| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What did the first WTC7 enquiry (the one famously called a "half baked farce" by the NY fire official) conclude after much time and expense? Did they comment on the "20 storey hole"? |
Which do you believe - the NY fire official or the report?
You need to answer that first, otherwise you've created a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What did the first WTC7 enquiry (the one famously called a "half baked farce" by the NY fire official) conclude after much time and expense? Did they comment on the "20 storey hole"? |
Which do you believe - the NY fire official or the report?
You need to answer that first, otherwise you've created a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition |
Any chance of you answering the question did the first 'half baked farce' WTC7enquiry comment on the "20 floor twin tower debris impact hole" YES OR NO?[i] it would have been pretty hard to miss IMO.
Stop deflecting start answering! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Any chance of you answering the question did the first 'half baked farce' WTC7enquiry comment on the "20 floor twin tower debris impact hole" YES OR NO?[i] it would have been pretty hard to miss IMO.
Stop deflecting start answering! |
OK. I'll play nicely if you will ...
Did you even read what Manning said or did you just cherry pick the "half-baked farce" comment from 911research? Here is a large part of it.:
"FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse
Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002 - Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "Selling Out the Investigation" (below ), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."
In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.
Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
.....
Selling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it.
Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. "
(my bolding)
It's clear to me that his concerns are not to do with a conspiracy being covered up, but failing to learn vital lessons about building safety. And there I would totally agree with him. Perhaps we should note that subsequent NIST and FEMA reports are much more rigorous.
Perhaps you view his comments differently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What did the first WTC7 enquiry (the one famously called a "half baked farce" by the NY fire official) conclude after much time and expense? Did they comment on the "20 storey hole"? |
Which do you believe - the NY fire official or the report?
You need to answer that first, otherwise you've created a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition |
Bill Manning, it should be noted, was expressing concern about getting to the root cause of the collapse, not because he suspected foul play but because he wanted to be sure that his firefighters would be safe entering burning buildings in the future.
Here's a quote from the "half baked farce" article:
| Quote: | | However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory. |
As you can see, Manning was worried about fireproofing, not bombs.
It also seems that he was unaware of the NIST investigation that had just barely gotten underway, as the article was in response to the cursory investigation performed by FEMA. The article was printed less than four months after 9/11. As you know, the final NIST report on the Twin Towers was not completed until October 2005, and the WTC7 investigation is still underway.
edit: It seems we're on the same page, Ignatz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes yes blah blah , whatever the author of the 'half baked farce' title for the initial enquiry meant, there remains the little matter of the "20 floor gaping hole from flying twin tower collapse debris" if true quite a pregnant elephant in the room I think you'll all agree, did the initial WTC7 collapse enquiry (the HBF)investigate whether this chasm could have affected an almost symetrical controlled demolition style collapse seven hours after the second tower collapsed YES OR NO? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Yes yes blah blah , whatever the author of the 'half baked farce' title for the initial enquiry meant, there remains the little matter of the "20 floor gaping hole from flying twin tower collapse debris" if true quite a pregnant elephant in the room I think you'll all agree, did the initial WTC7 collapse enquiry (the HBF)investigate whether this chasm could have affected an almost symetrical controlled demolition style collapse seven hours after the second tower collapsed YES OR NO? |
Based on the information they had at the time (the first 3-4 months after 9/11):
| Quote: | According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the
collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor façade occurred at the southwest corner. According to
firefighters’ eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to
some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation. |
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
At the time, they did not consider the south side damage to have played a significant role in the collapse.
I encourage you to read the report, limited as the investigation was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read what you are saying and think about it. A 20-story gap (if we even accept that as fact, which much other testimony by witnesses refutes) in one side of WTC7 causing a uniform near-freefall collapse simply does not make sense. It's obvious that the official report has put lipstick on a pig and, indeed, it's the insistence on this ridiculous explanation for the collapse is one of the main reasons for suspicion in the entire official theory.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Read what you are saying and think about it. A 20-story gap (if we even accept that as fact, which much other testimony by witnesses refutes) in one side of WTC7 causing a uniform near-freefall collapse simply does not make sense. It's obvious that the official report has put lipstick on a pig and, indeed, it's the insistence on this ridiculous explanation for the collapse is one of the main reasons for suspicion in the entire official theory. |
Sorry, do you have an advance copy of the final NIST report on WTC7? I was under the impression it wasn't due out until early next year. Every official explanation for WTC7's collapse currently published is preliminary or interim, and doesn't claim to be otherwise. Still, it's worth looking at them. Here's NIST's interim report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20F inal.pdf
Pay close attention to the unique truss system and cantilevered structures above the ConEd substation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look it's quite simple, did the initial WTC7 enquiry comment on the '20 floor chasm gouged out by twin tower falling debris' which would have been, by my calculations, more than a third and nealy a half of the entire building's height pretty flippin' hard to miss oui o non?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Look it's quite simple, did the initial WTC7 enquiry comment on the '20 floor chasm gouged out by twin tower falling debris' which would have been, by my calculations, more than a third and nealy a half of the entire building's height pretty flippin' hard to miss oui o non? |
As posted above, this is how FEMA commented on the south side damage in their cursory investigation:
| Quote: | According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the
collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor façade occurred at the southwest corner. According to
firefighters’ eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to
some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the answer is NO then, this is just too absurd, a twenty (not ten) floor hole/tunnel through the lower centre of WTC7 could be seen by a blindman! That independent observer from 'Poular Mechanics' magazine assured us on Arizona radio that he had seen classified photographs of this alleged hole, make of that what you will, we still await his 'recovered terrorist DNA from the WTC rubble forensic evidence.
My understanding is that the initial WTC7 enquiry, after much time and expense, came to the conclusion...they didn't know what caused WTC7 to collapse controlled demolition style. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | So the answer is NO then, this is just too absurd, a twenty (not ten) floor hole/tunnel through the lower centre of WTC7 could be seen by a blindman! That independent observer from 'Poular Mechanics' magazine assured us on Arizona radio that he had seen classified photographs of this alleged hole, make of that what you will, we still await his 'recovered terrorist DNA from the WTC rubble forensic evidence.
My understanding is that the initial WTC7 enquiry, after much time and expense, came to the conclusion...they didn't know what caused WTC7 to collapse controlled demolition style. |
There weren't many people on the south side of the building after 1&2 collapsed...for obvious reasons.
And with all the smoke pouring out of the south side, damage assessment was not as straightforward as it might have been.
Less than four months is not much time for an investigation like this. They concluded that further investigation was required. And further investigation is presently underway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Any chance of you answering the question did the first 'half baked farce' WTC7enquiry comment on the "20 floor twin tower debris impact hole" YES OR NO? it would have been pretty hard to miss IMO.
|
Er, who would be there to see it? The S side of WTC7 faced GZ. The entire area was thick with smoke, dust and debris. Firefighting activity would naturally concentrate on the N side of the building, for safer and easier access. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you always believe everything you read without thinking about whether it makes sense? I guess not, if it refutes your predetermined opinions. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, considering the motives behind the words and decide for myself how much sense it makes. That INCLUDES evidence that may be contrary to what I initially thought about a subject, which sometimes puts me at odds with others in the Truth Movement. A uniform freefall collapse caused by a non-uniform gap in one side of the building simply does not make sense no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | A uniform freefall collapse caused by a non-uniform gap in one side of the building simply does not make sense no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig. |
I suggest you read the reports again--you might want to put on your reading glasses this time. Neither the initial nor the present working hypothesis states that the collapse was initiated by a large gap in the south side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I apologize chipmunk. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.
I have seen the NIST report. I find it incredible that these trusses could fail by accident in such a way as to so closely mimic a classic controlled demolition collapse. What are the odds? Or maybe controlled demolition is a lot easierr than it looks?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | I apologize chipmunk. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.
I have seen the NIST report. I find it incredible that these trusses could fail by accident in such a way as to so closely mimic a classic controlled demolition collapse. What are the odds? Or maybe controlled demolition is a lot easierr than it looks? |
MM - seems to me that what does look like a classic CD is the global catastrophic collapse that comes at the end of the whole collapse sequence.
Several seconds before that the first penthouse falls into the building, so something serious is going on inside that's not externally visible. The beginning of a CD sequence? In any event it's an unusual collapse that goes like this:
a) They start blowing that side at a high level, the E penthouse falls in, then the rest of the CD is well synchronised. But, no external signs of explosions up there? In plain view of the TV cameras? Unusually Incompetent and Well-Hidden CD.
or
b) They start on the E side first, at a low level, through incompetence or accident. This causes a primarily vertical internal collapse that first shows at the E Penthouse. Now this is technically plausible (given the construction of WTC7), except that none of the many firecrews in the area report explosions or flashes near ground level. Unusualy Peaceful CD
or
c) The firemen were right. They expected it to fall. They got the hell to a safe distance much earlier. They reported no CD explosions or flashes. It fell.
or
d) <fill in other theories here and below>
regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | I apologize chipmunk. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.
I have seen the NIST report. I find it incredible that these trusses could fail by accident in such a way as to so closely mimic a classic controlled demolition collapse. What are the odds? Or maybe controlled demolition is a lot easierr than it looks? |
Demolition is easy. It's the control that's hard.
Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway) was badly damaged by the WTC7 collapse, and had to be demolished.
(Also seen in the bottom of this picture):
The collapse listed to the south, spreading clear across Vesey Street and further damaging WTC6.
It's also hard, near impossible really, to perform a planned demolition of an occupied building undetected, or in a burning building within a matter of hours.
It's also an absurdly counterproductive activity if you're planning a conspiracy to commit a major act of terror against your own people and trying to minimize your chances of being caught. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | I apologize chipmunk. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.
I have seen the NIST report. I find it incredible that these trusses could fail by accident in such a way as to so closely mimic a classic controlled demolition collapse. What are the odds? Or maybe controlled demolition is a lot easierr than it looks? |
MM - seems to me that what does look like a classic CD is the global catastrophic collapse that comes at the end of the whole collapse sequence.
Several seconds before that the first penthouse falls into the building, so something serious is going on inside that's not externally visible. The beginning of a CD sequence? In any event it's an unusual collapse that goes like this:
a) They start blowing that side at a high level, the E penthouse falls in, then the rest of the CD is well synchronised. But, no external signs of explosions up there? In plain view of the TV cameras? Unusually Incompetent and Well-Hidden CD.
or
b) They start on the E side first, at a low level, through incompetence or accident. This causes a primarily vertical internal collapse that first shows at the E Penthouse. Now this is technically plausible (given the construction of WTC7), except that none of the many firecrews in the area report explosions or flashes near ground level. Unusualy Peaceful CD
or
c) The firemen were right. They expected it to fall. They got the hell to a safe distance much earlier. They reported no CD explosions or flashes. It fell.
or
d) <fill in other theories here and below>
regards |
Do you have a link showing that the penthouse collapsed several seconds before the rest of the collapse? I see an initial dropping of a portion of the rooftop which happens a fraction of a second prior to the global collapse. Others have suggested this is typical of CD where inner load bearing columns are taken out to trigger an implosion.
I honestly wish it were c) but it doesn't fit the evidence IMO. That no one reported explosions isn't that surprising considering everyone was cleared prior to the collapse and presumably kept a fair distance away, unlike the WTC towers where people were still inside the towers or nearby just prior to them coming down. The majority of witnesses reporting explosions were inside the towers. I'm not saying this indicates there were explosives in WTC7 but that no one reported them certainly doesn't indicate there were no explosives.
I think a better suggestion for d) would be just to hold a more in-depth investigation of 911 that would help us answer these questions.
_________________
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: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | The collapse listed to the south, spreading clear across Vesey Street and further damaging WTC6. |
The collapse didn't list to the south at all. Multiple angles of the collapse all show it going straight down.
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | It's also hard, near impossible really, to perform a planned demolition of an occupied building undetected, or in a burning building within a matter of hours. |
The latter was certainly impossible, and the former I freely admit, wouldn't have been easy, yet nothing else adequetly explains it.
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | It's also an absurdly counterproductive activity if you're planning a conspiracy to commit a major act of terror against your own people and trying to minimize your chances of being caught. |
Unless the conspiracists consider the collapses to be integral to that major act of terror. Would a couple of planes in buildings be enough? I suspect WTC7 was just a throw in by Silverstein. Perhaps it was the price of his complicity?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: |
Do you have a link showing that the penthouse collapsed several seconds before the rest of the collapse? I see an initial dropping of a portion of the rooftop which happens a fraction of a second prior to the global collapse. Others have suggested this is typical of CD where inner load bearing columns are taken out to trigger an implosion.
|
The film at
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
is fine
You can stop/start, second by second.
The E Penthouse goes at 21:11, which is the very first thing we see (It might already have started, it's impossible to tell afaics)
The W penthouse starts to go at 21:17, followed by global collapse at 21:19 (all rough times)
There is a CNN film that's clearer as I recall, but can't find it right now.
regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | The collapse listed to the south, spreading clear across Vesey Street and further damaging WTC6. |
The collapse didn't list to the south at all. Multiple angles of the collapse all show it going straight down. |
No. One angle (NW) makes it appear that way. These are from video taken from the NE:
| Quote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | It's also hard, near impossible really, to perform a planned demolition of an occupied building undetected, or in a burning building within a matter of hours. |
The latter was certainly impossible, and the former I freely admit, wouldn't have been easy, yet nothing else adequetly explains it. |
It would have been near impossible, and it doesn't even come close to adequately explaining it. Every piece of debris was painstakingly picked over and sorted:
http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2003/1337/t_cover.html
Not one shred of evidence of explosives. Not one eyewitness recalling suspicious activity in the building prior to 9/11.
No one at the site was surprised by WTC7's collapse. There's a reason they moved everyone back and created a collapse zone.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1922651&postcount=17
| Quote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | It's also an absurdly counterproductive activity if you're planning a conspiracy to commit a major act of terror against your own people and trying to minimize your chances of being caught. |
Unless the conspiracists consider the collapses to be integral to that major act of terror. Would a couple of planes in buildings be enough? I suspect WTC7 was just a throw in by Silverstein. Perhaps it was the price of his complicity? |
How much money did Silverstein make? Don't forget to factor in lost revenue from leases, rebuilding costs, and legal costs. Also explain why he was reluctant to purchase terrorism-related insurance and ended up opting for a plan with less coverage than he was advised to purchase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: |
Do you have a link showing that the penthouse collapsed several seconds before the rest of the collapse? I see an initial dropping of a portion of the rooftop which happens a fraction of a second prior to the global collapse. Others have suggested this is typical of CD where inner load bearing columns are taken out to trigger an implosion.
|
The film at
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
is fine
You can stop/start, second by second.
The E Penthouse goes at 21:11, which is the very first thing we see (It might already have started, it's impossible to tell afaics)
The W penthouse starts to go at 21:17, followed by global collapse at 21:19 (all rough times)
There is a CNN film that's clearer as I recall, but can't find it right now.
regards |
I hadn't seen the E penthouse (if that's what it was) collapse before, most videos start after that point. I'm not sure what it proves, though. It almost seems unrelated to the collapse that starts a few seconds later. Anyone know what/who leased or owned the East penthouse?
_________________
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: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | The collapse listed to the south, spreading clear across Vesey Street and further damaging WTC6. |
The collapse didn't list to the south at all. Multiple angles of the collapse all show it going straight down. |
No. One angle (NW) makes it appear that way. These are from video taken from the NE: |
Not much of a list, I'd say... you say tomato, I say tomatoe /shrug.
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Quote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | It's also hard, near impossible really, to perform a planned demolition of an occupied building undetected, or in a burning building within a matter of hours. |
The latter was certainly impossible, and the former I freely admit, wouldn't have been easy, yet nothing else adequetly explains it. |
It would have been near impossible, and it doesn't even come close to adequately explaining it. Every piece of debris was painstakingly picked over and sorted:
http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2003/1337/t_cover.html
Not one shred of evidence of explosives. |
This is a great article. These guys are more true heroes of that day that no one hears about. But as far as proving or disproving explosives, it's not terribly relevant. Were they specifically looking for explosives evidence? Doesn't appear so from this article. Would they have the training and knowledge to recognize explosives evidence? I suspect not, you'd want experts there for that. What about chemical and physical tests of the dust to look for traces? Also, I recall a video of guys doing this cleanup sorting, welders actually cutting the beams up, who remarked on apparant cutting/melting of the steel columns that they "had never ever seen anything like this before". Maybe it was even guys from P&J? I'll try to find the link, but it's been awhile. 
Uh, yeah, I know there is a reason - someone knew it was coming down, that doesn't mean it wasn't coming down b/c of explosives. Also, if you watch the video that Ignatz kindly provided in his reply to me, there were people surprised that it came down. There were, in fact, firefighters that were surprised it came down.
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Quote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | It's also an absurdly counterproductive activity if you're planning a conspiracy to commit a major act of terror against your own people and trying to minimize your chances of being caught. |
Unless the conspiracists consider the collapses to be integral to that major act of terror. Would a couple of planes in buildings be enough? I suspect WTC7 was just a throw in by Silverstein. Perhaps it was the price of his complicity? |
How much money did Silverstein make? Don't forget to factor in lost revenue from leases, rebuilding costs, and legal costs. Also explain why he was reluctant to purchase terrorism-related insurance and ended up opting for a plan with less coverage than he was advised to purchase. |
A better question is, how much money did Silverstein hope to make and how much money did he hope to save? He hoped to make $7 billion, which doesn't seem to be working out as well as he hoped. He saved a bundle when the towers went down according to a documentary i watched on PBS. He was looking at having to replace the asbestos insulation in the towers b/c of EPA standards. The insulation dates back to when they were built - we all know that this type of insulation was required to be phased out b/c of health concerns. This documentary btw was a proponent of the official collpase story. They also mentioned that many of the floors in the WTC buildings were empty mainly b/c the towers, though a tourist attraction, were becoming dated relative to other business towers in NY. They just weren't a preferred office space. Apparantly, the cost of renovating and getting the towers up to code would be hugely expensive. I imagine the cost of replacing the insulation alone would be almost worth demolishing and rebuilding. That was another point brought up in the documentary, come to think of it. A previous leaser had asked to demolish the towers so that he could rebuild and had been refused by the city, supposedly b/c they were a NYC attraction/monument.
I know. It's all unverified. But I will attempt to find it on the web - any help would be greatly appreciated.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | A better question is, how much money did Silverstein hope to make and how much money did he hope to save? ...... |
Which would require Silverstein - a businessman - to be in on the conspiracy. Why? Did they go and ask his permission to destroy his buildings and kill thousands of people? He sez "yeah that's fine as long as I can make a packet on the insurance"? Totally bizarre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what do critics make of the other comments in the PBS documentary in which larry silverstien makes his famous 'pull it' comment?
like 'seven had been cleared faster than the rest of the site'.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2484037394780475082&q=label% 3Aelection
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: |
I hadn't seen the E penthouse (if that's what it was) collapse before, most videos start after that point. I'm not sure what it proves, though. It almost seems unrelated to the collapse that starts a few seconds later. Anyone know what/who leased or owned the East penthouse? |
I don't know for sure, but I believe the "penthouses" were service structures. Lift gear or something rather than residences for playboys 
But what that collapse must surely prove is that whatever was holding it up previously, failed to hold it up at that point in time. I'd venture to say it's pretty hard to argue about that.
So we get back to a previous discussion - was there CD at a high level that caused this particular penthouse to go first, followed several seconds later by the rest of the building, or what .... and why???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I make of it :
"Pelted by debris when the N Tower collapsed" - worth bearing in mind when people claim it was not seriously damaged. Also check the photos on the subject
"Pull it..." - worth bearing in mind that this phrase does not mean 'execute a controlled demolition with explosives' in the demolition business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the only damage ive seen to wtc7 is one decent sized hole, so pelted with debris is an overstatement it looks more like a single big object hit it(unless you know of any pictures showing larger scale damage than the ones ive seen). although with wtc 1,2 turning to dust what caused the hole? (being serious does anyone know?) i can only imagine a steel section of wtc1 or 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | the only damage ive seen to wtc7 is one decent sized hole, so pelted with debris is an overstatement it looks more like a single big object hit it(unless you know of any pictures showing larger scale damage than the ones ive seen). although with wtc 1,2 turning to dust what caused the hole? (being serious does anyone know?) i can only imagine a steel section of wtc1 or 2. |
Well, in truth, pictures taken from the south of the impact area are naturally rare. That would be from the GZ direction and nobody would really want to be there. So the only significant photo I've seen is the one that's been on here a few times. Loads of smoke and a vague "hole like thing" in the S side of WTC7.
Plus the photos/film of WTC1 raining debris on WTC7, and the photos of the debris lying in the street along the side of WTC7.
To be honest Marky I'm basing my opinion on those classic photos, the seemingly huge amounts of smoke in other photos, and the testimony of the firefighters.
I can't see any other evidence available to help judge on the nature of the damage and fire.
On the other hand, the CT claims that there were "localised pockets of fire on a few floors" does seem (to me) very biased towards photographic evidence taken from the N side, which would naturally be the protected side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
