| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: New WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse |
 |
|
From the thread over in the articles sub forum, I have created my own, because heaven forbid I should criticise anyone's fine work over there.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3401
The basics of that thread were:
WTC 5 & 6 didn't collapse and they had fire and debris damage etc, but WTC 7 and that was further away.
My response is that:
- WTC 5 & 6 were 7 and 9 stories high. WTC 7 had a hole bigger then the height of the two combined - 20 stories high.
- WTC 7 contained fuel tanks, adding to its fire
- WTC 5 & 6 suffered partial collapse, WTC 7 couldn't suffer the same kind of collapse, because once its lower level went, there was nothing holding the top section up.
- WTC 5 & 6 were low rise, squat buildings, and therefore more sturdy than the high rise WTC 7. They were wider than they were tall. Sure, WTC 7 had larger support beams, but they were carrying more weight too, that's why they had to be bigger.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To all the lurkers out there. Notice how the "Truth movement" fails to deny these points...
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm curious as to what your response is to the video clip of Larry Silverstein talking about how WTC7 was 'pulled'?
I was unaware that WTC7 had a hole 20 floors high in it. Perhaps i just haven't studied the tapes and pictures closely enough.
Even if it had a hole in it that size, presumably on the side facing the towers, how do you explain it's sudden, shockingly uniform collapse? Wouldn't it be very unlikely that it would collapse straight down so fast in the manner it did?
How do you explain WTC7 collapsing due to fire damage when in other parts of the world highrises that have been gutted by fire have not collapsed.... ever?
Given Silverstein's statements, the unlikely chance that WTC7's collapse would so closely mimic a controlled demolition, and the lack of a historical precedent for buildings like this collapsing as a result of fire, don't you think there are questions here that need to be addressed?
Edit: I wouldn't flatter myself if I were you by the lack of initial response. People here seem to think you not worth responding to at all. I'm giving u the benefit of the doubt, for now. I'm at work myself so my replies often span hours as I'm pulled away from the keyboard responding to work duties.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | I'm curious as to what your response is to the video clip of Larry Silverstein talking about how WTC7 was 'pulled'? |
Silverstein speaks of his and the firechief's realisation that the building couldn't be saved. The firefighting effort was futile so it was pulled. He refers to the operation when he says pull it, meaning pull the firefighters out. They had already seen that the building was not structurally sound, so to prevent any injuries when it collapsed, they pulled out.
Pull it as a demolition term means to literally pull the building down, using chains, ropes, cables etc. It has no meaning in the world of explosive demolition. Larry Silverstein was a property developer, not a property demolisher.
| Quote: | | I was unaware that WTC7 had a hole 20 floors high in it. Perhaps i just haven't studied the tapes and pictures closely enough. |
The smoke is in the way most of the time, but firefighters reported a hole about a third of the building's height.
| Quote: | | Even if it had a hole in it that size, presumably on the side facing the towers, how do you explain it's sudden, shockingly uniform collapse? Wouldn't it be very unlikely that it would collapse straight down so fast in the manner it did? |
The collapse wasn't unexpected, the firefighters could see it bulging, which is why the decison was made to pull out. Once one section collapsed, it pulled the rest down with it. There aren't many other ways for a building to collapse. It wouldn't topple over, because it would need to lean over until its centre of gravity moved outside its base. Before it got to that point, it would have over stressed the columns on that side, and the building would have collapsed. There is no way for it to go, but straight down.
| Quote: | | How do you explain WTC7 collapsing due to fire damage when in other parts of the world highrises that have been gutted by fire have not collapsed.... ever? |
That's not true, and not an accurate comparison. Other high rises have not been hit by tonnes of debris and been on fire. An example often given is the Madrid hotel fire. The top section was steel framed, and did collapse due to the fire. The lower section was concrete, which is why it didn't collapse
| Quote: | | Given Silverstein's statements, the unlikely chance that WTC7's collapse would so closely mimic a controlled demolition, and the lack of a historical precedent for buildings like this collapsing as a result of fire, don't you think there are questions here that need to be addressed? |
Well we've covered Larry's comments, the type of collapse, the historical precedence, so there are no questions left.
| Quote: | | Edit: I wouldn't flatter myself if I were you by the lack of initial response. People here seem to think you not worth responding to at all. I'm giving u the benefit of the doubt, for now. I'm at work myself so my replies often span hours as I'm pulled away from the keyboard responding to work duties. |
These people don't respond to me anymore because I've proved them wrong in the past and they don't like it. They switched from debating to questioning my true identity and my degree, instead of answering the points I made. If I am really as wrong as they claim, they should be knocking out answers in no time.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Silverstein speaks of his and the firechief's realisation that the building couldn't be saved. The firefighting effort was futile so it was pulled. He refers to the operation when he says pull it, meaning pull the firefighters out. They had already seen that the building was not structurally sound, so to prevent any injuries when it collapsed, they pulled out.
Pull it as a demolition term means to literally pull the building down, using chains, ropes, cables etc. It has no meaning in the world of explosive demolition. Larry Silverstein was a property developer, not a property demolisher. |
I would find this explanation more convincing if I hadn't seen the video several times. Silverstein specifically states, "... pull it." more than once. Had he said "pull out" I would be more inclined to accept your suggestion. I don't think it's a stretch for Silverstein to use the term 'pull it' in a demolitions context. Hell, having heard the term now myself, I'd use it if I ever had to tell someone to demolish a building.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Quote: | | I was unaware that WTC7 had a hole 20 floors high in it. Perhaps i just haven't studied the tapes and pictures closely enough. |
The smoke is in the way most of the time, but firefighters reported a hole about a third of the building's height. |
Perhaps they did, I just hadn't heard it in the interviews I saw or read about. You wouldn't have a link, would you?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Quote: | | Even if it had a hole in it that size, presumably on the side facing the towers, how do you explain it's sudden, shockingly uniform collapse? Wouldn't it be very unlikely that it would collapse straight down so fast in the manner it did? |
The collapse wasn't unexpected, the firefighters could see it bulging, which is why the decison was made to pull out. Once one section collapsed, it pulled the rest down with it. There aren't many other ways for a building to collapse. It wouldn't topple over, because it would need to lean over until its centre of gravity moved outside its base. Before it got to that point, it would have over stressed the columns on that side, and the building would have collapsed. There is no way for it to go, but straight down. |
Heh, are you sure about that, son? I would think there wouldn't be much work for controlled demolitions experts if this was the case. If there weren't other ways for a building to come down, you'd think people would just go set fires in the basements of those old buildings they don't want any more. Let physics do the rest, right? Sorry poke you, but you're out on a bit of a limb here.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Quote: | | How do you explain WTC7 collapsing due to fire damage when in other parts of the world highrises that have been gutted by fire have not collapsed.... ever? |
That's not true, and not an accurate comparison. Other high rises have not been hit by tonnes of debris and been on fire. An example often given is the Madrid hotel fire. The top section was steel framed, and did collapse due to the fire. The lower section was concrete, which is why it didn't collapse |
Can you provide some links to buildings whose steel cores have weakened and/or melted due to fires causing the buildings to come down? And no, WTC 1, 2 or 7 are not acceptable.  I'll look up the madrid hotel fire - what year would that have been?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Quote: | | Given Silverstein's statements, the unlikely chance that WTC7's collapse would so closely mimic a controlled demolition, and the lack of a historical precedent for buildings like this collapsing as a result of fire, don't you think there are questions here that need to be addressed? |
Well we've covered Larry's comments, the type of collapse, the historical precedence, so there are no questions left. |
Perhaps not for you, but as I say, we seem to have different standards. I tend to be more skeptical of everything I read and hear.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Quote: | | Edit: I wouldn't flatter myself if I were you by the lack of initial response. People here seem to think you not worth responding to at all. I'm giving u the benefit of the doubt, for now. I'm at work myself so my replies often span hours as I'm pulled away from the keyboard responding to work duties. |
These people don't respond to me anymore because I've proved them wrong in the past and they don't like it. They switched from debating to questioning my true identity and my degree, instead of answering the points I made. If I am really as wrong as they claim, they should be knocking out answers in no time. |
Well, perhaps they don't all have the answers at a snap of the fingers as you seem to. You are the answer man here, obviously. I don't know how you know this stuff with so much certainty. I'm much less certain of things. But then I'm a born skeptic, I even scrutinize my own conclusions.
Stating your opinion isn't proving someone wrong btw. We are exchanging views here but I don't for a second think I've proven anything. If I've made you stop and think, that's enough for me. You've done that for me b/c I'll look into that Madrid Hotel fire now.
Cheers
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stav
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 103
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: bullsh*t jp... |
|
|
where is your evidence ofa hole 20 floors high, pics, video, video of firefighters saying so. where is the link.
were the top 20 floors missing, or a hole in the roof perhaps, smoke from what was in the way of the building? building 7 was occupied by mayor guiliani in his bunker throughout the collape, which was in the top 3rd of the building, as stated by himself and by the video released from inside building 7 which shows the towers collape. so when did this big hole magically appear.
madrid building was not made lower parts concrete, upper steel. if it was prove it show us the links which brought you to this conclusion.
i have posted my links, which back up my evidence.
_________________
open you eyes and see the truth for yourself!
Why the lies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mooter
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Silverstein speaks of his and the firechief's realisation that the building couldn't be saved. The firefighting effort was futile so it was pulled. He refers to the operation when he says pull it, meaning pull the firefighters out. They had already seen that the building was not structurally sound, so to prevent any injuries when it collapsed, they pulled out.
Pull it as a demolition term means to literally pull the building down, using chains, ropes, cables etc. It has no meaning in the world of explosive demolition. Larry Silverstein was a property developer, not a property demolisher.
|
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Section 5.6.1 States with regard to WTC7
"Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
For more research into Silversteins comments see:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html
_________________
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887
"Head to head,
chest to chest.
Which country is the very best?
and in the land of rape and honey,
you prey" Al Jourgensen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JP, I looked into the Madrid building fire you mentioned but it seems it's a better example for my point of view, at least that's what it has been used for since it's an example of a high rise that was virtually gutted in a fire that burned for many hours yet the steel columns withstood it all, as WTC 1,2 & 7 should have.
Perhaps it's the worng building? If so, provide a link please.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: |
I would find this explanation more convincing if I hadn't seen the video several times. Silverstein specifically states, "... pull it." more than once. Had he said "pull out" I would be more inclined to accept your suggestion. I don't think it's a stretch for Silverstein to use the term 'pull it' in a demolitions context. Hell, having heard the term now myself, I'd use it if I ever had to tell someone to demolish a building. |
Why in the world would he admit to such a thing on TV? Do you honestly think he would be so stupid?
If he was refering to the operation, then he would say pull it, it being the the attempt to save the building.
| Quote: | | Perhaps they did, I just hadn't heard it in the interviews I saw or read about. You wouldn't have a link, would you? |
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn�t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good."
"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
| Quote: |
Heh, are you sure about that, son? I would think there wouldn't be much work for controlled demolitions experts if this was the case. If there weren't other ways for a building to come down, you'd think people would just go set fires in the basements of those old buildings they don't want any more. Let physics do the rest, right? Sorry poke you, but you're out on a bit of a limb here. |
Controlled demolition stops parts of the buildings falling outwards, by collapsing the inside of the building so the outer sections fall into the middle, and the whole thing is contained, not to stop the building from toppling over like a domino.
| Quote: |
Can you provide some links to buildings whose steel cores have weakened and/or melted due to fires causing the buildings to come down? And no, WTC 1, 2 or 7 are not acceptable. I'll look up the madrid hotel fire - what year would that have been? |
Hotel fire:
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire /CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/
Fires don't tend to make buildings collapse all that often because fire fighters put the fires out, and because they don't often get hit by jet airliners.
| Quote: | | Well, perhaps they don't all have the answers at a snap of the fingers as you seem to. You are the answer man here, obviously. I don't know how you know this stuff with so much certainty. I'm much less certain of things. But then I'm a born skeptic, I even scrutinize my own conclusions. |
Maybe they don't have answers in front of them, but why instead do they resort to name calling, questioning my degree, motives and identity instead of going to find those answers?
| Quote: | Stating your opinion isn't proving someone wrong btw. We are exchanging views here but I don't for a second think I've proven anything. If I've made you stop and think, that's enough for me. You've done that for me b/c I'll look into that Madrid Hotel fire now.
|
This isn't my opinion, this is fact. It's not my opinion that there was a hole in WTC 7, its a documented fact, as well as the fact that firefighters tried to measure how much WTC 7 had moved, but instead found that it was still moving. The Windsor hotel fire caused the steel structure to collapse, that's not my opinion, that's documented fact.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | JP, I looked into the Madrid building fire you mentioned but it seems it's a better example for my point of view, at least that's what it has been used for since it's an example of a high rise that was virtually gutted in a fire that burned for many hours yet the steel columns withstood it all, as WTC 1,2 & 7 should have.
Perhaps it's the worng building? If so, provide a link please. |
No, that's the right building. The steel framed portion at the top collapsed, the concrete section below survived.
"The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor."
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
And this building wasn't hit by aircraft either. It was purely the heat of the fire that weakend the steel, yet the "truth" movement will insist that building fires cannot weaken steel.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Why in the world would he admit to such a thing on TV? Do you honestly think he would be so stupid? |
I honestly have no idea how intelligent Silverstein is, but it's irrelevent. I've known a number of very smart people to say or do very stupid things, particularly if they are put on the spot. So, I guess, yes, he may well have said something stupid that he later regreted /shrug.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
If he was refering to the operation, then he would say pull it, it being the the attempt to save the building. |
Meh, maybe... though to me that sounds more of a stretch than, "pull it" to bring down a building.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
| Quote: | | Perhaps they did, I just hadn't heard it in the interviews I saw or read about. You wouldn't have a link, would you? |
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn�t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good."
"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html |
Ok, I'll concede this point for now. I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony. I could find no pictures of the south side of WTC7 at all and other articles just say the damage was slight but they don't provide any testimony.
It still doesn't answer why the building would have collapsed at all nor why it collapsed so uniformly when it did.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Controlled demolition stops parts of the buildings falling outwards, by collapsing the inside of the building so the outer sections fall into the middle, and the whole thing is contained, not to stop the building from toppling over like a domino. |
I thought you said that there was only one way for a building to fall? Now, you're saying they can fall outwards. Okay, why did WTC7 NOT fall outwards if their was a huge hole on the south side yet the north side looks virtually untouched in all the videos?
This fire strengthens my point that fire should not have brought down any of the WTC buildings because it shows how fierce and how long a modern building must burn for it's core structure to be significantly affected. The madrid fire burned for 5 hours (according to these sites) before any collapse took place and even then it was only the outer floor slabs in the upper portion of the building. After 14.5 hours of burning, the building completely gutted, the core columns still stood even in this upper portion. I have seen videos of this fire and it was burning extremely well, emitting white-hot flames. Nothing at all like we saw with any of the WTC buildings.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Maybe they don't have answers in front of them, but why instead do they resort to name calling, questioning my degree, motives and identity instead of going to find those answers? |
They say the same about you but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for your accusations. I haven't seen it from either side, nor do I want to. I frankly can't be bothered to read the threads that degenerate into that sort of childishness.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
This isn't my opinion, this is fact. It's not my opinion that there was a hole in WTC 7, its a documented fact, as well as the fact that firefighters tried to measure how much WTC 7 had moved, but instead found that it was still moving. The Windsor hotel fire caused the steel structure to collapse, that's not my opinion, that's documented fact. |
Oh please, it's not at all conclusive nor accepted what the significance is of these and many other "facts". That is where the opinions come in, the interpretation of the facts. Are you that arrogant that you think your interpretation is always right? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | JP, I looked into the Madrid building fire you mentioned but it seems it's a better example for my point of view, at least that's what it has been used for since it's an example of a high rise that was virtually gutted in a fire that burned for many hours yet the steel columns withstood it all, as WTC 1,2 & 7 should have.
Perhaps it's the worng building? If so, provide a link please. |
No, that's the right building. The steel framed portion at the top collapsed, the concrete section below survived.
"The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor."
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
And this building wasn't hit by aircraft either. It was purely the heat of the fire that weakend the steel, yet the "truth" movement will insist that building fires cannot weaken steel. |
Who said that fire can't weaken steel? This is a dishonest representation of our argument. We HAVE said we don't believe that the WTC fires burned long or hot enough to significantly weaken the steel columns of the buildings, certainly not to the point of collapse.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Why in the world would he admit to such a thing on TV? Do you honestly think he would be so stupid? |
I honestly have no idea how intelligent Silverstein is, but it's irrelevent. I've known a number of very smart people to say or do very stupid things, particularly if they are put on the spot. So, I guess, yes, he may well have said something stupid that he later regreted /shrug. |
But this isn't a minor thing. This is admitting to being part of the murder of 3000 people. He wasn't on the spot either. It was a TV interview, and this is a guy who deals with billion dollar transactions. Doesn't strike me as the sort of person to make a massive slip up like that.
| Quote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
If he was refering to the operation, then he would say pull it, it being the the attempt to save the building. |
Meh, maybe... though to me that sounds more of a stretch than, "pull it" to bring down a building. |
But still, "pull it" doesn't mean to explode a building, it means to oull it down, so he wouldn't have used it even if he was telling them to demolish it.
| Quote: | | I thought you said that there was only one way for a building to fall? Now, you're saying they can fall outwards. Okay, why did WTC7 NOT fall outwards if their was a huge hole on the south side yet the north side looks virtually untouched in all the videos? |
I said tall buildings don't topple over, but they can fall to pieces. Controlled demolition is used to drop a building into itself to prevent the debris from hitting surrounding buildings. The WTC did fall outwards. The rubble damaged surrounding buildings as it fell. It just was never going to topple over and hit something.
| Quote: | | This fire strengthens my point that fire should not have brought down any of the WTC buildings because it shows how fierce and how long a modern building must burn for it's core structure to be significantly affected. The madrid fire burned for 5 hours (according to these sites) before any collapse took place and even then it was only the outer floor slabs in the upper portion of the building. After 14.5 hours of burning, the building completely gutted, the core columns still stood even in this upper portion. I have seen videos of this fire and it was burning extremely well, emitting white-hot flames. Nothing at all like we saw with any of the WTC buildings. |
The building also wasn't hit by a jet plane. That goes quite a way towards explaining why it fell quicker. The upper portion also contained concrete. That's the part that didn't fall.
| Quote: |
Oh please, it's not at all conclusive nor accepted what the significance is of these and many other "facts". That is where the opinions come in, the interpretation of the facts. Are you that arrogant that you think your interpretation is always right? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? |
I'm not offering any interpretations. There was a hole in WTC 7. I'm not interpreting anything to reach that. There was a hole. The building was on fire, that needs no interpretation, the were flames in the building. The Windsor building caught fire and partially collapsed, that's not an interpretation of the events, that is just the facts.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: |
Who said that fire can't weaken steel? This is a dishonest representation of our argument. We HAVE said we don't believe that the WTC fires burned long or hot enough to significantly weaken the steel columns of the buildings, certainly not to the point of collapse. |
Are you saying that the truth movement never claims that a fire has never caused a steel framed building to collapse?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: |
I honestly have no idea how intelligent Silverstein is, but it's irrelevent. I've known a number of very smart people to say or do very stupid things, particularly if they are put on the spot. So, I guess, yes, he may well have said something stupid that he later regreted /shrug. |
But this isn't a minor thing. This is admitting to being part of the murder of 3000 people. He wasn't on the spot either. It was a TV interview, and this is a guy who deals with billion dollar transactions. Doesn't strike me as the sort of person to make a massive slip up like that. |
Bush deals in trillions of dollars and he makes fairly significant slip ups all the time. Perhaps Silverstein realized how obvious it was that it was a controlled demolition and that he couldn't pretend it wasn't and so tried to be nonchalant about it? Maybe he wasn't brought up to speed yet on what the cover story was? Who knows? I can come up with as many plausible scenarios as to why he might say it as you can come up with as to why he won't. At the end of the day, it's just conjecture, more opinions. Why not settle it and all other questions about 911 by having a full, transparent investigation?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
But still, "pull it" doesn't mean to explode a building, it means to oull it down, so he wouldn't have used it even if he was telling them to demolish it. |
Since when do controlled demolitions involve pulling down a building? The term 'pull it' is a term used by controlled demolition experts and what we have been talking about throughout this thread. Why are you now changing the meaning of the term?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
| Quote: | | I thought you said that there was only one way for a building to fall? Now, you're saying they can fall outwards. Okay, why did WTC7 NOT fall outwards if their was a huge hole on the south side yet the north side looks virtually untouched in all the videos? |
I said tall buildings don't topple over, but they can fall to pieces. Controlled demolition is used to drop a building into itself to prevent the debris from hitting surrounding buildings. The WTC did fall outwards. The rubble damaged surrounding buildings as it fell. It just was never going to topple over and hit something. |
Where did anyone here say they would expect the buildings to simply topple over? You are a great talent at deflecting the path of the discussion off it's original course. No one said they expected the buildings to act like dominos. They did say that the buildings falling neatly into their own footprints is suspicious. All 3 WTC buildings couldn't have collapsed much neater than they did. That's were the argument lies. You think the WTCs did fall outwards as expected. We think it's suspicious the WTCs didn't fall outwards much more than they did. Why do you continually exagerrate what is being said?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
| Quote: | | This fire strengthens my point that fire should not have brought down any of the WTC buildings because it shows how fierce and how long a modern building must burn for it's core structure to be significantly affected. The madrid fire burned for 5 hours (according to these sites) before any collapse took place and even then it was only the outer floor slabs in the upper portion of the building. After 14.5 hours of burning, the building completely gutted, the core columns still stood even in this upper portion. I have seen videos of this fire and it was burning extremely well, emitting white-hot flames. Nothing at all like we saw with any of the WTC buildings. |
The building also wasn't hit by a jet plane. That goes quite a way towards explaining why it fell quicker. The upper portion also contained concrete. That's the part that didn't fall. |
I don't think a jet hitting the buildings goes far at all to explaining why any of the WTCs fell. WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane and the other 2 were hit very high up, yet collapsed to the ground. All 3 did not burn very vigorously. Thick dark smoke billows from WTC1&2 indicating poorly burning fires at relatively low temperatures. What smoke came from WTC7 was also indicative of a poorly burning fire. All 3 exhibited areas where the fires had burnt themselves out. People can be seen standing in the holes created by the plane hit on WTC2, for chrissake. The fires in the WTCs were nothing compared to the fire in the Madrid hotel. Anyone can see that from the videos.
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
| Quote: |
Oh please, it's not at all conclusive nor accepted what the significance is of these and many other "facts". That is where the opinions come in, the interpretation of the facts. Are you that arrogant that you think your interpretation is always right? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? |
I'm not offering any interpretations. There was a hole in WTC 7. I'm not interpreting anything to reach that. There was a hole. The building was on fire, that needs no interpretation, the were flames in the building. The Windsor building caught fire and partially collapsed, that's not an interpretation of the events, that is just the facts. |
Don't be ridiculous. Of course you are interpreting the significance of these facts. You are linking the fact that there was fire in WTC7 to the fact that it collapsed completely. That is an interpretation of the facts. I say that the fact of the fire in WTC7 does not adequetly explain the fact that WTC7 collapsed. That's also an interpretation. I can't believe you are stooping to this sort of ignorant semantic mulishness. Can't you even admit that you have an opinion?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: |
Bush deals in trillions of dollars and he makes fairly significant slip ups all the time. Perhaps Silverstein realized how obvious it was that it was a controlled demolition and that he couldn't pretend it wasn't and so tried to be nonchalant about it? Maybe he wasn't brought up to speed yet on what the cover story was? Who knows? I can come up with as many plausible scenarios as to why he might say it as you can come up with as to why he won't. At the end of the day, it's just conjecture, more opinions. Why not settle it and all other questions about 911 by having a full, transparent investigation? |
So you want an investigation to ask Silverstein what he meant? Someone already did. He said he meant pull the operation.
| Quote: |
Since when do controlled demolitions involve pulling down a building? The term 'pull it' is a term used by controlled demolition experts and what we have been talking about throughout this thread. Why are you now changing the meaning of the term?
|
No, the term "pull it" is NOT used by explosive demolition experts. IT is used in demolition to describe physically pulling a building down. WTC 6 was pulled. It was physically pulled down, not demolished with explosives. I didn't change the meaning of the term. It is the conspiracy theorists who have tried to change the meaning to implicate Larry.
| Quote: |
Where did anyone here say they would expect the buildings to simply topple over? You are a great talent at deflecting the path of the discussion off it's original course. No one said they expected the buildings to act like dominos. They did say that the buildings falling neatly into their own footprints is suspicious. All 3 WTC buildings couldn't have collapsed much neater than they did. That's were the argument lies. You think the WTCs did fall outwards as expected. We think it's suspicious the WTCs didn't fall outwards much more than they did. Why do you continually exagerrate what is being said? |
None of the 3 buildings fell neatly into their own foot prints thought. How can you claim they fell neatly in their own foot print, when WTC 5 & 6 have debris from the towers inside them? Unless those buildings are inside the footprint of the towers? How do WTC 3 & 4 have debris on their roofs if the towers fell in their own footprints? How do you explain the fact that? In fact, lets check how many of the buildings in the WTC complex were hit by debris:
WTC 3 - Hit by Debris - Destroyed
WTC 4 - Hit by Debris - Destroyed
WTC 5 - Hit by Debris - Destroyed
WTC 6 - Hit by Debris - Destroyed
WTC 7 - Hit by Debris - Destroyed
If the towers fell in their own foot prints, how did debris manage to destroy every other building in the complex?
take a look:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_Site_After_ 9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg
| Quote: |
I don't think a jet hitting the buildings goes far at all to explaining why any of the WTCs fell. |
Well apart from the fact that the plane destroyed a number of structural supports, the supports that hold the buildings up, no, I can't see why that would explain the collapse. And apart from the fact that an empty 767 weighs 80 tonnes, and building floors are designed to hold a finite amount of weight, then no, I can't see what effect a plane could have.
| Quote: | | WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane and the other 2 were hit very high up, yet collapsed to the ground. All 3 did not burn very vigorously. Thick dark smoke billows from WTC1&2 indicating poorly burning fires at relatively low temperatures. |
No, black smoke comes from burning hydrocarbons, like plastic, paper, wood, all things you find in an office building. The NYPD helicopter reported the inside of the building glowing, shortly before it collapsed.
| Quote: | | What smoke came from WTC7 was also indicative of a poorly burning fire. All 3 exhibited areas where the fires had burnt themselves out. People can be seen standing in the holes created by the plane hit on WTC2, for chrissake. The fires in the WTCs were nothing compared to the fire in the Madrid hotel. Anyone can see that from the videos. |
The smoke that came from WTC7 completely obscured the south face. There were fires spread across multiple floors, and there were diesel fuel tanks in the building, which burns with a dark smoke. People can be seen standing in the holes, but I don't think you quite understand the scale of the WTC. Have you noticed that "truth sites" never show you the full version of that picture of the woman standing in the hole?
Are you telling me this isn't a big fire?
Why do you think she's standing in the hole, and not trying to escape down the stairs? After all, it's not hot in there, and there's not too much smoke because its only a small fire.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
