These are reasonable collapse scenarios for WTC7: Can anyone rebut?

[MervinFerd]

Rationally, I mean.
(And, yes, the NIST report is not final; that's irrelevant. Address the issues.)

The NIST --progress-- report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

The CounterPunch Article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Excerpt from CounterPunch:
All of the structural analysis done by FEMA and NIST points to a failure of Truss 1 or Truss 2 -- Truss 2 seems more likely to me -- as the initiating failure in WTC 7. The sequence is as follows:

-> thermal weakening of Truss 2 leads to its failure,

-> the loss of support low in the eastern interior propagates to the roof,

-> the weight (and dynamic force) of material falling onto the diaphragm based on Floor 5 tips this rigid layer of the building,

-> this causes failure of column joints to the diaphragm,

-> lack of vertical support through the diaphragm progresses up the interior of the building west of Truss 2 (and/or Truss 1),

-> the difference in collapse timing east and west of Truss 2 creates a vertical crack/crease/kink/fold/break through the building above Truss 2 (Column 80),

-> a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely,

-> since the building implodes, exterior walls falls in.

To sum up:

The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse.

One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon fuel.

An oil well fire under a loaded bridge.

[wildbilln864]

1. please!

"All of the structural analysis done by FEMA and NIST points to a failure of Truss 1 or Truss 2 -- Truss 2 seems more likely to me -- as the initiating failure in WTC 7. The sequence is as follows:"

What specific samples of building 7 have had structural analysis? Where are the documents of the analysis of any steel from WTC#7?
Aren't you just posting opinion founded on speculation?
You want opinion about opinion?


p.s.
There's another reasonable explanation for the collapse scenarios too. It's called deliberate controlled demolition!

[MervinFerd]

4. "Structural analysis" would mean finite element modeling of the "structure"

not chemical analysis of the steel.

You've also got the logic backward: The -only- argument for "deliberate controlled demolition" is that it is the ---ONLY--- possible collapse mechanism. These documents "dustify" that argument by providing a -very- plausible mechanism.

You have given no rational rebuttal.

[jberryhill]

9. An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

Where are the documents of the analysis of any steel from WTC#7?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

I have never seen anyone as flagrantly proud of their own ignorance.

[MervinFerd]

13. "flagrantly proud of their own ignorance"

I dunno. Seems to be a defining trait of the Truther.

[JackRiddler]

16. Funny you should mention that particular study...

There's a longer appendix on this to the FEMA study, though last I knew NIST said they had no steel from WTC 7 to examine (please correct that if they've revised it since).

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

MORE http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

[MervinFerd]

24. What's your explanation? and how does this relate to the plausibility...

of the collapse scenarios?

[petgoat]

17. flagrant ignorance

Wildbill was clearly talking about a structural analysis of the WTC7 steel,
and you whip out the WPI metallurgical analysis in a desperate try for a
"gotcha".

I'll suppose you guys are grandstanding for the newbies and lurkers.

[wildbilln864]

20. Merv's working on his reading skills I hope.

:shrug:

[MervinFerd]

23. "structural analysis ... points to a failure of Truss 1 or Truss 2 "

Chemical or microstructural analysis would not "point" to the failure of a particular truss. Unless that particular truss were identified in the pile of debris.

Computer modeling of the entire structure would help identify which members failed.

Flagrant Ignorance.

[The Lone Groover]

25. The nice thing about...

Computer modeling of the entire structure would help identify which members failed.

...Computer modeling is that is that if you feed shit in you get shit out.

WTC1 and 2 modelling was a sham, why should WTC7 be any different?

[wildbilln864]

27. Precisely!

Oh the flagrant ignorance of the Bush/PNAC CT defenders is so amusing.
If the gubment said it, it must be true! Bwahahaha! :rofl:

[MervinFerd]

34. "WTC1 and 2 modelling was a sham": Really? And your opinions is based on?

What?

You've studied the actual computer models carefully? Done your own models?

Didn't think so.

You are just making an ignorant statement.

[The Lone Groover]

63. They were a sham...

...you know it.

Its been discussed here over and over.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. And your opinion is based on? n/t

[petgoat]

65. Based on the NIST report.

NIST's initial computer simulations failed to produce a collapse, so
they upped the parameters to get. They increased the plane's speed,
took out more core columns, adjusted temperatures, etc.

NIST truncated its model in space and time. It did not address floors
outside the collapse zone and it did not extend beyond collapse initiation.
It assumed what it purported to prove--that collapse initiation equals
total progressive collapse.

The recent thread that shows that the top of WTC2 did in fact fall onto
WTC4 (near 1 Liberty Plaza) shows the error of leaving complete modeling
of the collapse out. If the top fell off as the law of the conservation
of angular momentum suggests it should have, how did it bring down the
lower 60 stories of the tower?

[The Lone Groover]

67. My opinion...

...what petgoat said.

But you knew that anyway.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. I knew that you needed petgoat to come along and give you your opinion?

OK.

[The Lone Groover]

224. I told you it had been discussed before (over and over).

Did you really need it?
Nah.. course you didn't.

[jberryhill]

134. Chicken Wire Don't Lie

I'm with you on this one, bro'

[petgoat]

228. Deliberately False Framing Lies. There was no chicken wire. nt

[petgoat]

26. You're obscuring the point, Mel.

Wildbill's question has not been answered.

And you're repeating the "flagrant ignorance" meme as if it
were valid, when it's not.

[wildbilln864]

29. typical Bush/PNAC CT defender protocol...

IMHO! :hi:

[wildbilln864]

32. and by the way....

thanks petgoat! :yourock:

[MervinFerd]

36. What point is that? --My-- question has not been addressed.

But, if you mean "which WTC7 beams have been chemically or microstructurally analyzed", I'm sure I don't know and don't much care.

There -were- investigations by people who actually knew what they were doing. If there was need of analysis, it was carried out.

And, no, there were probably not analyses for Thermite. Or for Romulan Disruptor Cannon residue, either. Idiots don't always get what they want.

[jberryhill]

53. No, he asked two questions...

One of the questions was:

Where are the documents of the analysis of any steel from WTC#7?

How does one "structurally" analyze "any steel from WTC#7?

There were two questions there. I addressed one, since he seemed not to know that there are such analyses. Willfully pretending there are none is not honest.

[wildbilln864]

2. And hey...

please go sign that petition Merv!?

[mmmlink]

3. I can rebut...

The core (the white parts on page 10 between truss 2 and truss 3), NIST ignored it on WTC1 and WTC2, why not ignore it on WTC7 as well.

[MervinFerd]

5. That makes no sense at all. What are you talking about?

No rebuttal here, either.

[mmmlink]

18. In order for truss 1 and truss 2 to fail

and pull down the entire WTC7 building, they have to go through a framework that supported the elevators and central portion of the building. But since NIST doesn't bother to bring up this fact, I have to be wrong. But it would be nice to have someone produce the blueprints and prove me wrong that way instead.

[MervinFerd]

28. If you will just please read the reports in the OP...

and this report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

there are explanations of several possible failure scenarios. Some of these do not result in collapse; some result in a different collapse than what was observed; some are plausible explanations.

The people doing these studies are not idiots.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. From your own link, they still didn't know what caused WTC 7 to come down.

This was almost 2 years ago, and there is still no final report.

L.3.6 Technical Approach for Analysis of the Working Collapse Hypothesis
There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

And with thanks to quicknthedead
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x145818
Mar-03-07 12:28 AM
6. Read this report about WTC7 & NIST's erroneous position.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701 /
Small wonder then that the head of the WTC project for NIST, Dr Shyam Sunder, stated in a March 2006 New York Magazine interview, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7".

[MervinFerd]

44. Quite a strange coverup, then. They are -unsure- of the exact beam and...

the exact reasons that beam failed. They -are- sure that one of several causes are candidates. They are -very- sure that bombs were not necessary.

This is how rational and mature people approach problems.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. And where does it say that in their appendix. Please either give the

number or if you can, copy and paste. I didn't see it.

[mmmlink]

43. Lets look at them...

In the NIST report page 11 (7th floor built up columns), the picture is shown 180 degrees out of context, i.e. if you take the red circle columns and turn them around 180 degrees, they match up with the picture. A pretty amateurish mistake.

In the second source (which uses the similar graphics from the NIST report), page L-49, Figure L-47, we see truss #2 attached to the frame that makes up the core for the elevators. It needs to pull the braced frame (page 10 of the NIST report) Notice there doesn't appear to be any direct connection from column 77 to 74, 71, 68 or 65. But in fig. L-13, there does appear to be a connection, but then we have to assume it is pulling an 8" formed slab which also appears over the elevator core frame. In Figure L-49 and description H2.7, we are told of failure of truss #2 pulling the columns 74, 71, and 68 until failure occurs. This looks plausible in 2D, but not in 3D (if they had provided a 3D picture) because it would need to pull in the frame reinforced beams connected to 74, 71, 68 namely 75,73; 72,70; 69,67; etc. (again page 10 of the NIST report).

Plus, if we are to believe the failure of truss #1 is one of the main causes of collapse pulling beams 73, 70, 67, and 64 from figure L-48, then it must also pull the eight cantilever transfer girders (columns 47-54 figure L-18 or page 10 of the NIST report) weighing approximately 52 tons each (if you want to include the FEMA report Chap 5).

[MervinFerd]

48. Perhaps you should write to the Principal Investigator and explain ...

the mistake.

These people are -not- amateurs. The diagrams in the pub may, possibly be backwards or in error. That happens. Doesn't mean the actual analysis is backward--computer models would not work at all if the input data is not correct.

It is also possible that "mmmlink" doesn't fully understand the diagrams. I lean toward that interpretation.

[mmmlink]

56. It's all moot anyway...

given the 2002 confession of Larry Silverstein and the advance forcast of the BBC.

[quicknthedead]

6. Read this report about WTC7 & NIST's erroneous position.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

Last paragraph of the report:

"The photographic evidence and analyses herein suggest that the major damage to the building caused by WTC1 debris was away from the trusses and columns which are critical to NIST's collapse hypothesis, or that damage to that region was not deep enough to affect those assemblies, and would therefore seem to invalidate that hypothesis unless alternative reasons for failure are considered, such as thermal load alone. Small wonder then that the head of the WTC project for NIST, Dr Shyam Sunder, stated in a March 2006 New York Magazine interview, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7". Unless NIST can provide some photographic evidence that we haven't yet seen, it would appear that the institute's interpretations of the damage to the south face of WTC7 are at best grossly inaccurate, and at worst, deliberately biased in favor of their hypothesis for the collapse of the building."

And 9/11 was an inside job.

[MervinFerd]

7. Bullshit.

No.
We are not playing the "download selected photos from the Internet and do an amateur analysis of them" game. NO!

There is a wide variety of evidence of damage to the structure of WTC7, including photographs, eyewitness reports and the structural analysis of the collapse. The fact that a Truther site can find photographs suggesting minimal damage is hardly surprising, and meaningless.

What is implausible about the scenario provided by the two documents?
Because the -only- evidence of a bomb is the claim that such a collapse is -impossible-.

Is there any reason that damage to the structure by falling debris is implausible? Is it physically impossible that massive beams with velocities approaching 200 mph could do structural damage?

[quicknthedead]

54. You're full of it, and 9/11 was an inside job. n/t

[MervinFerd]

59. Yet another articulate and intelligent rebuttal.

[quicknthedead]

237. The reality is attempting to converse with you is a waste of time. n/t

[JackRiddler]

227. Why not?

We are not playing the "download selected photos from the Internet and do an amateur analysis of them" game. NO!

You're so right. As we know, FEMA, NIST and other authorities have made all of the (remaining) crime scene materials in their possession available to the scientific community at large, so there is no need to do that, right? You can just go ask them for access to the stuff and do the investigation of hypothesis b (which they failed to do). Right?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Thank you! I am saving this link. Now Note! This was written AFTER THE INTERIM REPORT!

It's almost a year later from Dr. Sunder's statement and the Official Final Report has yet to be issued. I guess they still haven't gotten that handle on it.

[Twist_U_Up]

8. Heres a suggestion

Mabe you should check their archives under "L" for Lies, or under "W" for Whoops! Or it could be filed under the bigger picture - OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation).

[MervinFerd]

12. Do you actually imagine that this is a rational response?

It's not.

[quicknthedead]

55. Your whole position is to avoid the fact WTC7 was a CD...

...which it was. This is obvious.

And your intent to avoid this borders beyond the ridiculous.

[dailykoff]

10. Another OCT fantasia.

Very poetic but apart from its creative writing value absurd. What the hell is "a vertical crack/crease/kink/fold/break through the building" supposed to be for instance, and what exactly does "heated to the point of exhaustion" mean? This is bunkum made for the Fox News crowd.

[MervinFerd]

11. So, you do not have a rational rebuttal.

That's what I thought.

[MervinFerd]

14. Here's another NIST document. You are doing such a good job on the first.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[JackRiddler]

15. By what mechanism does one establish default hypothesis in this case?

Independent of relative likelihood, clearly a demolition is within the realm of physical possibility.

[MervinFerd]

21. Demolition is a physical possibility.

However, even in a full-fledged MIHOP scenario, this would not be the default scenario. You can invent reasons for taking the building down--CIA station in the basement or something--but they aren't compelling. If some Government agency planned the whole thing, why didn't they just move the docs out ahead of time? WTC7 demolition is tacked onto the Conspiracy because there is no quick explanation for its collapse.

I am aware of two arguments for explosives:
1. Larry Silverstein says "Pull It". (He orders a secret demolition by giving orders to the fire department over an open line?)

or

2. "It is impossible that the building could have collapsed without explosives"

Argument (1) is ridiculous unless it is embedded in some anti-semitic fantasy.

Argument (2) "dustifies" if -any- plausible collapse scenario is presented. The NIST documents and the CounterPunch article present entirely plausible collapse scenarios.


If you can produce any other arguments for explosives, I'd be happy to hear them.

[The Lone Groover]

22. "unless it is embedded in some anti-semitic fantasy"

...you know someone's getting desperate when they play the "anti-semite" card.

What a load of bollocks.

Even Jewish people do bad things sometimes.

FFS.

[MervinFerd]

30. So, you think those particular theories are plausible?

[The Lone Groover]

31. What I'm saying...

...is that questioning Silverstein over the "Pull it" statement is in no way anti-semtic.

Trying to make it an anti-semtic issue is pathetic.

But OCTer's are getting more desperate these days.

[MervinFerd]

33. Is WTC7 only about Insurance Fraud, then.

Really?

[The Lone Groover]

35. It's bugger all to do with anti-semtism. nt

[MervinFerd]

37. I'd respond if I had the vaguest idea what that means.

Is it about Insurance Fraud? Is that --all--?

Really?

[The Lone Groover]

38. It's not about anti-semitism.

Although you're tried to make it so.

If a Jew is suspected of doing wrong and someone calls him out over it - is that anti-semitism?

[MervinFerd]

39. So, its about Insurance Fraud?

Why all the fuss, then?

[astralroamer]

41. Regarding the Militant Defense of the 9/11 Official Story

MervinFerd,

In the interests of understanding our respective political agendas, which do you prefer?

1. conservatives or neoconservatives?
2. Counterpunch or FrontPage Magazine?
3. Francis Fukuyama or Charles Krauthammer?
4. George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush?
5. Georgie Anne Geyer or Michelle Malkin?
6. Iraq Study Group or AEI?
7. Jack Murtha or Tom Lantos?
8. James Baker or Dick Cheney?
9. James Wolcott or Christopher Hitchens?
10. Jimmy Carter or Joseph Lieberman?
11. Kathleen Christison or Pamela Geller Oshry?
12. liberals or neoliberals?
13. Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter?
14. New America Foundation or JINSA?
15. Patrick Buchanan or Richard Perle?
16. Paul Craig Roberts or David Horowitz?
17. Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger?

My preferences:

1. conservatives
2. Counterpunch
3. Francis Fukuyama
4. George H.W. Bush
5. Georgie Anne Geyer
6. Iraq Study Group
7. Jack Murtha
8. James Baker
9. James Wolcott
10. Jimmy Carter
11. Kathleen Christison
12. liberals
13. Maureen Dowd
14. New America Foundation
15. Patrick Buchanan
16. Paul Craig Roberts
17. Zbigniew Brzezinski

To say that I prefer one option over the other doesn't imply, by the way, that I'm a big fan or unqualified supporter of the preferred option.

Also: did you expend as much energy in opposing the Iraq War and the political machinations of the neoconservatives as you have in defending the official story on 9/11? Just curious. I am having some difficulty in understanding the degree of emotion and militancy which is driving the defenders of the official story on 9/11 in what is allegedly a progressive and free-thinking forum. I know many Republicans and conservatives who are highly skeptical of the official story on 9/11, and who don't hestitate to question it in all its details. Why would an authentic Democrat be a more dedicated apologist for the Bush 43 administration than many Republicans and work from the Free Republic rhetorical playbook?

I've seen and heard Larry Silverstein use the "pull it" phrase numerous times now. There is absolutely no question in my mind about what he meant. WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

[MervinFerd]

45. "no question in your mind." I think that may be the problem.

[Twist_U_Up]

57. Legitimate questions. Answer the question Merv

your typical cop out
Your spots are showing again.

[MervinFerd]

58. In what way are my political opinions relevant to the collapse of WTC7?

There is here, I think, a clue to the Truther Mind.

[astralroamer]

72. Progressives, Neoconservatives and 9/11

I am trying to understand why some members of an allegedly "progressive" Democratic forum are much more militant in defending the official story on 9/11 than many Republicans and conservatives.

One possibility: they are not progressives but neoconservatives, who share the neoconservative agenda on most or all issues, including the Iraq War, the Clash of Civilizations, the Global War on Terror, the Long War and all the rest of it.

So: do you prefer Brent Scowcroft or Paul Wolfowitz? Barack Obama or Joseph Lieberman? The Iraq Study Group or the AEI? James Baker or Elliott Abrams? Maureen Dowd or Michelle Malkin?

Have you been a strong opponent of the Iraq War?

[Bolo Boffin]

94. James Baker or Elliot Abrams? Maureen Dowd or Michelle Malkin?

What are these, trick questions?

You are going to have to "try to understand" the motives of posters here someplace else. Talk about the issues, why don't you?

[astralroamer]

170. On militant apologetics for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory

These aren't trick questions: these are carefully crafted binary oppositions which go to the heart of the current struggle between foreign policy realists in both the Democratic and Republican Parties against neoconservatives and neoliberals in both parties, the same neocons and neolibs who engineered the $2 trillion catastrophe in Iraq and who are now agitating for an even worse catastrophe in Iran.

We know that neocons have been the foremost beneficiaries and exploiters of 9/11, and have also been the most militant apologists and defenders of the official fairy tale on 9/11.

And so I am asking you, MervinFerd, greyl, LARED, SidDithers, William Seger and other militant defenders of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory: where are you coming from politically? Do you side with neocons and neolibs against traditional foreign policy realists, conservatives, liberals and progressives?

Why should this be such a difficult question to address? Isn't this a political forum?

And so:

Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Wolfowitz?
Barack Obama or Joseph Lieberman?
James Baker or Douglas Feith?
Sidney Blumenthal or David Horowitz?
Palestinian state or West Bank settlements?

Do you mean to suggest that none of you hold views on this kulturkampf in American politics, which has enormous relevance to 9/11 and its aftermath?

Who in the world, and for what possible reason, would be reluctant to say whether or not he or she opposed or supported the Iraq War, which is the single biggest issue in American politics? And in a *political* forum of all things? I can think of only one reason for the reluctance.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF ANYONE HERE.

Quit it immediately. From now on, this blatant attempt to attack people here will be alerted to the moderators.

I refuse to prove myself to anyone. My writings here and at the Smirking Chimp and at my now-defunct blog speak for themself.

Quit attacking people here.

[astralroamer]

177. On militant apologetics for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory

You regard it as a "personal attack" if you are asked about your support or opposition to the Iraq War -- in a *political* forum? And in which you yourself repeatedly make references to the issue in your graphical tagline? And now you are threatening to pressure the moderators about this?

[Bolo Boffin]

239. Your major purpose in posting here, by your own posts, is to question the motives of people here.

You are transparently doing this. Save your attitude for somebody that's buying it, astral. You know exactly what you're doing.

[frylock]

231. wehhh..

alert the mods.

[SidDithers]

238. I'm more liberal than you...nt

Sid

[Twist_U_Up]

61. This is the most awesome post I have seen in a long time.

You could ask that question to a few more folks around here and probably get the same response...................none
Welcome to our nightmare we call the dungeon.
Its not much but its ours.
Hope to see more of your posts around.

[MervinFerd]

70. Are you making an accusation, Mr. Twist?

Spit it out.

[Twist_U_Up]

73. Answer the question. Then Ill answer.

I have a feeling I already know though

[MervinFerd]

81. I did answer: My political opinions are irrelevant to the present discussion.

And stated repeatedly around here, if you want to look.

[astralroamer]

83. The Politics of 9/11

The only political opinion you have to share is that you support the official conspiracy theory on 9/11?

No thoughts about the Iraq War? About Mideast politics? About the neocon campaign to pursue the Clash of Civilizations by attacking Iran?

There is a powerful political dimension to 9/11: neocons were the chief beneficiaries and exploiters of the event. Neocons have the greatest stake in propping up the official conspiracy theory on 9/11. Do you disagree?

[MervinFerd]

85. You do not have a strong committment to rationality, do you?

Run along now.

[spooked911]

243. what was wrong with his question?

no one makes you come here, do they? you could try to be a little more open-minded.

[greyl]

62. You don't even realize that you've included a racist right-wing asshole in your "left" list, do you?

nt

[astralroamer]

71. On the Militant Defense of the 9/11 Official Story (and the Neoconservative Agenda)

greyl,

Are you referring to Patrick Buchanan or Richard Perle as "the right-wing asshole"?

So: who do you prefer: the right-winger who has opposed the Iraq War (Buchanan) or the right-winger who was a ringleader of the Iraq War (Perle)?

So far you, boloboffin and MervinFerd haven't commented on any of the particulars of the list or described your own political agendas. I extend the question to LARED and SidDithers as well.

Why would any progressive Democrat be much more militant about the defending the official story on 9/11 than many Republicans and conservatives who can easily see the weaknesses and absurdities in much of the official account?

One explanation: these so-called "progressive" Democrats may actually be neoconservatives who share the same Clash of Civilizations agenda as William Bennett, Richard Perle, Ann Coulter and Joseph Lieberman. They are defending the 9/11 official story with great passion because it is the lynchpin of "the Long War" against Muslim and Arab nations in the Mideast that the neocons have been promoting for several decades, long before 9/11.

Did you expend as much energy in opposing the Iraq War as you have in defending the official story on 9/11? Have you opposed the Iraq War at all?

Here's the list again:

1. conservatives or neoconservatives?
2. Counterpunch or FrontPage Magazine?
3. Francis Fukuyama or Charles Krauthammer?
4. George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush?
5. Georgie Anne Geyer or Michelle Malkin?
6. Iraq Study Group or AEI?
7. Jack Murtha or Tom Lantos?
8. James Baker or Dick Cheney?
9. James Wolcott or Christopher Hitchens?
10. Jimmy Carter or Joseph Lieberman?
11. Kathleen Christison or Pamela Geller Oshry?
12. liberals or neoliberals?
13. Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter?
14. New America Foundation or JINSA?
15. Patrick Buchanan or Richard Perle?
16. Paul Craig Roberts or David Horowitz?
17. Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger?

with a few additions:

18. Barack Obama or Joseph Lieberman?
19. Brent Scowcroft or Paul Wolfowitz?
20. Chuck Hagel or John McCain?
21. CIA or OSP (Office of Special Plans)?
22. David Ray Griffin or Benjamin Chertoff?
23. Eric Margolis or Jonah Goldberg?
24. Harper's or New Republic?
25. John Edwards or Benjamin Netanyahu?
26. Mideast peace process or Greater Israel?
27. New York Review of Books or New York Post?
28. Palestinian state or Greater Israel?
29. pluralism or ethnic nationalism?
30. religious tolerance or Islamophobia?
31. Sidney Blumenthal or Robert Kagan?
32. speaking truth to power or sucking up to power?
33. Talking Points Memo or Little Green Footballs?
34. the blogosphere or the establishment punditocracy?
35. traditional Christianity or Christian Zionism?
36. William Odom or Ephraim Halevy?

For the record, I prefer the first option in all the offerings above over the second. And I repeat: a preference for an option over its paired alternative doesn't constitute an uncritical endorsement of the chosen option.

The fact that I agree with Patrick Buchanan's opposition to the Iraq War does not imply that I agree with all the views of Patrick Buchanan (I don't). But neoconservatives will invariably pick Richard Perle over Patrick Buchanan in this matchup.

Is it possible that some of the militant defenders of the official story on 9/11 don't want to place their activities in a political context? Perhaps some of them are not in fact progressive Democrats but rather neoconservatives?

[MervinFerd]

74. The collapse mechanism of WTC7 is not a political question.

It is a scientific, engineering and technical question. The inability to understand this distinction is the defining characteristic of the Conspiratorial Mind.

The Progressive or Liberal political agenda is -not- advanced by nonsense. It is advanced by rational thought and discusion. It -is- about rationality and civil discussion.

The "Official Story" is not a Bush Admin press release. It is a consensus opinion of many thousands of people who are familiar with evidence and scientific fact. The insane babble of the "Truth" Movement presents no problem to the Bush admin; it makes their critics look like idiots.

[astralroamer]

78. On militant apologetics for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory

What is a political question is the agenda of those who militantly defend the official conspiracy theory on 9/11 in ways which frequently ignore or distort the objective physical evidence.

Why would Democratic progressives be more militant in defending the official conspiracy theory on 9/11 (and implicitly the Bush 43 adminitration) than many Republicans and conservatives? This behavior is the signature of neoconservatives, not progressives or even mainstream Americans.

Larry Silverstein is on the official record as ordering the "pulling" of WTC7 -- no amount of sophistical spin is going to erase that record.

[Bolo Boffin]

92. What about us hobbyists? n/t

[AZCat]

95. Liar.

You're a truther now - you signed the petition.

Stop trying to hide your true identity - you're not fooling me, buster!

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Aggh!

That's right, I am a truther now.

What, you look that up in your military files on me? :woohoo:

[AZCat]

98. That's affirmative.

I haven't signed the petition, so I still have unfettered access to the various NWO databases.

Slightly OT, but I see you are almost overdue on your cable TV bill. Better pay it, because the NWO needs to continue the necessary programming provided by Big Brother. You wouldn't want to upset Big Brother, would you? Let me know and I'll change the due date if you can't make it, although if you'd stop buying all those unnecessary items ($89.99 for a kitchen knife on QVC? Please...) you wouldn't have such worries. Just PM me or leave your kitchen blinds up during the day if you need a couple more days - I'll get the message.

[Grateful for Hope]

119. Having fun? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

123. Why do you care?

Allow me to LOL away, and I'll allow you to do the same.

[Grateful for Hope]

125. Yup...I guess you ARE having fun

good on ya, bolo old buddy.

[petgoat]

229. Why care? Because spamming the threads is disruptive. Any more questions? nt

[AZCat]

136. It's just my usual weirdness sneaking out.

All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.
All work and no play makes AZCat a dull boy.

[Grateful for Hope]

145. Am surprised

you didn't add some "pop psychology" here.

Why not?

[AZCat]

148. It's possible that some people would consider...

a post recycling humor from a novel about cabin fever "pop psychology" but it might be a stretch.

I'll leave off of any "pop psychology" in my posts if you leave off any "pop engineering" - deal?

[Grateful for Hope]

153. I haven't used "pop engineering" at all

Why are you saying this?

Show me where I have used "pop engineering".

Thank you.

[AZCat]

159. I'd be happy to go do some searching...

if my producing samples of "pop engineering" on your part would be sufficient to get you to stop.

[Grateful for Hope]

166. "stop" what?

What are you trying to say?

[AZCat]

167. Stop using "pop engineering" - f'gawd's sake. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

168. Hey....

you are an ass**le
You are an as*ol**

I love you!

Kissy Kissy!



















1

[AZCat]

171. That might be the most bizarre response I've ever received.

Am I supposed to know how to react, or is your intention just to confuse me? :shrug:

[Grateful for Hope]

173. Not sure what you mean

But, I am sure you know what I mean about "pop psychology" and, I understand why you brought this into. Hey, AZ, stop with the "pop psychology".

[AZCat]

176. I'm having trouble understanding this post also.

It looks like you might have cut off your first sentence.

[JackRiddler]

223. Ah but it is also a political question

No one disputes that demolition is a technical possibility.

Arguments against taking it seriously as a hypothesis* are based in:

- psychology (one couldn't get away with it)
- politics (too evil even "for them")
- logical rule of thumb (it's "more complicated" ergo does not qualify as serious hypothesis)

Empty dismissive ridicule and smear by association are also common, but these are strategies, not argument.

* taking it seriously = and therefore investigating it forensically, which the NIST team and other investigations with relative access to the crime scene materials omitted to do.

[AZCat]

236. I don't worry so much about the possibility of demolition.

What irks me is when posters suggest that it is the only possibility. Such statements, to me, seem arrogant especially when based on a layperson's analysis of events.

[greyl]

200. So, you don't realize it. You have failed the test. See ya. nt

[astralroamer]

226. The neocon wing of the Democratic Party

Can you expand on your statement? Are you saying that you line up with all the neocon options in these matchups? Pro-Joseph Lieberman, pro-Bush, pro-Cheney, pro-Clash of Civilizations? Or do you mean something else?

[SidDithers]

244. I'm still more liberal than you...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

46. So, its Insurance Fraud, then?

If not one of those two, what -is- the point?

[The Lone Groover]

47. Well I don't know about insurance fraud...

...but it sure as hell isn't anti-semitism.

Some people throw shit and hope it sticks.

You wouldn't do that would you?

[MervinFerd]

50. If not Insurance Fraud, or anti-Semitism, what, then? Just incoherent?

What -is- this weird f'ing conspiracy where the building owner orders the Fire Department to secretly demolish the building over an open radio channel, but all the FireFighters are very sure the building was about to collapse anyway and there is no record of any explosive being put into the building and who-the-f'ck would go back in there to plant explosives if the building was going to collapse at any time. And, WTF does demolishing a building nobody ever heard of have to do with creating a major terror incident anyway?

IMHO, most of the people advocating WTC7 are just incoherent. They do not know what it means. They just parrot Alex "Jim" Jones and hope for rain.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

52. You need a -coherent- "theory of the crime".

If there is nothing but Insurance Fraud, why are the NYFD, NYPD, the insurance company, NIST, CounterPunch, NIOSH, NY building inspectors, etc all in agreement that this building fell of natural causes? If Silverstein gave the order to pull it down, why are all these people saying the opposite. Just to help good-old-Larry collect his 3 Billion?

This makes no sense.

The -only- way it makes sense is a part of -some- vast sinister conspiracy. And there are -plenty- of people around this Board, some now Tombstoned and some not (and some returned from the Dead), who were very sure it is a Jewish Conspiracy.

I did not pull this from my Arse.

If you know of any arguments beside the two I mentioned, by all means provide them.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

66. "a Jew under suspicion"---of... WHAT? Insurance Fraud?

You need an accusation if you want to appear rational.

If that is important to you.

[The Lone Groover]

68. Whatever you say Merve me old bam boo..

...how many ways can a person avoid admitting he was using the anti-semite card crap.

[MervinFerd]

69. Ok, I was playing cards. Now. Is this Insurance Fraud? YES or NO.

What's the allergy to making simple declarative statements?

This WTC7 business is about half of Truther mythology. But nobody can say what is the actual accusation.

Peculiar, no?

[The Lone Groover]

76. How many times...

...do I have to say I don't know. It's suspicious and needs investigating... "pull it" combined with a building that looks like it was "pulled" in the CD sense is suspicious. I don't know why he did it if he did... lets investigate.

But please.. no more anti-semite crap - it's pathetic.

[MervinFerd]

75. Can anybody find a rebuttal above? Or offer one?

80-odd posts.

My political affiliations have been questioned. My reading ability. But no rebuttal.

[astralroamer]

77. Progressives, Neocons, 9/11 and WTC7

You are unwilling to declare whether you sympathize more with progressive Democrats or with neoconservatives, or whether you supported or opposed the Iraq War? Usually in political forums, participants are eager to discuss their political views. But most of the militant defenders of the official conspiracy theory on 9/11 seem to be quite shy and hesitant about discussing their politics.

This question is pertinent, because we know that neoconservatives, more than any other group in American politics, have the greatest stake in protecting the official conspiracy theory on 9/11, whether it is true or not. They have a proven history of lying about a wide range of subjects when it suits their interests.

Regarding Silverstein: he used the term "pull it" with an intonation that makes it unmistakable that he was referring to a controlled demolition, and, indeed, WTC7 gives every indication of having been brought down by a controlled demolition. To make matters worse, the mainstream media have gone out of their way to divert attention away from WTC7, which creates a strong impression of guilt. This topic is such a hot potato that the media even blacked out the BBC/WTC7 story.

If there is no smoking gun here, then why the systematic efforts at censoring what should be a straightforward story -- the collapse of WTC7?

[AZCat]

79. If you were to examine the archives...

you would see that questions of a political nature have been asked of the group you label "the militant defenders of the official conspiracy theory on 9/11" numerous times in the past. It is my opinion (one shared by several others) that these questions are not meant to illuminate anything but rather to send a discussion on a tangent away from subjects uncomfortable to some of the participants.

[MervinFerd]

80. You do not have a strong committment to rationality, do you?

1. The Bush admin is a crowd of Fools and Knaves. They have done many dastardly deeds. They have not done every dastardly deed that every fool, con-man or anti-semite dreams up.

2. Argument ad hominem is a logical fallacy, recognized since ancient times. Address the argument, not the man.

3." "pull it" with an intonation....unmistakeable" ---Are you psychic, or what? Other people disagree; are they all Bush supporters?

4. Who's "censoring" anything about the collapse of WTC7? The consensus of expert opinion is that global collapse is a reasonable explanation. Can you provide a contrary argument?

Overall, your post is one of the most irrational that I have encountered on this irrational forum.

[astralroamer]

82. WTC7 was a controlled demolition (and Democratic Party politics)

Did you strongly oppose the Iraq War? Did you express yourself on that subject as energetically as you have defended the official conspiracy theory on 9/11?

Do you have any thoughts on the future of the Democratic Party? Do you support the neoconservative wing (Joseph Lieberman) or the progressive wing (Barack Obama)? Is discussion about Democratic Party politics considered to be off limits here?

You expressed anger at the Bush administration. How about the neoconservatives who have largely designed American foreign policy under Bush and Cheney? Are you angry at them? Presently they are trying to drive both the Republican and Democratic Parties into a war with Iran.

What do you think Larry Silverstein meant when he used the phrase "pull it"? Are you going to argue that he was referring to firemen (plural)? I know what "pull it" means. I know how he uttered the expression and I understand the context in which he uttered it. He was clearly referring to a controlled demolition.

Why did the official report on 9/11 discuss WTC7 in so little depth? Why have the mainstream media censored the controversy about the BBC's reporting on WTC7, which has raged across the Internet during the last week?

[MervinFerd]

84. You do not have a strong committment to rationality, do you?

Run along now.

[astralroamer]

88. On militant apologetics for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory

Have you abandoned all efforts to engage in a rational discussion? You didn't address a single point I made in my post.

Is it unreasonable or unfair to inquire about your views on the Iraq War, neoconservatives, Joseph Lieberman, the agitation for an Iran War, and other topics which are central to the future of the Democratic Party, the United States and the world? Is defending the official conspiracy theory on 9/11 the *only* topic that engages your attention? Isn't that a bit strange? Why is that particular agenda so important to you? What is the political context for this fixation?

You didn't dispute the obvious fact that the mainstream media have been censoring the BBC/WTC7 controversy with a heavy hand. Why the need for censorship? Apparently WTC7 is one of the weakest links in the official fairy tale about 9/11 -- it is not open for public discussion in allegedly "free" societies.

You didn't explain what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it," if he wasn't ordering the controlled demolition of WTC7. Any moderately intelligent and well-informed person knows precisely what "pull it" means in the context in which Larry Silverstein uttered the phrase.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. What about us hobbyists? n/t

[MervinFerd]

97. We gave your post the response it deserved.

"Any moderately intelligent and well-informed person knows precisely what "pull it" means in the context in which Larry Silverstein uttered the phrase."

Really? Then there are a lot of unintelligent and uninformed persons on this Board.

You do not have a fundamental committment to rationality, do you?

[astralroamer]

172. Larry Silverstein: "pull it"

Let's here your "rational" explanation for what you think Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it." I hope it's much better than the laughable piece of nonsense that was issued by Silverstein's people, and which was an egregious insult to rational minds everywhere.

Still no comments about the Iraq War, the neocons and related issues?

Barack Obama or Joseph Lieberman?

Which specific actions of the Bush administration have aggrieved you and why?

[MervinFerd]

181. The statement is, at most, ambiguous.

-Entirely- rational people disagree with you. The overwhelming majority of them, in fact.

Certainty, when all the world disagrees with you is a sign either of genius or madness.

Which?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

207. All the world disagrees with you...

:rofl: That is hilarious. You're cracking me up. You really need to get out more Merv.

[wildbilln864]

86. "Irrational forum"?

Strange that you spend so much time here in this irrational forum trying to convince people that the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory is true.
I know there are irrational people in asylums but I don't hang out there trying to rationalize their thinking. What gives Merv? Perhaps you should "just run along now". :shrug:

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

90. Still waiting for your reply........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=145818&mesg_id=146034

[vincent_vega_lives]

220. Of course not

1. Larry Silverstein says "Pull It". (He orders a secret demolition by giving orders to the fire department over an open line?)

or

2. "It is impossible that the building could have collapsed without explosives"



these are pointless questions as anyone knows its a matter of politics not science.

[mhatrw]

91. So "thermal weakening" of one fireproofed truss = implosion?

From now on whenever we want to bring down a building neatly, why don't we just dispense with all the expensive explosives and just put a charcoal grill underneath one of the building's trusses?

Does this sound like a reasonable collapse scenario to you as well?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. There's a word for the fallacy you're committing.

I don't have the desire to look it up now.

Kinda like you don't have the desire to go look at the NIST reports on WTC 7 to understand the structure of the building and how the loss of one of those unusual trusses built to negotiate the building's weight over the substation would have be quite catastrophic.

No, not quite. I do have the intellectual curiosity to figure out what the fallacy is (although it isn't that great right now), but you don't even have the curiosity to sully your beautiful mind with the NIST reports. It's almost anti-intellectual, what you're doing.

[mhatrw]

100. What kind of a "response" is this?

BTW, I've read NIST's interim report. However, I'm not interesting in responding to the speculative pseudoscience of NIST's interim report just to see it changed to different speculative pseudoscience in NIST's final report.

[MervinFerd]

101. An appropriate one.

You don't have a strong committment to rationality, do you?

[wildbilln864]

102. Is that all you have left, Merv?

"run along now" and "You don't have a strong committment to rationality, do you"?

Who's being irrational now? :shrug:

[mhatrw]

103. Let's revisit. You think that "thermal weakening" of a single

fireproofed truss caused the WTC-7 to implode neatly.

I was merely pointing how ridiculous that is.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Since you admit now to reading the interim report, you know...

...that the unusual construction of the building would render the entire thing unstable if just one of those transfer trusses were lost.

Add to that the damage from 1 World Trade's collapse, the ensuing redistribution of load, and the fires that burned unchecked throughout several floors of the building and you get a recipe for disaster.

Why you see the need to throw explosives into that mix is beyond me. Some people like jalapenos in their angel food cake. I call them "crazy Texans".

I know. Redundant.

[mhatrw]

110. I know that NIST contends this, just like they contend that

WTC-7 was seriously damaged on its South face even though there is no video or photographic evidence to suggest as much:

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

[MervinFerd]

107. No, one truss failed and that initiated the cascade. There was other damage.

The design was unusual, so failure of that one member might have been catastrophic without other damage. But that is not the question under discussion.

[mhatrw]

112. If the failure of one truss leads to total building implosion,

that's not an "unusual" design -- that's implosion designed into the building.

[MervinFerd]

115. Ahhhh... No. It's an unusual design. It was that way for a reason.

You haven't read the report, really, have you? Pseudoscience and all.

If you read the report,

they built a bigger building than was originaly planned and it was built over an existing facility. This required an unusual design, which undoubtedly was structurally sound. But not intended to withstand damage from a collapsing Twin Tower. My amateur interpretation is that the design was more susceptible to collapse than a 'normal' structure would have been.

Whether failure of one beam in the -intact- building could cause a global collapse--I don't know. That's not the issue treated by the NIST report. There -was- other damage; that's the situation they discuss. --Some-- component had to be the first to go--that's just logic. It's not bad design.

[dailykoff]

127. A house of cards, in other words,

just like the Twin Towers were supposed to have been until we found out about the core columns.

But cling to it while you can.

[MervinFerd]

128. The "core columns" weren't lost.

The Towers were more like a house of cards than like an oak tree.

[mhatrw]

144. How did "external damage" enter into this?

Show us photographic or video evidence of this supposed "external damage."

Whether failure of one beam in the -intact- building could cause a global collapse--I don't know. That's not the issue treated by the NIST report.

Ergo, pseudoscience.

[MervinFerd]

154. "external damage". I said nothing about external damage.

If you had come into the intact WTC7 and sawed through that beam with a hacksaw, I do not know what would have happened. The enginners who did the analyses probably do know.

But, that's not the question under discussion. There -was- additional damage. If the building was sagging and losing strength from fires, --some-- beam had to be the first to go. As I understand the reports, the engineers are not completely sure which of 2 or 3 beams failed or exactly why. That's not a coverup--it's responsible and professional effort.

[mhatrw]

155. Really? So if NIST knows, why don't they share that information with us?

I mean, why even have NIST make such a report if not to guide future construction requirements?

And no, no fireproofed beam had to go first unless you presuppose what you are trying to prove.

[MervinFerd]

160. Jeebus H Budda on a Pogo stick! You've got to be pretending dumb here.

In a progressive collapse -something- has to go first---whether it was weakened by fire or cut with a hacksaw or dustificated with a Romulan disruptor beam. Nobody is presupposing anything except the collapse that was acually observed.

NIST is trying to understand the collapse in detail precisely because that will inform future building designs.

[AZCat]

163. I don't know how much the investigation will inform future designs.

In cases such as B#7 where the building is a one-off, there isn't much you can apply to other designs.

[mhatrw]

186. In CD, the most interior supports are taken out just seconds before the rest

of the supports so the building collapses inward. That's exactly what we see in WTC-7's implosion.

[MervinFerd]

222. Yes. Read the report. The unique design caused failure of the outside beam..

to propagate to the inner supports.

At least that is how I understand the situation. Read it yourself.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. Could you point out examples of "speculative pseudoscience" in the interim report?

First, though, give your definition of pseudoscience. You added the adjective "speculative" to it, and that seemed redundant to me.

Or are there examples of "sound pseudoscience" out there? How about "empirical psuedoscience"? These sound like oxymorons to me. Don't they to you?

So why the choice of "speculative" to modify "pseudoscience"?

Never mind. Just define pseudoscience and then point out some examples of that in the NIST interim report. Thank you in advance for your enlightenment.

[mhatrw]

111. Everything in the NIST report is speculative pseudoscience.

All the physical evidence to determine EXACTLY what happened was just sitting on the ground. Why was NONE of it analyzed other than the two pieces that showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation?

[MervinFerd]

169. You are pretending again, right? Jeebus!

There -were- investigations and there -were- analyses of steel. It's not very hard to find it, if you are actually interested in understanding the conclusions of the experts. You are assuming that the analyses you have heard of are the only ones that exist; that's not a valid inference.

It's not clear that the steel on the ground would have shown "EXACTLY what happened". That steel was in a jumbled mess and was subject to fire and the elements for several weeks. If somebody (HYPOTHETICALLY!) cut a few beams with explosives or thermite or a hacksaw, the chances of finding those particular beams and showing anything certain about them would be slim to impossible.

Analysis of various collapse scenarios to determine the best fit to the observed events is the best approach available.

[mhatrw]

192. Find these studies and produce them for us, then.

You are completely ignorant on this subject and all of your OCT friends are letting you twist in the wind. It's highly amusing.

[AZCat]

195. I wouldn't say we're letting him twist in the wind.

I have never claimed to be an authority on either the NIST study or the WTC collapses (although I have occasionally claimed to be an authority on certain related subjects) so it would be stupid of me to jump in when I'm not certain of the facts (something else I've done occasionally). As you saw, I didn't even remember correctly what I had read in the NIST report, so why should I think I can remember if B#7 steel was studied/catalogued elsewhere? Maybe MervinFerd is more aware than I am of this particular facet of the WTC investigations.

[mhatrw]

198. Do you speak for "your" entire group?

If these mythical magical mystery studies of WTC-7 steel exist, I'd love to see them!

[AZCat]

199. I'm curious to see them myself.

No, I don't speak for the others, but since I am usually considered a member (or at least I think I am) of the OCTer group if I am not letting him twist in the wind then the group isn't, right? (I know that might be a bit difficult to follow but I'm tired and may not be writing very clearly)

[MervinFerd]

225. See Post # 215, this thread. And the link inside.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

There -were- serious investigations of the collapses. By numerous agencies. The steel was publicly visible for months and was handled by numerous individuals. We know of at least one piece of steel that was studied because of its unusual appearance. The result was published. Analyses that yielded no remarkable results would not be published; there is no reason to.

I should have qualified my statement more carefully:

THE COLLAPSE OF THESE BUILDINGS HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY STUDIED BY COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS, JOURNALISTS AND FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE SAMPLES AND CONDUCT ANY ANALYSES THEY CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE.

The assertion that "there were no analyses" is ignorant or deliberately misleading.

[Bolo Boffin]

175. Great. You refuse to abandon your propaganda.

Why should anybody pay the slightest attention to you in the future?

[mhatrw]

191. I won't abandon the facts. Feel free to put me on ignore for that trespass anytime. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

194. You have yet to produce any.

What, precisely, is your definition of pseudoscience? Or are you using it because it's a scary-sounding word, especially when dressed up with "speculative"?

Having given your definition of pseudoscience, what examples of this can you produce from the NIST interim reports?

These questions are not hard.

[MervinFerd]

108. Yes, I'd like some support of this "speculative pseudoscience" claim also.

A dozen PhD engineers do this report, sign their names, and it's speculative pseudoscience because????

Well, just because?

Or is it because the conclusion doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion?

[AZCat]

109. It's because they were bought and paid for by the NWO.

I should know - I signed the checks myself.


-D. Cheney

[mhatrw]

113. Because the report isn't based on any physical evidence.

At least the WTC-1 & WTC-2 reports analyzed a shred of physical evidence (that did not support their claims in any way, BTW) and used some video and photographic evidence to support their tenuous claims.

This report is nothing but speculative pseudoscience based on speculative worst case extrapolations from a handful eyewitness reports.

[MervinFerd]

117. This is ridiculous beyond comprehension. Are you deliberately acting dumb?

They used what evidence was available, which included analysis of recovered steel.

Can you provide any evidence at all that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg? Photographs, samples of the iceberg, the Titanic even eyewitness accounts of people who actually saw the 'berg?

[mhatrw]

118. What analysis of what recovered steel?

The metal from the Titanic wasn't just sitting on the street.

[jberryhill]

137. He wasn't asking about the Titanic's metal...

He was asking about the iceberg.

The Carpathian and the Californian were within miles, and on the scene hours later. They didn't get hit by any icebergs.

Are you saying the iceberg sunk too?

NO STEEL-HULLED PASSENGER STEAM LINER HAD EVER BEEN SUNK BY AN ICEBERG BEFORE.

And nobody stopped to wonder, "Hey, where's that magic iceberg?" Or take samples of it?

[mhatrw]

140. What recovered metal was analyzed?

Please stop avoiding the question with bizarre non sequiturs about icebergs.

[MervinFerd]

143. There -were- investigations and those included analysis of steel.

You can find them as well as I; they've been reference on this Board before.



Yes, the steel from the Titanic was not "just sitting on the Street". Convenient, isn't that? There also isn't even a photograph of the alleged iceberg! And there is no other ocean liner before or since sunken by an iceberg!

Anybody who is not a complete Fool can see that the Titanic was brought down by Controlled Sinking. It is completely obvious.

[mhatrw]

147. Show us a SHRED of analysis of WTC-7 steel.

Only TWO PIECES were ever recovered and both showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

You are out of obviously way out of your league here. You should leave this to the professionals. You are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

[AZCat]

150. What professionals?

I didn't realize anyone here claimed to be in building forensics (although I know a guy who is).

[mhatrw]

152. People like you is what I meant.

And I meant it as a compliment. But I do wonder why you aren't correcting MF.

[AZCat]

158. I was actually about to look.

I switched computers at work and forgot to transfer all the NIST report pdfs from the old one so I have to download them again. I don't remember them having much information on B#7 steel samples in the report - maybe one or two (as you have stated). I would suppose they have more than that but I don't remember ever seeing anything about other samples.


Thanks for the compliment, but it's important to remember that while several of us here are engineers, I still don't think we have an actual structural engineer posting regularly - we are all from other disciplines (like mechanical).

[AZCat]

162. Okay, so it's pretty clear.

The NIST states in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-3B

No {structural steel elements} could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.

...

This collection of steel from the WTC towers is sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance. The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure; however, WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi), and literature values may be used to estimate properties.

[MervinFerd]

180. So, NIST attempted an analysis, but could not be certain it was valid.

I can live with that.

From a post by jberryhill above (post #9):
"Where are the documents of the analysis of any steel from WTC#7?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

'A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.'

I have never seen anyone as flagrantly proud of their own ignorance."

Numerous agencies conducted investigations; numerous academics very probably did independent analyses. This includes studies of the steel and of dust and of the air and materials during the debris removal. It --is-- true that there was (most probably) no specific analysis for thermite residue; that is a judgment on the credibility of the Truth Movement, not the result of sinister forces.

IT IS FLAGRANT IGNORANCE TO MAINTAIN THAT SINISTER FORCES PREVENTED REASONABLE INVESTIGATIONS.

"I have never seen anyone as flagrantly proud of their own ignorance."

[AZCat]

196. Unfortunately the original markings on the steel...

identifying the location of that particular piece were not legible, for whatever reason.

I still think it will be difficult (if not impossible) to determine when exactly the changes to the microstructure occurred.

[mhatrw]

209. You are completely ignorant about this topic, yet you attempt to bully people

about it.

The study you cited was simply the preliminary release of information from this report:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

in which a team of metallurgists analyzed two pieces of recovered metal from WTC-7, both of which showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation.

These were the only two pieces of WTC-7 steel that were ever recovered or analyzed by anyone, and they both demonstrated unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation.

If this were the minor arson investigation of a single unit family business in Peoria, such an "investigation" would be unconscionable. You can attribute this to whatever "forces" you desire, but any investigation of a catastrophic building collapse that doesn't utilize any physical examination of any physical debris (except for two pieces the evidence of which is summarily ignored) is a complete and utter farce.

[MervinFerd]

215. The steel lay exposed for weeks; it was removed over months by 100s...

of construction workers. Dust and debris were spread over many city blocks. Multiple City, State, and Federal agencies had overlapping responsibility for health, environment, building codes, Fire Codes, etc. These agencies conducted numerous investigations. Any news agency, academic researcher, 911 Truther or foreign intelligence service could have obtained samples of WTC7 steel, had they wanted it.

Any -reasonable- hypothesis would have been investigated. Dustification beams and massive quantities of thermite are not reasonable hypotheses. It is, besides that, highly doubtful that analyses could have proved anything--the material was in a jumbled mess; it was exposed to fire and other contamination; it was impossible even to identify the original location of samples.

The claim by the various "Jim" Jones' that some nefarious force stopped all analysis of steel samples from any of these buildings is either gross, intentional, ignorance, or a deliberate lie.

[mhatrw]

240. Sure! Anybody could have gotten WTC-7 steel, had they wanted it!

Yep! FEMA & NIST just forgot to ask! LOL!!!!!!!!

[MervinFerd]

241. We are agreed then. Wasn't that easy?

[jberryhill]

135. Twisting the Story Now, Aren't you?

Mervin, I finally caught you with your hand in the cookie jar. Now I see how you deliberately twist the terms of the debate in order to make the conclusion fit your pre-conceived notion:


Can you provide any evidence at all that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg?

I thought that the official story was that the Titanic hit the iceberg - not the other way around. But by asking for proof of a conclusion that an iceberg hit the Titanic, you are deviating from the official story in order to ask a question which even you do not believe can be answered.

So, let's try it on you, and see how you like it:

Mervin, where is your proof that the towers flew into airplanes? Hmmm? Don't have any do you?

[mhatrw]

141. Again, a Titanic non sequitur. n/t

[MervinFerd]

146. Hee Hee Hee. It was a self-propelled iceberg.

With an AC induction motor.

[mhatrw]

149. Hee hee. You have nothing but non sequiturs. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

120. Exactly, mhatrw. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

221. I just choked on my coffee

NIST's "pseudoscience" no less! Not fucking armatures jerking off on the internet of course. :rofl:

God I hope none of the-likes-of-you* actually have roles in society with any kind of responsibility.





*Disclaimer: the "likes of you" refers to those who believe in the 9-11 attacks-inside-job scenario and does not refer directly or indirectly to any recognized minority group, gender class, or persons of challenge.

[MervinFerd]

105. Your argument is ridiculous.

--Some-- beam or truss had to go first. It's important to the engineers to determine which one that was. It is not important to the question whether a bomb was needed.

Because of the unusual design of that building, loss of that one truss with everything else intact might have cause collapse of the entire structure. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on that. However, there -was- other damage and other members weakened by fire. The NIST report describes the plausible scenario.

I don't remember the name of the fallacy either.

[mhatrw]

114. So you think implosion was built into the original design?

That's incredibly reasonable.

[MervinFerd]

116. No. See the post above.

Jeezus Pete Christ standing on an I-beam wearing a hard hat!

[mhatrw]

121. That's what you said in the OP.

And you called it reasonable. Maybe you ought to check a dictionary.

[MervinFerd]

132. no. See the post above.

[mhatrw]

142. Yes. You said that the "thermal weakening" of one fireproofed truss was a

reasonable explanation for a total implosion.

If not, what caused the implosion?

[MervinFerd]

156. "Implosion"? There was a progressive collapse. Read the report.

Both the documents in the OP give accounts of the sequence of events in the collapse. There is no mystery about it.

The presumed cause of this sequence is the failure of -some- member that was weakened by heat from the fire.

I don't see how you can fail to understand this.

[mhatrw]

188. "Progressive collapse" inward in under 14 total seconds = implosion.

If you disagree, please explain the difference.

[Grateful for Hope]

122. I object to your use of the term

"Jeezus Pete Christ". Regardless of the intention, it is a slur against Christian religions and their beliefs.

Thank You.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dailykoff]

126. I agree Hope. It's entirely inappropriate

in the context of this discussion particularly.

[Grateful for Hope]

129. Thanks, Dailykoff.

I sure thought so.

[Bolo Boffin]

164. Someone accusing the FDNY of perjury in the murders of their fellow firefighters...

...has no business determining the appropriateness of anything.

[mhatrw]

210. There you go again, trying to hide behind the honor of the FDNY.

It's funny. It's obviously all you have. I guess NIST is planning to explain away the collapse of WTC-7 on the strength of emotional appeals about the perfect integrity and accuracy of a few, often vague and sometimes contradictory FDNY eyewitness reports. Two guys from the FDNY said there was a 20 story hole in the WTC-7, so damn all the photographic and video evidence to the contrary as well as FEMA's original analysis!

Perjury? Did these FDNY eyewitnesses testify in court under oath? Did I miss this trial? In the world of boloboffin, to be mistaken in your eyewitness reports for any reason, no matter how innocent or well-meaning, is to "perjure" yourself and to be knowingly complicit in the murder of your fellow firefighters. We all know nobody from the FDNY would ever do that, therefore all of their eyewitness reports -- at least all the NIST depends on in its otherwise completely unsupported WTC-7 damage estimates -- must be 100% accurate!

Johnny Cochran would be proud. "If a fireman said it, it's infallible shit!"

[MervinFerd]

130. I've said worse things about Christians.

Jeebus Christ and Mohammed standing on a steel girder, 1000s feet in the air wearing hard-hats and smoking a joint.

[Grateful for Hope]

131. Good on ya too, Merv

I am sure you are very proud.

[Bolo Boffin]

165. That's a worse thing about Christians?

If Jesus and Mohammed had only smoked a couple of joints together, we might not be here today.

[jberryhill]

139. I'm beginning to believe that

Built over thirty-five foot high transformers at the Con Ed substation with nine diesel generators on the fifth floor and all of that fuel?

I'm personally starting to think the guys who designed that building were nuts.

[mhatrw]

151. That's the only possibility other than CD.

And NIST won't consider it either.

Meanwhile, the BBC's source was able to predict both WTC-7's collapse and the conclusion of NIST's final report six years after the fact 23 minutes before the collapse happened.

[jberryhill]

178. Don't get too carried away

I am leery of statements of "only" possibilities. For any event, there are always a broad range of hypotheses. Anything else is just narrowmindedness.

Why are you so hung up on BBC at 5PM when CNN was saying "is collapsing or has collapsed" at 4:15? This has been gone over time and time again. Why do you believe psychic firefighters were clearing the area all afternoon because they believed it was in danger of imminent collapse? They actually had to get people off of the tower wreckage who were looking for survivors. Were they on drugs or what?

In any event, the more I learn about WTC 7, the more it sounds like a disaster that was waiting to happen long before 9/11. The design was a kludge.

[mhatrw]

182. Because the BBC reported that WTC-7 had ALREADY fallen,

they are required as responsible journalists to explain their 100% erroneous (but 100% prescient) report.

Somebody very high on the food chain must have been pushing the idea that WTC-7 had fallen (or at least was about to fall) right before it did. Who was this source and why was this source so certain about WTC-7's imminent future when neither FEMA nor NIST have been able to satisfactorily explain why it collapsed almost six years later?

[jberryhill]

184. Sigh

If I had heard CNN report "is collapsing" at 4:15, then I would feel comfortable reporting "has collapsed" at 5:00.

The firefighters on the scene were convinced enough to the point of evacuating the surrounding area that the building was in danger of collapse.

That's why, with one exception, there were no casualties.

If you want to believe that news organizations providing continuous coverage of dramatic unfolding events are Olympians who never err, when the chain of garbled communication is plainly evident by reading (a) what the firefighters were doing and saying, and (b) what CNN reported 45 minutes earlier, then you are entitled to that belief.

You are entitled to the belief that shadow government masters control every utterance on live TV. I don't buy that.

[mhatrw]

187. Why? Who was spreading this information based on what evidence?

If the BBC reported the first tower's collapse 25 minutes early, what would you have thought then?

There is no video or photographic evidence of WTC-7 shaking or swaying or even being engulfed in flames. What we see instead are minor disparate fires burning on a few floors here and there along with minor facade damage.

Furthermore, not a single steel-framed high rise had ever collapsed in the history of the world before 9/11 -- including buildings that were entirely engulfed in flames for over 18 hours like this one:



How could anyone have any expertise in determining when a steel frame building's collapse was imminent when none had ever before collapsed in history?

[jberryhill]

189. By gum you are right

The firefighters on the scene were doing acid, and did not bring their "history of burning buildings" almanac with them.

Those silly devils.

You have read the reports from the men on the scene who say they saw a bulge and a 20 foot hole. You have read that it made them concerned the building was going to fall.

You have made it quite clear in repeated threads that you believe these people are liars and complicit in a conspiracy. That is why select members of the FDNY are now living luxurious lives on the hush money they received, I suppose. You are immune to the idea that news organizations were in communication with emergency officials who, bluntly, had better things to do than give detailed forensic reports while they were dealing with a major disaster. You are immune to the idea that reporters were talking to people who were evacuating lower Manhattan, and for every 100 people there were probably 100 different things that they said they heard on the way out. I cannot help your immunity.

[mhatrw]

190. Somebody TOLD the firemen it was coming down, just like somebody told

BBC and CNN and several local NYC news stations.

The question is WHO? It must have been someone with enough authority to get firemen to forget everything they once knew about the history of steel framed buildings and the BBC to air several reports without any fact checking. WHO were the Miss Cleo officials who knew when and why WTC-7 was going to fall before the fact -- even though FEMA and NIST haven't been able to explain this event to this day?

And why aren't you the least bit curious about this no matter what you think about the events of that day?

[jberryhill]

193. There are a lot of things I'm curious about re: 9/11

Since I'm borderline LIHOP.

But the questions about the physical reality of what happened constitute a category where I have exercised a lot of that curiousity over the course of nearly six years - starting from my personal belief that day that there were bombs in the buildings - which the exercise thereof has brought me to some settled opinions on the subject of the physical events.

The political context, the connections, motivations, and goals of the people involved - I've got lots of leftover curiousity there.

But if you can read the direct words of firefighters who saw a 20 foot hole, heard ominous noises within the building, used a surveyors transit to monitor a bulge in the building, etc., and then come to the conclusion that people who were strangers to them were telling them stuff that they would not believe based on their own observations, judgment and experience then, like I said, I can't help you there.

Okay, fine, a squad of hypnotists convinced them to abandon actively looking through wreckage on the south side for their own fallen comrades. MMMmmmmmm..... nope, I'm not buying that.

Being able to provide a detailed explanation of an event and saying, "dang it looks like it's gonna fall" are two different things.

That's why I bring up the Titanic. NO STEEL HULLED PASSENGER SHIP WAS EVER SUNK BY AN ICEBERG. But for some reason, they put people out on lifeboats. WHY?

Do you know that many of the people who remained behind (except for the ones locked below) CHOSE to stay onboard in the belief based on the fact that the ship was well-designed and nothing like that had ever happened before.

Okay, fine, you would have been one of the guys who stayed on the deck of the Titanic, secure in the knowledge that it could not sink, and that nothing like it had EVER been sunk by an iceberg.

But a shitload of psychics got into the lifeboats.

WHO TOLD THEM IT WAS GOING TO SINK - WHO CONVINCED THE CREW TO FORGET EVERYTHING THEY KNEW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF STEEL-HULLED PASSENGER LINERS?

It is an exact correspondence to what you are saying.

YOU DO KNOW for example, that when the nearest ship saw the distress flares from the sinking Titanic they DID NOT RESPOND BECAUSE ONCE THEY DETERMINED IT WAS THE TITANIC THEN THEY KNEW THE FLARES MUST BE A FLUKE.

THE TITANIC WAS UNSINKABLE. Yet not only did it sink, but people onboard thought it would do so.

You can ONLY conclude this was the result of a conspiracy, because you cannot get a knife edge between the fit of the analogy.

And, by the way, NIST researchers are STILL involved in figuring out the details of how the Titanic failed. Their most recent publications on the Titanic failure were as recent as 1999. So the significance of issuing the results of an ongoing investigation within five years is something I don't understand in your repetition of it.

[mhatrw]

197. So the only evidence you have are the eyewitness reports of a few firemen?

You said: But if you can read the direct words of firefighters who saw a 20 foot hole, heard ominous noises within the building, used a surveyors transit to monitor a bulge in the building, etc., and then come to the conclusion that people who were strangers to them were telling them stuff that they would not believe based on their own observations, judgment and experience then, like I said, I can't help you there.

Eyewitness testimony is the easiest evidence to get wrong or fake. It's notoriously unreliable, and in this case it is highly elliptical and contradictory. If there was a huge hole in the building, ominous sounds and a measured bulge, where is the video? Where are the photographs? Why wasn't ANY of this information included in FEMA's initial report on WTC-7?

Read this: http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701

Specifically, consider these eyewitness reports --

Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer:

As I approached, I came down and saw the big hubbub going on around Building 7. I walked around it, I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though. There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down.

It had some damage to it but nothing like what they're saying ... nothing to account for what we saw. I am shocked at the story we've heard about it, to be quite honest.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

Were both of these eyewitnesses lying? Or are these reports just another example of the inherent problems you encounter when you rely on eyewitnesses?

[jberryhill]

201. You know full well that there was a lot of smoke from the fires

and thus there are not many photographs which clearly show the damage.

Your second quote is pretty telling:

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

This is not the eyewitness account of someone looking at the south side of the building. This is an account of a person on ONE floor looking out. There were 47 floors there, my friend. You have a witness to damage on ONE of those floors. Could this eyewitness see the 11th floor? The 20th? Or indeed any floor other than the one he was on.

The first quote is from an NYPD officer who did not hear creaking. Firefighters who were in the building later in the day reported loud noises, groaning, and creaking. I myself did not hear creaking from WTC 7 either. I was in Philadelphia of course, but you fail to understand that an account from someone who did not hear creaking does not logically contradict the account of someone who did hear creaking. I did not see the sunrise this morning. Would you call me a liar if my account contradicted the account of someone who did see the sunrise this morning? You are not applying basic logic to the accounts on which you are relying.

I agree with you that there are divergent opinions, even among eyewitnesses, to the damage to WTC 7. Timestamps on such observations would be helpful, because the condition of WTC 7 may have worsened with time.

But you must also agree with me that, on the Titanic, there were people who thought it was going to sink, and there were people who did not believe it could sink. These are undisputed historical facts concerning differences of opinion among people observing the failure of a steel structure of a kind which had never before in history failed in such a way.

Clearly, the people who believed that the Titanic would sink were the correct ones.

Clearly, the opinion of those who believed that WTC 7 was going to collapse were also correct. Not only were they correct, but their opinion evidently had enough support to inspire an evacuation of the area prior to the collapse which did, indeed, occur.

If you and I had been on the deck of the Titanic, I would certainly respect your opinion to stay onboard, since it would be decades before anyone had a good engineering analysis of its failure, nothing like it had ever ocurred, and there were certainly others who shared your opinion that it would not, and could not happen.

Do I really need to post the reported quotes from crewmembers of the Titanic who were of the opinion that it wasn't going to sink?

Would those quotes prove the existence of an "inside job" to sink the Titanic by those in the know?

It is not a non-sequitur - it is the exact same thing - people disagreeing about the imminent occurence of a historically unprecedented failure of a steel structure. Indeed, while the structure itself was in the process of failing.

[mhatrw]

202. Yes, my second quote is telling. And the first quote is from a guy who was

on the scene and says that the damage was overestimated by the eyewitnesses that you are relying on.

Show me a photo or video of WTC-7 in which smoke is obstructing supposed damage.

Your whole Titanic "analogy" is a complete non sequitur. Every ship previous to the Titanic that ever had its hull severely breached by an iceberg had sunk. In (perfect) contrast, no steel frame high rise in history ever has collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11. The difference between correctly predicting the Titanic's descent and correctly predicting the WTC-7's implosion is as vast as the difference between correctly predicting the sun will come up tomorrow morning and correctly predicting that it won't.

[jberryhill]

203. You still do not understand

Every ship previous to the Titanic that ever had its hull severely breached by an iceberg had sunk. In (perfect) contrast, no steel frame high rise in history ever has collapsed due to fire


Yes, and a lot of WOODEN BUILDINGS have collapsed from fire.

You go ahead and find me a STEEL-HULLED PASSENGER STEAMSHIP which was sunk by an iceberg prior to the Titanic.

Why do you get to compare "every ship" to a steel-hulled passenger steamship, but you limit buildings to "steel frame high rise".

No... you show me where anyone could have expected a ship of the relevant type to the Titanic to succumb to an iceberg.


The difference between correctly predicting the Titanic's descent and correctly predicting the WTC-7's implosion is as vast as


So why were there people who did not believe the Titanic would sink, and decided that they were safer staying on deck than getting into the lifeboats?

There was ZERO historical basis for believing a ship like the Titanic would sink upon collision with an iceberg. NONE.

The firm at which I worked in the 90's was previously a tenant of the Meridian Building in Philadelphia. That was an ordinary office building that was fought vigorously, and not allowed to burn. It did not also have an electrical substation beneath it. Nonetheless, the steel structure was compromised beyond safety, and it had to be torn down because exposure to fire, for a damn sight less time than WTC 7, had rendered it structurally unsound.

I mean, and this is the really bizarro part of your argument here. You have an eyewitness (a policeman, btw, not a firefighter) who thinks that the firefighters were overestimating the damage to the building. This cop thinks the firefighters who thought the building was going to collapse were wrong. So then, the building collapses, and you maintain that the cop was right.

With that kind of confidence in a clearly wrong opinion, I hope you wear a dry suit and can tread water for a looooong time.

[mhatrw]

204. So how many "STEEL-HULLED PASSENGER STEAMSHIPS"

that ever had their hulls severely breached by an iceberg had survived without sinking before the Titanic? Name one!

Thousands of steel framed high rises had survived major fires without collapsing before 9/11. In 2002 alone, in the USA alone, over 7000 high rise fires were reported!

[jberryhill]

205. You are still hedging that...

Because you need to qualify your building fires with buildings that had their hulls breached by falling debris from a nearby skyscraper that had just collapsed and caused not only mechanically-induced structural damage, but seismic shock. And those "other" buildings need to have a bank of nine diesel generators on the fifth floor and a substation below.

You keep trying to broaden my qualifiers while narrowing your own, to avoid the category of "things that failed because major bad shit happened to them".

[mhatrw]

206. That's funny. You don't have one example of any ship that survived

anything like what happened to the Titanic. Meanwhile, there are thousands of examples of steel framed high rises that survived raging fires.

But the two events are somehow equivalent? Why? The only reason I can think of is because you think it's cute to make an "analogy" between them. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

208. The Titanic nonsense is nothing more than

rehashing some wet-dream he had. I wouldn't give to much credence to someone's "logic" who is still obsessed with the ship's sinking. Relevance to the WTC is severely lacking.

[frylock]

232. wtc7 had a unique design that blahblahblah..

lather, rinse, repeat.

[Bolo Boffin]

234. Funny how your picture shows a building...

where the steel structure completely collapses, leaving only the concrete core standing.

[MervinFerd]

183. The possibility of ordinary corruption contributing to disaster is another...

casualty of the Truther Movement.

There -should- be an examination of the design and construction of these 3 buildings.

[jberryhill]

185. Amen to that

Roebling was sold a lot of inferior steel cables for the Brooklyn Bridge. They tried to remove a lot of the substandard cable, but didn't get it all.

Given the way that WTC 7 was built, I question even the large-scale design judgments, let alone what went into actually carrying out the plan.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

133. These are reasonable collapse scenarios for WTC7: Can anyone rebut?

Here's a very short clip of building 7... Am I seeing visible explosions? BTW I'm new here, I've been lurking for a few months and finally I've made the plunge, by signing up. After watching the BBC and CNN fiasco something is not right.

If anyone can explain this away, please do. Thanks...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua7pkQQ1AiU&eurl=

[MervinFerd]

138. You are not seeing visible explosions. Or at least not explosives

Truthfully, I can't tell what is going on in that blurry video. But, if you've been lurking here you -should- know that a collapsing building compresses the air within it, causing puffs and poofs. There are also a variety of things inside a burning office building that can to loud noises as well as puffs and poofs.

If someone -were- demolishing the building, why would they put explosives near the upper windows?




Now, can you explain:
How ice can cut steel?
Why there are no pictures of the iceberg that -supposedly- was hit by the Titanic?
Why one survivor reported explosions on the Titanic before the Iceberg hit?

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

157. You are not seeing visible explosions. Or at least not explosives

Okay you win. I don't nothing about the titanic. I was trying to stay on topic about WTC # 7.

I'm not a explosives expert. But when you pile on the latest evidence that someone had pre-knowledge of the building crashing down to the ground. Imo, We need to reopen and have a true investigation. Subpoena a list of people and let's get down & ugly... expose the criminals that have covered up one of the biggest crime scenes in this country.

Can you imagine living in a steel high rise building (Apartment) and the darn thing catches on fire... Who would reside there, because of the great chances it will collapse. Also I can't for the life of me understand why any insurance company would take the risk.

[MervinFerd]

161. You can pile shit as high as you want. It still stinks.

Look, if you think that BBC mistake was evidence of vast conspiracy in which the BBC was involved, I really have no interest in you.

You are beyond my feeble powers of persuasion.

Hike over to Alex Jones' fine sites and indulge your fantasies.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

233. You can pile shit as high as you want. It still stinks.

Do you have anything against an honest investigation? I heard of Alex Jones but I don't know his stance on this subject, maybe you can help. Is he open for a true investigation? I don't have fantasies, are you being intellectually honest? Come on something appears to be strange the way this building collapsed.

Another short clip, much better than the other one I posted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4556787288866368337

[Bolo Boffin]

235. Alex Jones: piling shit as high as he wants for some time now.

Alex Jones is borderline insane. Alex Jones is driving himself mad with the weight of the assumptions he makes about the world. Alex Jones is carrying people with him.

[jberryhill]

179. The "latest evidence" was common knowledge that day..

Last time on this.

"Someone had pre-knowledge"

Heck YES. That's why there was only ONE casualty from it:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt


"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

Okay, now you have firefighters on the scene getting people away from WTC 7 saying that it was going to collapse. Other firefighters reported heavy damage to the south side, and falling debris.

At 4:15 PM CNN reports that WTC 7 "is collapsing or has collapsed" because the word on the street they were getting wasn't clear. News organizations feed in a pack, so at 5PM having known that CNN reported "is collapsing", the BBC reports "has collapsed".

If your apartment fire started from tons of debris falling on it, and causing a bulge in the south side of it, then get the heck out - yes.

[mhatrw]

211. About that "visible bulge" ...

any video or photographic evidence of it? Why wasn't it mentioned in FEMA's initial report on WTC-7?

[MervinFerd]

216. How stupid. Were the FireFighters lying? YES or NO.

[mhatrw]

242. ...

[strizi64]

212. a clear view: south face WTC7 heavily damaged

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. 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. NYFD Battalion Chief John Norman
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97490#97853

thanks tu DU'er PerpetualYnquisitive, nice pic & thread

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

213. Your link to Firehouse.com isn't working. eom

[strizi64]

214. working link

you're right, was not complete eom:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

217. Thanks. This is a different account by Norman. He does say that there was heavy

damage on the southface but nothing about a 20 atory hole.

He had been then told by Command that it was going to collapse and to clear the area of people around.

Are there any accounts that you know of by the person who was at Command that gave the orders to clear the area? And how they knew it was going to collapse?

[strizi64]

218. check for

yourself, sorry:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/


And how they knew it was going to collapse?

Hmmmm, should I say "experience", an FD Officer with 22 years at NYFD? Or what did you think? Or was he a weasel to you, right after loosing aprox. 350 NYFD-Members, a collapsed WTC1&2 PLUS several other buildings? Should he have taken a close look at some youtube-clips? Sorry, just a joke ;-)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

219. In no way, and I will repeat in no way, was I questioning Norman. Please reread

what I wrote. I made two observations. The first being that he does not mention a 20 story hole in this account. Secondly, he said he was given orders by Command to clear the area as Command said the building was going to collapse.
I just asked if you knew who that person at Command was.

As to firefighters perishing. My sons have friends that lost their uncles due their selfless work as firefighters on 9/11. My community lost over 20 people altogether so please don't play that card with me.

I would also like to add that there there is absolutely no reason for you to be so rude to me.

[spooked911]

230. Rebuttals

1) the building came down too fast-- at free-fall speed once the penthouse caved in-- for a complete collapse, where upper structures had to give way for the collapse to proceed

2) the building came down symmetrically, which doesn't fit with an asymmetrical failure in one truss

3) there is no proof given for the theory

4) Manuel Garcia is a govt employee -- a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California -- and therefore is not an objective judge of what happened to WTC7

Need more?