

Nice to see you finally admit it.

Of course, a SockMaster like Pd'oh could easily have several socks on the line at once. He's truly a phenomenon.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by scooby

No thats me remember?

False dilemma

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

My apologies for the sloppy reference, Garrette.

Not a problem. It's a pleasure to speak with someone who admits errors. We all have difficulties with that at times.

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Man, you really have to be on your game in this place haha

Which is one reason I mostly stay out of the CT threads; I am in way over my head here.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Donal

What other CD have you compared it to?



The Windsor had a concrete core. WTC 1,2 and 7 didn't.



He concluded that WTC 1 and 2 were not CD. He said WTC looked like CD, but he didn't know he was looking at a video of WTC7. Furthermore, this was not in a published journal based on his scientific analysis. It was from an interview with at CTer.

I think Mr Jewenko made an offhand comment without the full facts and now his pride won't let him retract it.

And keep in mind he is one of only 3 people in a relelvent field to take the CD position, and none of them have published a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.



I believe Gravy thuroughly addresses your concerns.

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending.
I could have used the reference to the toilet factory to make my point. That is all.

Thanks!

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by scooby

No thats me remember?

Though right now I am reserving judgement, let me say that PDoh has had enough socks in here to lose a dozen to the dryer, and still clothe his feet for a week.

As for the "Mark of Woo", the first stage is present, but so it is almost all new arrivals. The truth will present itself sooner or later.

For now I am taking Hyperviolet on face value.

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hello Horatius!

I actually havent heard of "The Mark Of Woo" haha. I hope it isnt deadly!

Well, it hasn't killed any of them yet, but it has made a lot of us sick.

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

My position on WTC 7 is not that is was a controlled demolition. But that, it interests me and i am keen to learn more on the topic. I shall remain on the fence till i read the NIST final report.

Thank you

Well okay then. I think most of us would agree that it is interesting, in that we may learn something useful about building design, in particular why not to build them the way it was. There were several compromises in the design that a lot of people have suggested contributed to it's collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending.

This is interesting - I haven't heard of gradual bending of the steel members in the Windsor, but then again it's not a subject I know that much about. Can you point me to any sources that discuss or illustrate the failure mode of the steel-framed part of the Windsor?

Dave

[Donal]

In order for you to be on the fence, there needs to be another side you believe to make a legitimate argument.

What are the two sides in the WTC 7 issue you are teetering between?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending. I could have used the reference to the toilet factory to make my point. That is all.

Thanks!

You'll also have to consider the degree of loading that the members were under. The Windsor tower was (I believe) a much smaller building, and the steel portion was only the top portion of the structure, so it wasn't supporting that much of the building. Whereas, with WTC7, the collapse started much lower in the building, and involved the whole mass of the much larger building. This increased load factor would tend to accelerate any failure. Once it reached the point of collapse, the whole upper structure would come down very rapidly.