Does this look like a controlled demolition?

[wildbilln864]

25 second video :shrug:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

8. Your eloquence will be missed...nt

Sid

[Pumpkinpatch]

2. Answer the Question Freepers

or get the FUCK out of HERE.

[Pumpkinpatch]

3. Whoever says "NO" is a Freeper

Whoever says "YES" and hasn't before is a Freeper and whoever doesn't give a FUCK all of a sudden is a FREEPER. CUT and FUCKING DRY.

[LARED]

4. No!

Not really. A controlled demolition usually has all the windows and lots of the insides gutted. But there a slight resemblance in to a controlled demolition in how the building collasped.

Of course this leads to a question from me. So what?

What's your point, that it looked like a CD or that it was a CD?

BTW, no need for the filthy mouth.

[Pumpkinpatch]

5. You are my point

:evilfrown:

[LARED]

6. A whole post about me, I'm honored. nt

[uppityperson]

7. It's dead.

[rhymeandreason]

64. resemblance

How exactly is "there a slight resemblance to a controlled demolition in how the building collapsed"? How would you describe this resemblance?

[greyl]

65. Can you describe how it would look

if it collapsed because of structural damage exacerbated by a 7-hour fire?

[rhymeandreason]

66. Fire

What kind of fire?

[greyl]

67. One that would lead to a building collapsing. nt

[rhymeandreason]

68. Fire

You need to be more specific. What kind of fire would cause a steel frame building to collapse in seven hours?

[AZCat]

69. Have you read the NIST WTC 7 report?

It describes such a fire.

[greyl]

70. Dude. Back up a post or 2.

Please tell me what it would look like when a building collapses "because of structural damage exacerbated by a 7-hour fire".

Are you not answering because it would be indistinguishable from the events in the OP video?

[rhymeandreason]

71. Fire

I would be more than happy to answer your question if you would simply tell me specifically what kind of fire would cause a forty-seven story steel frame building to collapse in seven hours.

[SDuderstadt]

73. You're really not serious, are you?

Do you understand that structural steel is vulnerable to fire? Why do you think steel-framed buildings have fireproofing applied? Do you understand that a building's reaction to a fire is not merely what kind of fire it suffers, but how the building is designed and constructed? Do you know anything at all about the very unusual design of WTC 7? If you do, do you understand how that contributed to the demise of the building?

[rhymeandreason]

75. Fire

Perhaps you can answer my question. What kind of fire would cause a forty-seven story steel frame building to collapse in seven hours?

[Bolo Boffin]

76. One that would cause long floor beams to thermally expand and kick off

a localized collapse around Column 79.

[rhymeandreason]

78. Fire

What kind of a fire would that be?

[Bolo Boffin]

79. The fire that was documented to be in WTC 7. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

80. Do you know how intense the fire was?

Also, did you hear what I said about the design of the building? Did you also know that it suffered substantial structural damage when it was hit by one of the towers? You make this sound like a big mystery. It isn't. Why don't you read the NIST report and save everyone a lot of time?

[greyl]

82. My answer to that diversion should have no bearing

on you applying some creative thought to what knowledge you have and imagining what it might look like.
At the very least, you can tell me how it should look different than what is seen in the OP video.

The glaring point which you are avoiding like the plague, is that you(personally) can't explain what the differences would be between a CD collapse and a collapse initiated by structural damage and 7-hour fires.
Therefore, any conclusions you draw from the OP video are invalid. If you can't explain what the differences would be, then you're holding an opinion based on faith, not reason.

[wildbilln864]

74. no body knows because.....

it's never happened before! :eyes:
"because of structural damage exacerbated by a 7-hour fire"<-- doesn't happen :think:

[rhymeandreason]

77. True?

Is that true? Surely there must be an example of a steel frame building collapsing as a result of fire. Does anyone have an example of this which would validate the claims that WTC7 collapsed as a result of fires. Whoever knows of such an occurrence, please hasten to post information about it.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Would you explain why that would be significant?

Do you think all buildings are designed the same way? In order to make a apples to apples comparison, you would have to find another building that met the following criteria:

1) a 47 story building that takes up an entire city block and
2) is a "tube in a tube" design and
3) suffered significant damage when it was struck by one of the collapsing towers and
4) had an unusual design because it was built over an electrical substation and
5) was on fire for most of the day and firefighters were unable to combat it.

Now, if you find another building that meets that all those criteria and didn't collapse, you might have a valid comparison. Otherwise, I'm not exactly certain what you're trying to prove. By the way, it's simply not true that no other steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed before. IN particualr, one building was a steel-frame and masonry combo. The stell-framed portion completely collapsed,. while the masonry part did not.

[rhymeandreason]

83. Valid

Are you saying that it would have to be an identical building for the comparison to be valid?

Do you have evidence that WTC7 was "struck by one of the falling towers"? If you do, would you share that with us?

Lared saw a "slight resemblance" to controlled demolition in the way that WTC7 collapsed. Do you? If you did could you describe that resemblance?

Can you please provide links to the examples of other steel framed buildings that have collapsed?

[wildbilln864]

84. good luck with that. nt

[SDuderstadt]

85. Are you fucking kidding me?

You purport to be interested in the events of that day, yet you don't even know that WTC7 was struck and heavily damaged by debris by one of the towers? If you aren't even aware of such fundamental facts, how in the world do you draw any conclusions about the collapse of WTC 7? If you believe that the collapse of WTC 7 was in any way suspicious, wouldn't that be best based upon some facts? Unfuckingbelievable.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

[rhymeandreason]

86. Disputed

Whether or not WTC7 sustained serious damage from falling debris has been much disputed. IMHO I don't think that it was seriously damaged but may have suffered some superficial damage. You might want to read this analysis which concludes that there is no basis for stating conclusively that WTC7 was heavily damaged by falling debris from WTC1:

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

excerpt:
Without a clear photograph showing the lowest portion of the south face, we can never be 100% sure that there is no damage to the area of the 6th floor where truss#2 was located, nor whether any such imagined damage was deep enough and far east enough to affect the assembly in question. However there is simply no basis for such an assumption based on the evidence available to NIST and to us. The fact remains that NIST does not possess a photograph of that area either, and hence their estimations are based solely on evidence that we the public have, i.e eye witness testimony. Furthermore the witness testimony that is not directly refuted by Spak's photograph is wildly conflicting - reports of enormous 10 floor craters are at odds with other reports of even the fragile glass being intact in the very same region. Of all the testimony that we have seen, including that not in the public realm but described by NIST in their reports, only two accounts could ever conceivably support NIST's enormous crater in the middle of the south face - the accounts of Boyle and Visconti. Boyle's testimony has been irrefutably disproven by the Spak photo, and yet NIST's estimation of the width and placement of the damage seems to be quite in line with that testimony. Visconti's "a big chunk of the lower floors" is vague, unspecific, and inconclusive, and certainly not any reasonable basis for NIST's damage estimate. NIST, it seems, has pulled the placement and size estimation of that enormous crater out of thin air. In fact, I would suggest that due to poor visibility and the varied locations of the witnesses, the majority of the witnesses saw and were describing the southwest damage seen in Spak's photograph.

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.

However, assuming debris from did cause serious damage to WTC7, how would that account for the buildings sudden, symmetrical, vertical free fall collapse? Wouldn't it have fallen over on the side that was damaged rather than straight down?

[Bolo Boffin]

87. "Wouldn't it have fallen over on the side that was damaged rather than straight down?"

It did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0

This footage brought to us by none other than wildbilln864.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=227513&mesg_id=227513

[rhymeandreason]

88. Significant

In the video it does slump a little to the south about halfway through the collapse but mainly falls straight down. It doesn't fall over to the south but it does tilt or slump enough support your contention that damage to the south side may have been a significant factor in the collapse.

Have you looked closely at what may have been inherently unstable design elements of the structure? The FEMA study includes detailed diagrams of the extensive cantilevered elements incorporated into the structure of WTC7.

link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fema_wtc/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

90. "It doesn't fall over to the south but it does tilt or slump enough"

It was only a factor in the collapse as it was happening. If you read the NIST report:

http://wtc.nist.gov

You'll see that they conducted several test scenarios with their computer model. The damage caused by the debris did not contribute to collapse initiation. In fact, one test was run with the documentable fires but without the documentable damage and the building fell anyway. One test was run with Column 79 removed from floors 11-13 only, and the building fell. Both fell in notably different progressive sequences, but down they went.

The main reasons the building fell were the unusual dependence of the structure on column 79 and the long floor beams in the east of the building. They weren't cantilevered, but they were stretching over the ramp that supplied the entire WTC complex. It was their thermal expansion that kicked an important girder loose between 79 and the perimeter, started a localized collapse. That removed support from 79 for about seven or eight floors. The cantilevered girders in the northwest played their part in the ensuing collapse, though.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Maybe YOU should read what FDNY had to say about WTC 7...

Forgive me, but I don't have time to read your CT stuff

[rhymeandreason]

91. Truther

Actually, as someone seeking the truth, I'm sure that you want to develop a fully informed and balanced view and the analysis that I cited might give you another useful perspective.

[SDuderstadt]

92. The FDNY lost over 300 of their own that day...

are you suggesting they aren't interested in the truth? My problem with CT sites is that, rather than provide "fresh perspective", simply rebunk nonsense thas has been repeatedly debunked over and over.

[rhymeandreason]

94. Before you decide

whether it is nonsense or not, why don't you take a look at it. It's very detailed, much more detailed and informative than the analysis at Debunking 9/11. And it seems more objective to me.

Here's the link again:

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

[Realityhack]

98. That article is outdated. n/t

[rhymeandreason]

72. Input

Lared, we really need your input on this. How exactly is there "a slight resemblance to a controlled demolition in how the building collapsed"? How does the the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition?

[SidDithers]

9. Does this look like a nuclear explosion?...

go to 1:25 of this 1:45 video

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3WKTwHpIU&feature=related

Sid

[LARED]

10. BLEVE's are very cool.

To the uninitiated BLEVE is a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion.

[SidDithers]

11. Yeah, I used to do some work with the fire guys at an oil refinery...

they had some very cool BLEVE videos and stories. But they lived that stuff, I just got to visit now and then :)

Sid

Edit: They also joked that BLEVE stood for BLast LEveling Everything.

[AZCat]

12. Holy sh*t!

That was impressive.

[BunnyBluetimes]

13. WHOA that looks about right

Some guy gave an interview to a TV station and said something about pulling the building. I forgot his name but this is shocking! He knew the building could be pulled down because it was rigged:wow:

[SDuderstadt]

14. Do yourself a favor

Look for any controlled demolition expert who uses the term "pull" to mean bringing down a building with explosives in a controlled demolition. Good luck. The term "pull" in controlled demolition means to attach cables to a relatively short building and pull it over on its side. Of course, in FD lingo, to "pull" means to pull a firefighting team from a building.

[BunnyBluetimes]

15. I heard him he said

"the smartest thing to do is pull it we made the decision to pull we watched the building collapse :nuke: OMG!!! He Knew the building was rigged to pull. You were right TRUTHERS:bounce:

he did not say them he said it!!!! :wow:

[LARED]

16. Thank goodness you have figured it out

Now everyone really knows what happened. :sarcasm:

[SDuderstadt]

17. "It" meaning the firefighting team....

do yourself a favor and look up a logical fallacy known as "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc". Is it really suspicious that right after the decision (By FDNY, by the way) was made to "pull it" (meaning the firefighting team) that the building fell down??? Um, no....FDNY was pretty certain that the building was going to fall, hence the decision to "pull" the firefighting team from the perimeter of the building. You really ought to read a book called "How We Know What Isn't So", by Thomas Gilovich. He goes into great detail about how people's minds foll them into believing something that clearly is not true. This "pull it" red herring has been debunked over and over. Ask yourself a simple question, Do you really think one of the perps would go on national tv and confess to demolishing the building?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

21. You need to look at both sides....

rather than just falling for crap you read on CT websites. Seriously. You're making us liberals look really bad. Ever heard of fact-checking?

[BunnyBluetimes]

19. I can't stop laughing at you

Believing in those dumb BUSh REPORTS:rofl:

SDuderstadt said it means firefighters :rofl: :dunce: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

23. That's funny....

I didn't know that Bush controlled the FDNY. Like I said before, I'm saying you won't find a single CD expert that says the term "pull" means to bring down a building in a controlled demolition using explosives. Why do you think that is?

I'd advise you to quit accusing me of believing "Bush reports". It's rather silly to think the Bush administration (good riddance) was the only source for info on all the events of 9/11. There are thousands of "non-Bush sources" for info on that day.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Silverstein himself said it was a contingent of firefighters that he meant

Fire departments don't demolish buildings. They do pull their people back from a out-of-control building that appears likely to collapse.

Daniel Nigro talks a lot about doing exactly that.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

[RC]

24. It is quite obvious Silverstein was talking about WTC7 and not any firefighters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsJjYwYOAA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uT7kcAu4i8&feature=related

Why would he say 'it' instead of 'them' if he were talking about the firefighters?

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Larry Silverstein

[greyl]

25. Based on information in the quote you posted,

why did Silverstein and the FDNY assist the building's collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Actually, no. He was talking to the fire department and they don't demolish buildings.

He was talking about the contingent of firefighters. Silverstein mentions the terrible loss of life as a motivation for pulling the contingent. He also says that "they" made that decision to pull. The acting commander, Daniel Nigro, has explained that he pulled back people from around WTC 7 in response to the possible collapse of the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT0WjGyZW1M (now with captions!)

[SDuderstadt]

27. Again, find a SINGLE CD expert who says that "pull"....

is a term used to denote bringing down a building with explosives in a controlled demolition, as opposed to attaching cables to a short building and pulling it over on its side. Hint: you won't. It's pretty clear that people on the scene realized that 1) it was futile to try to save the building and 2) they should not risk lives in a futile effort. Why would you be surprised that after the FDNY decided to pull the firefighters that they would end up watching the building fall? Isn't that what you would expect? Please don't tell me that you think the FDNY was "in on it".

[RC]

28. You're funny.

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Translation: I don't have a single demo expert who uses "pull it" to talk about explosive demo

so here's a nice smiley.

[RC]

42. You don't have a single demo expert... ???

What does that mean?

If you had said you don't know a single demo expert... Then that would mean only that you don't know any demo experts, nothing more. I sincerely doubt you do.

The post I responded to was so idiotic there could be no other response.

The children have vacated the White House. We have grown-ups in charge now. Reread your memos while you have time. You may have missed one.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Translation: I still don't have any demo experts so let's pretend Bolo doesn't make any sense

and see if that hides my lack of demo experts.

[greyl]

30. Wow.

Ok.
Next?

[SDuderstadt]

31. This is RC speak for....

"you got me there...I don't have a single expert who supports my goofy claim".

[procopia]

32. Silverstein is a CD expert?

Why would you expect Silverstein to know or use demolition terminology? A thesaurus entry for "pull" is:

"pull something down, demolish, level, destroy" (Collins)

Silverstein said to "pull it...then, we watched it go down." Cause and effect.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Nice little edit and change of his wording.

Please try to use his full words, thanks.

[procopia]

35. The meaning wasn't changed:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Why would not being able to contain the fire threaten the loss of life? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

34. I wouldn't.....

thus, when he explained later that he was referring to the firefighting team, it made perfect sense. Seriously, does anyone here believe that he just sort of went on national TV and confessed to a dastardly crime? Why is it so hard to accept what he says at face value? I'm trying to think of what he had to gain by having the building demolished.

[procopia]

37. Firefighters had already been ordered away from it

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from for safety reasons."

Firefighters' comments immediately before the collapse indicate foreknowledge:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

There was no way for firefighters to be certain the building would "be coming down soon" unless they were told by someone.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. None of that, oddly enough, is an answer to my question. n/t

[procopia]

46. What is the point of your question?

Firefighters never attempted to contain the fires in WTC 7, which is why Silverstein's attempted damage control statement makes no sense.

[AZCat]

48. Not after they figured out the standpipes were dry, anyway.

The FDNY sent about 40 members to WTC 7 to put the fires out, but without functioning standpipes or hydrants they had nothing with which to fight the fires.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. What firefighters actually did or didn't do has nothing to do with what Silverstein thought

was happening.

Silverstein was operating on the information being given to him by the person who called him. That person told him, by Silverstein's account, that the Fire Department did not think that they were going to be able to contain the fire. The natural assumption for Silverstein to make is that there was a contingent of firefighters trying to fight the fire. And so he said there was already such a tremendous loss of life...

Now my question is to you -- can you understand the jump there? Why is it that Silverstein goes from thinking people are around his burning building and not being able to contain it to a consideration of lives already having been lost?

[greyl]

39. Actually, it's only because so many people expected it to fall

that it has to be so painfully forced into the 9/11 conspiracies.
If it wasn't, CTists would have to admit to themselves the effect that fires and structural damage can have on buildings whose erect state under normal circumstance is a spectacle of engineering.

Many eyewitness accounts, including from Arundhati Roy, explain how the building was predicted to fall, and that scientific instruments were used to show the building was structurally unsound and in danger of collapse.

[procopia]

47. If it was known at the time that WTC 7 was structurally unsound

why did it take years to complete the NIST report, and why did Sunder have to admit at one point that NIST was having a hard time getting a handle on WTC 7? Why was FEMA unable to explain the WTC 7 collapse after its attempted investigation?

Do you have a link about scientific instruments that were used?

[AZCat]

49. Excellent question.

It highlights the significant difference between "knowing" something on the ground during an event and "proving" it later. We all may be victims of selective bias because we pay attention to those who say they knew the building was unstable and ignore the rest who say otherwise. I won't criticize, though, because after two building collapses already in one day who is going to be cavalier about a possible third collapse?

[greyl]

52. NIST wanted to discover the reasons for the collapse to an extraordinary level of detail.

It's not quite enough to settle on the "holy shit, that fucker's gonna come down" analysis from the street that day.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

More

edit: bolded the "pulls"

[greyl]

40. No.

The size, placement and timing of the "puffs" is all wrong.
They're too small, come from a a very limited portion of the building through windows that were already broken by the damage, and most importantly, they don't begin till after the building starts to collapse.

[wildbilln864]

41. all your opinion unless.......

you have evidence!

Too small? Why? How big should they be and why?
Already broken? How do you know this? :shrug: Have any evidence? I thought not.

" ...they don't begin till after the building starts to collapse."
At lest the ones in view of the camera but others deeper in the core would be set off first. We might not be able to see those especially if they were thermit. So your argument is full of big holes greyl.

[greyl]

56. Read the OP closely. You asked for opinions.

You're damn lucky you got those, because we've been asking for evidence from the 9/11 Truth Industry for about 7 years now, and haven't been offered jack shit.

[wildbilln864]

59. you ignore evidence that doesn't fit the Bush CT.

That's so obvious. Asking for evidence from the "truth industry"!?
Rather stupid isn't it as the "truth industry" as you call it, is also trying to get to the real evidence as to what happened and how it was allowed to happen. :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

60. The Obama CT, you mean

Or the Pelosi CT, the Conyers CT, the Biden CT, the Reid CT, the Kennedy CT, the Jackson CT...

[wildbilln864]

61. nope!

I mean what I said. :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

62. But Obama espouses it just as much as Bush did

Calling it the Official Bush Conspiracy Theory is rather uncivil of you.

[wildbilln864]

63. you'll get over it, but in case you don't, you can rest assured...

I already have.

[rhymeandreason]

44. Of course it does.

Every person that I have shown this to has thought that it was a controlled demolition. It is obviously a controlled demolition. It is very hard to understand how anyone with the slightest knowledge of controlled demolitions could see it as anything else.

[AZCat]

45. Well, there's your problem!

You should stop asking people with the slightest knowledge of controlled demolitions and start asking those with extensive knowledge of the same.

[pauldp]

51. You mean like Danny Jowenko? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Danny Jowenko.

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Danny+Jowenko

• Jowenko Says The Towers Were Not Demolitions
  
• Jowenko Uses Silverstein Statement to Prejudge Video
  
• Jowenko Is Only Shown Select Information
  
• Jowenko Thinks They Did It In One Day
  
• Jowenko Isn't Aware Of How Badly The Building Was On Fire
  
• Jowenko Isn't Aware of the Severe Damage To The South
  
• Jowenko Says "I Don't Know, It's Guessing For Me."
  

[pauldp]

54. Oh that's right! Those mean old Twoofers tricked him!

They showed him a video of a collapse he was not aware of and asked him what he thought it looked like, and he said controlled demolition. He is after all a controlled demolition expert. But I think those Dutch twoofers were mentalists! Magicians too perhaps? Mean, nasty tricksters they were.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. If you will actually read what I wrote and linked to instead of decrying your straw man

you might learn something.

[pauldp]

57. I read it Bolo. And Yes! You are right! Like I said before they tricked him!!

"Though it's not shown on any film of the interview I've seen" - Well even though we can't see what those nasty twoofers told him, I'm sure it was VERY deceptive - how else after all could a controlled demolition expert think that the collapse of 7 was a demolition? I'm telling you I think they were mentalists!

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Well, at least you're now building your straw man out of actual quotes

I guess that's about the best I can hope for.

[Theobald]

93. No, it does not look like a controlled demolition

I've seen a controlled demoliton in person, the Sands in Atlantic City, and this video does not look or sound like the one in AC. For one there were multiple explosions at the one in AC and I didn't hear anything in this video. It doesn't look like there were any explosions prior to collapse and you have to have that in order to induce a controlled demolition. In a controlled demolition shaped charges made of plastic explosives are placed in numerous structural significant locations through out the building. They are discharged in a staggard format which causes the building to collapse in a controlled manner. If this were the case with WTC7 you would have heard those explosions on the video.

[rhymeandreason]

95. The similarity to Controlled Demolition is quite visible and the explosions

prior to WTC7's collapse are audible in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

[Bolo Boffin]

97. That video is taken several hours before 7 fell - you can tell by the shadows

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2043899&postcount=59

That explosion has nothing at all to do with WTC 7's collapse.

[rhymeandreason]

99. Those are some rather long shadows

in the video. I'm not sure how you can flatly assert that the explosion has nothing at all to do with WTC7's collapse. The firefighters certainly seemed to think that it did as in "Seven is exploding". Perhaps you should review the video more closely.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. 10:45 AM

There is no "flat assertion". This is math. The fireman is saying "The city is exploding." WTC 1 had just collapsed.

[rhymeandreason]

101. The fireman is clearly saying

"Seven's exploding!" Give it another listen. How did you arrive at "10:45 AM"?

[Bolo Boffin]

102. "The city is exploding." That's what the fireman is saying.

As I linked to, the time of 10:45 am is based on their position and the direction of the shadows based on the position of the sun. This is not rocket science. That was filmed just after WTC 1 has collapsed. The loud explosion there has NOTHING to do with WTC 7 falling seven hours later.

[rhymeandreason]

103. I think you are mistaken. Go to 5:06, he clearly says "Seven's exploding".

Would you please provide a source for your assertion that it was filmed "just after WTC1 has collapsed"? Interesting how the sound of the explosion has precisely the sharp concussive quality that you hear during controlled demolitions.

You'll also want to review this:

Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

[Bolo Boffin]

104. Nope. He says, "the city's exploding."

I HAVE provided a source that shows the video was filmed at 10:45 am. Go back and look again.

Now you provided a source for the assertion that the sound happening around 10:45 has a "sharp concussive quality that you hear during controlled demolitions." I expect it to be an actual audio analysis done by people who have examined controlled demolition seismographs, etc, for these distinct characteristics. I already know that CD experts have examined the seismographs of all three collapses and they did not find the characteristic signature of explosives severing core columns.

Barry Jenning's story of explosives was about the impact of WTC 1 debris into 7, the building he was in.

[rhymeandreason]

105. Sounds like "seven's exploding" to me but I could be mistaken.

Help me out with this one. One of the firefighters seems to be saying "the building's about to blow up!" but perhaps he's saying something else.

WTC7 - Incriminating evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=related

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Irrelevant

What one person says hours later has nothing to do with what the person said at 10:45 am.

[rhymeandreason]

107. You're terribly assertive but not very persuasive .

The 10:45 AM time frame still doesn't seem all that credible to me. What exactly is your basis for this?

It is clear that this person thought the building was about to explode. And subsequently someone else observed that "seven's exploding!".

But regardless, it is clear that this person thought the "the building's about to blow up!", not "the buildings about to collapse!" what he said was "the buildings about to blow up!". So go ahead, persuade me that he really meant "the building's about to collapse!"

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Irrelevant

I have provided my basis for that first video clip being filmed at 10:45 am. Your continued assertions that I have not is laughable. Go back to the first post where I mentioned it. I provided a link to a discussion that shows this.

The person had just 15 minutes before experienced the collapse of WTC 1, and thirty minutes before that the collapse of WTC 2. After that large bang, it is no wonder to me that he says the city is exploding.

Please stop trying to distract the conversation by refering to yet another video clip.

[rhymeandreason]

109. Kindly provide me with the post number

for your 10:45 assertion. Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. No.

You're the one that skipped over it and continued to pretend I'd provided nothing. Go back and read the thread.

[rhymeandreason]

112. I didn't skip over it.

I can't find it. But if you can't extend me the courtesy of telling where exactly this vital and authoritative post is when I get a chance I'll go look for it.

Incidentally, how come I never find your name popping up on any of the other discussions on this board?

[Bolo Boffin]

113. Inaccurate

Yes, you did skip over it. I refuse to play your wear-them-down game.

I just changed my name in the name amnesty here at DU. That's something that is stated in EVERY POST I post here right now. Something else you keep skipping over.

[rhymeandreason]

114. Bolo Boffin or Boloboffin

is not a pseud that I would be likely to miss if it appeared in any other sub-forum. I haven't seen it. Why is that?

Also, why are you so rude?

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Distraction

My posting history here is none of your concern.

And you, after ignoring my post, repeatedly asserting that I had not provided the link you asked for, and now have done a search of my posting habits and confronted me about it -- you have the NERVE to ask ME why I'm so rude????

Any concerns you have about my posting, take them up with the moderators. Get back to the topic at hand, which is NOT attacking me.

[Theobald]

143. There is an explosion that is quite audible, but

there are no explosions. They played the same explosion over and over and over again. A controlled demolition is not caused by one big explosion, it is caused by multiple smaller, staggard explosions. The video is kind of pathetic in it's use of facts and very misleading with the use of video edits.

[wildbilln864]

145. have any evidence please? nt

[SidDithers]

96. looks like != is...nt

Sid

[rhymeandreason]

110. In this view it is clearly an implosion

wherein you can see the penthouse collapsing into the the building before the rest of the building goes down:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3132857754400064872&ei=T0CGSbDXAZKwqwLskfz8Cg&q=wtc7+collapses

Obviously CD. This isn't "rocket science", any idiot ought to be able to see that.

[Realityhack]

116. Once again.... "looks like != is"

Ignore the point much lately?

The video you linked to shows exactly what the NIST model predicts, based on a collapse initiation and progression that is NOT based on controlled demolition.

Have you read the NIST report on building 7?

[JuniperLea]

117. why would anyone believe a fedreral technology agency?

that's the point, there are no outside sources.

all i know is that i am at this very moment in a building in downtown los angeles that burned for a hell of a lot longer than any building at the WTC, and it's still standing. it was built the same year as the twin towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

118. "a hell of a lot longer than any building at the WTC" -- not building 7

And that building's fire was fought by the fire department in a Herculean effort to crush it, and crush it they did.

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Flame-Engulfed+Buildings

The two building fires are far more different than alike.

[JuniperLea]

119. And yet it is STILL based on government information

No thanks.

It does say, however, that this building is the closest in construction to the twin towers... and the towers didn't burn as long before they collapsed.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. You may have noticed -- Democrats now control the government.

Tell you what -- if Obama shows those buildings were CDed, I will leave this board forever.

If he only floats the "government" line for the next two years, do you agree to do the same?

Oh, and by the way, this is where I got my information from:

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

How exactly is that a government site? Because the firefighters it quotes are government employees?

[JuniperLea]

121. I have no time for childish challenges

And I think you responded as I edited after further reading.

Obama is in office now. He did not create the government, nor can he straighten it all out in one term... maybe not even two.

[SDuderstadt]

123. You're kidding, right?

It will take Obama two terms to gain control of his own executive branch? Wouldn't that mean that W didn't have control of the executive branch established by 2001? Does that mean the government agencies were still doing Clinton's bidding? So, was Clinton behind 9/11? Do you think things through before you post them?

[JuniperLea]

130. Did I say "the executive branch?" No, you interjected that tid bit...

I said GOVERNMENT. And even Obama is now seeing how even the lefties in the gov take advantage.

Do YOU think about things before you post them? Do YOU read posts before you respond to them? :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

136. You realize that ALL agencies are....

from the EXECUTIVE branch, right? With the exception of independent federal agencies, ALL government agencies are prt of the executive branch. I stand by what I said.

[Realityhack]

142. Double standard.

Bush controlled all those agencies in 2001... well enough to pull of some kind of super conspiracy apparently.

But Obama won't be able to control them within 4 years.

You have not provided a reason for the difference.

[Bolo Boffin]

124. But you do have time for childish handwaving.

"Government source? WHAAAAAAAAA!"

Please.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

135. It is YOU who is not being serious. My "government source" for the Aon building fire is a fire chief

Someone who spoke long before Bushco even existed.

More information about this fire:

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank_13.html

3. High danger to firefighters was mitigated by physical fitness, good personal safety equipment, and safety training.

The fact that almost 400 Fire Department members operated on this fire, with only 14 minor injuries, is a credit to the training and physical fitness of Los Angeles firefighters and the safety procedures that were employed. The use of protective hoods was found to be very effective in preventing burns and allowing firefighters to penetrate into the involved fire floors.

4. Incident Command System is critical for a large, complex fire.

The High Rise Incident Command System was very effective in managing the incident. Despite the massive numbers of companies and firefighters on the scene, the Fire Department maintained good organization at the scene and effectively -- and safely -- managed their resources. The Los Angeles City Fire Department is to be commended for its extraordinarily low injury rate at this fire.

Notice some things different about the fighting of this fire and the ones in the towers and 7?

[Realityhack]

126. Close to the twin towers != close to WTC7

And if you bother to stop jumping to conclusions for a moment you will recall that both of the twin towers were hit by aircraft doing substantial damage.

[SDuderstadt]

122. So what?

Was it hit by a jetliner at a high rate of speed? Was the fireproofing knocked off the structural steel? Is it a "tube in a tube" design? Do you know what you're talking about?

[JuniperLea]

134. It is tube in tube design

And I've talked to the architect currently doing a remodel... yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Seeing as you have asked about tube in tube, clearly you don't know about this building.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Since you didn't name the building....

how the fuck would you expect me to know how it was designed? Is this your normal thinking process?

[Realityhack]

141. And you are blatantly ignoring...

that it was NOT severely compromised by an aircraft hitting it, and that your architect friend is NOT an engineer and likely has not gone over the engineering details of the WTC collapse.

You started talking about WTC7, now you seem to be talking about the twin towers. They are very different, which do you want to discuss and what *specifically* (that you 'firmed up' makes you think that fire could not have caused the observed collapse?

[AZCat]

125. Because they're credible?

NIST has done tons of reputable and reliable work over the years, and many professionals depend on them because they know a thing or two about engineering - something that is helpful (but not required) in understanding the differences in response to fires between the buildings you listed.

[JuniperLea]

133. I happen to have spoken to an architect...

Who is currently working on this building, in a pre-construction meeting for the lower-level remodel. That convo firmed up my conclusions.

[AZCat]

137. Why don't you try talking to an engineer?

I don't expect architects to know much about engineering, just like they don't expect me to know much about architecture.

[Realityhack]

140. Which conclusions?

First of an architect who is likely not intimately familiar with the *engineering* aspects of the WTC is hardly an expert to call on. So which conclusions did they 'firm up'?

The building you showed was not constructed like WTC7. So what conclusion can you possibly reach given that the other two towers were hit by aircraft?

[Realityhack]

127. Jumping to the twin towers is a distraction from our conversation about WTC7

Once again I ask,
Have you even read the NIST report on WTC7?

You clearly do not appear to have read it. The reason I say that is that your differential criteria for determining that this was a CD rather than another type of collapse relies on things that the NIST models predicts better than a CD theory and therefore your evidence argues better against your position than for it.

Your ONLY argument is that NIST is a government agency and therefore MUST be not just lying. That is a clear and blatant logical fallacy that even you should be able to understand.

Is NIST beyond reproach? No.
Is everything NIST says definitely a lie? No.
Have you presented ANY evidence that contradicts their collapse model? No.

If you want to argue against a scientific theory or engineering model you are going to need more than your personal ignorance, logical fallacies, and shoddy theories to be taken seriously.

[JuniperLea]

132. And I suppose you have the wherewithal

To properly, effectively, and accurately cherry pick what is and what is not valid information from the NIST. Nice.

[Realityhack]

139. A LOT of engineers have looked at that report.

And the opponents are for the most part not even engineers.

The question is... can you (or anyone else) point to specific errors or flaws in the report? OR can you list criteria that differentiate between the NIST proposed collapse mechanism and CD which can be examined and conform to the CD explanation and not the NIST explanation.

You pointed out that the penthouse fell first, claiming that was evidence of CD. In fact it is exactly what the NIST model predicted and the timing is quite questionable for a CD as you would not want all that weight falling though floor after floor potentially disturbing charges.

Can you point to such errors? Can you show something happened that indicates CD and contraindicates the NIST report?

[goforit]

128. Controlled all the way!

Boy you were attacked on this post.

Are they afraid the truth is coming out????

[Realityhack]

129. No his idea was attacked not him.

Do you have any serious engineering evidence to present that contradicts the NIST report?

Maybe you could list exactly what differential criteria you used to determine that what you see in the video is a controlled demolition and not the result of the collapse progression that NIST has put forth?

Or do you in fact not have any?

[KDLarsen]

144. Dare I ask..

.. what should a non-demolition building collapse look like? Should it fall over on its side? Should it explode? Should it do a backflip? Or should it simply fall to the ground?