a comparison ..

[wildbilln864]

47 second video.
:hi:
ETA: and also this video.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Maybe the Chinese building just didn't understand

It didn't have two other buildings to show it the way :hi:

[Realityhack]

13. Or it was a diffrent design...

one that specifically took into account the lessons learned from the WTC.

The NIST WTC7 theory works in large part due to a flaw in the design. Why would you expect any other building to fail in the same way?

[hack89]

2. I missed the part where the 767 flew into the Mandarin Orient

I guess I'll have to take a closer look. I can't imagine that you would compare apples to oranges.

[mrgerbik]

3. wtc7?

oh oops .. no it had a 'huge gash' on its SW corner... riiiiight :eyes:

[hack89]

15. There are FDNY accounts of massive structural damage

none that have been debunked beyond smearing the FDNY as being complicit in the murder of their own firefighters.

[mrgerbik]

25. what about

the police/nyfd accounts of numerous explosions described as sounding like bombs -- those are pretty strong words for pure conjecture, considering they are paid officials. I suppose they havent been smeared enough to believe? ...smells like Double standards to me.

So the in the OCT bag of tricks youve got:
-A big 'gash' and/or bulge in the corner of wtc7 that was stated by... how many? 2, 3 people?
-Some fishy, discolored lone picture showing this apparent damage
-The building falling 'asymmetrically' (what a laugh)
-"Massive" diesel fuel fires.

maybe consider:
-the 3rd steel framed building to collapse from fire in history
-It collapsing close to free-fall speed while falling into itself
-Media reporting it collapsing before it actually did
-Silverstiens 'pull it' comment.

I know there are many more (on both sides) - I just dont have time to think of the rest

[hack89]

26. There were plenty of explosions

Huge fires are extremely noisy - there are plenty of things to explode. The only problem is that unless you believe in delayed CD, there is no connection to the actual collapse. Most of the accounts make it clear that no one hears an "explosion" that immediately (ie within seconds) preceded the collapse. Why is that? Magic explosives that cause collapses hours later?

Why, for example, in none of the videos of the actual collapse do you hear explosives being detonated? Why is there no sign of a high pressure shock wave?

Can you show me a single person who reported explosions that also definitely stated that they believe it was CD? Didn't think so.

[mrgerbik]

34. lets make this clear

when people say explosions and they reference a bomb .. yes this could be maybe an easy way to describe what it sounded like - but to have numerous, seperate public officials (and public) saying "it sounded like bombs going off" - that`s a different story.

"Most of the accounts make it clear that no one hears an "explosion" that immediately (ie within seconds) preceded the collapse."

I dont think anyone here has the expertise to make a conclusion on something vague as this. All most of us have been pointing out is that when you hear numerous accounts of explosions all over the place (including near the base of WTC 1 and 2 - also noteworthy is smoke appearing at the base before the collapse), it shouldnt be poo-pooed away because it doesn`t fit YOUR perfect worldview.

"Why is that? Magic explosives that cause collapses hours later?"

Who knows. I sure don't. It's just more questions upon questions - which is exactly why you wont hear many people answer the ridiculous question "so if it was CD, how come nobody can explain how they did it?" Thats like a tribesman in some dense jungle calling someone full-of-shit because he couldn't explain to the village how a plane works after the he had claimed he saw one flying through the sky.

"Why, for example, in none of the videos of the actual collapse do you hear explosives being detonated? Why is there no sign of a high pressure shock wave?"

I dont think the numbers of people claiming they heard them would point to all of them lying simultaneously, do you? There are many videos of explosions. Google is your friend (for now lol).


"Can you show me a single person who reported explosions that also definitely stated that they believe it was CD? Didn't think so."

Irrelevant. Many huge explosions were heard that dont fit your low temperature kerosene fire, gravity driven, 90% full of shit, whitewashed, pancaking collapse theory.

[hack89]

38. So it sounds like you have nothing conclusive?

how many people know what bombs sound like? Wouldn't you agree that only a tiny fraction of the population has ever actually heard real high explosive? So why does someone saying "it sounded like a bomb" prove it was a bomb?

If someone said it sounded like "a freight train" would you be looking for train parts?

Of course this would be a lot easier if you were to actually advance a theory on how the WTC were demolished - so tell me, how does this evidence fit into the grand scheme of things? Or are you another 'just asking questions" kind of guy?

[mrgerbik]

39. "how many people know what bombs sound like? ...

... Wouldn't you agree that only a tiny fraction of the population has ever actually heard real high explosive? So why does someone saying "it sounded like a bomb" prove it was a bomb?"

the problem is that there were police officers, firemen and other officials stating this over and over that day. I guess if we throw out their claims, then we shouldnt heed much credence to the nyfd chiefs statements in regards to wtc7. right?

"Of course this would be a lot easier if you were to actually advance a theory on how the WTC were demolished - so tell me, how does this evidence fit into the grand scheme of things?

So when and if I were to make a detailed and exhaustive theory, you can bet you would try and rip it apart - telling me how I dont have the credentials to make such claims.
Yet If I take the stance that I'm not sure, you blast me for being a "just asking questions kind of guy" ? Is there something wrong with asking questions? Id like to believe in myself just a teeny little bit that I can make a little bit of difference in this world (or worldview?), instead of sitting on the sidelines and accepting all the bullshit we're fed everyday.

I would love to believe what that criminal administration told us was the truth, it would release alot of frustration .. but I just can't go that way.

[hack89]

40. Firemen know what explosions sound like - they are common in fires

You are the one conflating explosions with explosives.

My point about the theory is simple - if it is so clear that the evidence conclusively proves that it was CD, why is it impossible for the truth movement to use that evidence to explain how? Seven years and not a single attempt.

You ask to be taken seriously yet won't even attempt to explain how the WTC were demolished. Do you understand why truthers are an internet fringe group?

[mrgerbik]

41. maybe because its out of most peoples realm of expertise...

and/or maybe it involves technologies we dont know about publicly - that may be why it seems so different then regular CD pulls of a building. Most people didn't get to take detailed floor by floor tours to get intimate with the structures, so why do you ask?

Even when theories are posted, they are negatively lambasted with no respect for the theorist - no consideration of what is being presented. For most OCTers thats just fine. It proves in their minds that it couldn't possibly happen. Basically the question is a lame-duck, and imo it's just being noisily negative.

"My point about the theory is simple - if it is so clear that the evidence conclusively proves that it was CD, why is it impossible for the truth movement to use that evidence to explain how? Seven years and not a single attempt."

Not a single attempt? hmmm I would disagree. But the point I was making dosent involve that - it involves the countless coincidences, actions and oddities of 9/11 that dont add up to the OCT. I guess you didnt get the gist of my last 2 posts.


"Do you understand why truthers are an internet fringe group?"

ORLY? -- from YOUR side of the fence, sure.

[hack89]

42. Yet you have the expertise that allows you to be absolutely sure it was CD?

not even a remote possibility that you could be wrong? I mean, if you can even begin to explain how it was done then why not simply admit that you lack the necessary knowledge?

How do you see it from your side of the fence? Do you really believe that the truth movement is growing and has any national visibility? It wasn't a topic during the election, it is not a topic of discussion now. Surely you can't believe that anything has changed?

[mrgerbik]

44. no of course not - do you have the expertise to be absolutely sure of the OCT? nt

[AZCat]

27. When are the members of the "truth movement" going to understand...

there is no such thing as "free-fall speed"? It's not like we haven't pointed out this before. What do I have to do to kill this horrible perversion of physics? Come to your house and draw a picture?

It's not that complicated:
1. Gravity works as an acceleration.
2. Acceleration is the change in velocity.
3. Speed is the scalar of velocity.
4. There is such a thing as free-fall acceleration, equal in magnitude to gravity (which is usually assumed to be constant but varies according to altitude - just not that much).
5. There is such a thing as terminal velocity (or terminal speed, if you don't care about direction), dependent on mass and geometry of the falling body (and altitude, because it changed the density of air).
6. There is no such thing as free-fall speed, because any falling body free of restraint will accelerate until air resistance begins to be significant and reduce acceleration to zero - then the body then has reached terminal velocity.
7. The distance a body must travel before reaching terminal velocity is variable. Cats are known for hitting terminal velocity within a few floors, but this is because they have a large apparent cross-section and low density (relative to things like rocks). More dense objects take much longer.

[Realityhack]

29. Never? n/t

[AZCat]

30. Sometimes I wonder.

Willful ignorance is a powerful force.

[Realityhack]

31. I wonder if it is willfull ignorance.

Sure for some people it probably is. And for some people it may just be ignorance or missunderstanding.
But for others I wonder if it is actually more like a mental 'condition' of some kind. I don't mean that to be offensive or even negative, just that they might think in a very different way. Some people have a very hard time with math for example. They struggle to understand what the numbers mean, others can derive the equation for a knot in their heads.
There is a subset of conspiracy theorists who seem to jump around a lot in their thought process. They are drawing connections between things (normal human behavior) but the connections are highly random and exceptionally strong (giving the appearance of willful ignorance because they can not be convinced to change the connections). They don't seem to use the same logic to arrive at conclusions that others do.
And all of this is independent of what the conspiracy in question is. A site on 'free energy' might read in much the same way as a site on 'The New World Order' in terms of the way connections are made, and the structure of the language, not to mention visual appearance. That makes me think there might be a similar (but non-normal) thought process behind the scenes.

In my experience scientific style rational thought is hard for average people to grasp, I imagine this as just being the opposite end of the spectrum.

So I guess I wonder to a certain degree wither it is willful or something they have no control over even if they wanted to.

[mrgerbik]

37. thanks spock .. your logic is noted...

its people who ferociously hold on to static and rock-solid ideals that hold us back. I don't mean that to be offensive or even negative (really).

what we need is balance - the middle, IMO, not extremes. I dont think that fits into a the category of a mental disorder does it?

[Realityhack]

43. Huh?

Balance between what? Rational thought and random connections?

Sorry I just don't understand your post.

[ryan_cats]

32. Making sense?

You need to stop making sense right now!

I've been avoiding posting here for a while but it looks like the same arguments are getting a second or third or fourth wind. Glad to see people are refuting the B.S. I do miss Christopher's C4 coating rebar in a concrete core theory although I've seen it in other places. Kookieness is its own reward.

[mrgerbik]

36. i said near free-fall .. k thks

nitpickers :eyes:

[AZCat]

45. Your inability to understand simple physics terms is noted. n/t

[Realityhack]

28. Have you taken the time to read the NIST report on WTC7?

I can only assume you have not based on your misrepresentation of their conclusions.

The NIST scenario is disprovable. But you are going to need more than a misunderstanding of it and a coincidence or two to do so.

If you have a serious engineering reason for doubting their analysis go ahead and post it. It would make for interesting discussion. But the BS in your post won't cut it.

[mrgerbik]

35. add up all the coincidences (not just wtc7) and get back to me nt

[seemslikeadream]

4. no plane hit WTC7 either

[hack89]

17. But WTC7 suffered severe structural damage

that's the point that CTrs consistently want to ignore.

[seemslikeadream]

18. oh really how convenient WTC7 was the only building in the area

to be hit by enough debris to make it fall down EXACTLY like the other two, who were hit by planes. Such coincidences

[Bolo Boffin]

19. It didn't fall down EXACTLY like the other two

unless you mean something so vague as to be meaningless.

[seemslikeadream]

20. yes it did

[Bolo Boffin]

21. No, it did not. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

22. yes it did

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[hack89]

23. WTC7 collapse was in three phases and was asymmetrical

your little video clip is edited to remove those inconvenient facts.

[ryan_cats]

33. Missing the penthouse collapse?

Why do you post a video that leaves out the beginning where the penthouse collapses into the building? I rarely see it in its entirety, why is that?

[MrMickeysMom]

5. Yes, I suppose ...

the 767 phenomena would render it identical to all the other planes flying into buildings resulting in the same collapse.

:eyes:

[hack89]

16. The point was there was no structural damage

lets compare apples to apples

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Remember, folks, the people who built the CCTV did an in-depth study of how the WTC buildings fell

and incorporated their lessons learned into the design of the CCTV building.

[jakeXT]

7. Didn't the cause change over time?

There was talk of a fuel tank and later external damage beyond the corner.
And only in the last year the final report came out.

When was the CCTV build ?

[achtung_circus]

8. "When was the CCTV build ?"

"Construction was started in 2004 and was expected to be completed in May 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_Cultural_Center

A deep question, indeed. Teh google helps.

[AZCat]

9. That was the whole purpose of the engineering analysis.

The NIST wanted to clarify the reason for collapse, since it wasn't obvious.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. The theory did change over time, yes.

As evidence was discovered, the theory was tested and changed as needed. This is how science works.

[jakeXT]

11. Did they make changes during the construction as new theories emerged ?

Are there specifics known?

[AZCat]

12. You'd have to ask Arup.

They did the engineering.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. I kind of doubt it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x234108

Arup was basing their design on their own in-house study, separate and apart from the NIST study. That link takes you to a thread where this was being discussed. It has all kinds of links giving as much as I could find then on the CCTV building and Arup's studies.