Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

a reply to: neutronflux

That's along the same lines of what I was saying. The more people they let in on it, the more likely it is to get out. So what would be the incentive to purportedly tell the media they're about to demo building 7? It just makes no sense.

a reply to: neutronflux

I have read the History Commons source many times.

Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer

Why???

All this info was written after the fact, molding is easy.

Research, lol. Listen I've read from both sides and still do.

I still think the mass amounts of video footage that has been available since that day is the most important evidence.
This is what is mostly ignored or not accepted.

Everybody including yourself have probably watched them all too. You all heard and saw the same things I did.

Go off the footage, its was real life, not stories or after reports.

Your spidey senses don't go off at all, not even a little?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You're right about one thing. The video evidence proves a lot. For instance, it proves none of the buildings fell at or even close to freefall speed. All you need is Google and a watch.

Nothing in the OS is even that outlandish, hard to believe, or difficult to understand. The conspiracy theories are much more complicated. If the government wanted to do it, it would've been a lot easier to just hire guys to fly planes into buildings than to pull off the convoluted schemes you guys subscribe to. If you want to know how the government could have let it happen, from a broad perspective, this pretty much sums it up:

We learned that the institutions charged with protecting our borders, civil aviation, and national security did not understand how grave this threat could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or defeat it. We learned of fault lines within our government - between foreign and domestic intelligence, and between and within agencies. We learned of pervasive problems of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.

I only take issue with one point: the people charged with defending the nation did understand the threat, they just weren't allowed to protect us against it. Terrorism wasn't new on 9/11. Think of all the changes that were made afterwards. None of the new security measures or changes to our defense posture were totally new ideas. All of it had been proposed before, but naive people said we didn't need it. The sad part is, anyone that's worked in government the last 16 years can tell you, most of this stuff hasn't been fixed. If anything the bureaucracy has gotten bigger and more inefficient, while those who don't understand the threat and the reality of the world we live in have whittled down our defenses slowly. It's somewhat of a minor miracle we haven't had another large-scale attack yet.

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: cyberjedi
It baffles me as to how many studies are needed to conclude what is so blatantly the case with tower 7, controlled demolition.

Because that conclusion is wrong

And the simpletons that believe that 9/11 was pulled off by the goobermint need another thing to rally their delusions around

Out of interest how do you think the WTC7 tower collapsed? It didn't sustain much damage. Grenfell Tower burned for a whole night with little water to put it out and it didn't collapse. It was reported live that building 7 had collapsed before it had. I saw this live report myself. I then saw how NOTHING was reported on it for days, weeks even after this. Wild theories aside I'm just curious as to how naysayers can explain these strange facts.

They're not all facts.

A couple things are wrong.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: MrBig2430


ETA: I've been here a while and used to try and partake in 9/11 threads because I was interested and felt that something was wrong with the OS"?

So do I.

The thing is, I don't see it as an inside job.

I see the Commission Report as a whitewash of intelligence failures.

I see the NIST report as a whitewash of structural and/or fire proofing inadequecies.

Both for political reasons.

So, you DO believe 19 terrorists with box-cutters (Stanley knives for Brits) managed to hijack 4 planes

Yes

and crash 2 of them into a structurally unsound building

Not unsound.

But they received a variance to decrease floor loading design from, IIRC, 100psf to 60psf.

Would stiffer trusses NOT of sagged? Maybe. I don't believe that was looked into. Why not?

and nothing except fire-proofing regulations were violated?

Not violated.

originally posted by: ParkerCramer
Can you help me out Mr. big ?

What exactly caused the steel beams to fail on THREE buildings in the same day?

Thank you for your expert opinion.

ParkerCramer
MTUBY

a reply to: MrBig2430

Also what caused them to explode into dust clouds more impressive THAN most controlled demolitions?

Why did the piles smolder for a year? When any fires were on the top of the building...and how did the basements go unscathed largely and noone was burnt?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UB2120

Excerpts From The Mad Scientist’s Handbook: So You’re Ready to Vaporize a Human

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

As it would take more than 70 of the world's most powerful lasers combined to vaporize the water of just one person, death ray energy conservation is paramount. Remember: A successful mad scientist is as efficient as she is devious.

Lets be ridiculous, and use the 120 pounds of water in a person to 70 lasers. We will go with 70 lasers to 120 pounds of WTC material to get done what Wood fantasizes about?

One tower weights 500,000 tons. So to vaporize one tower would take over 500,000,000 lasers?

So what do YOU think vaporized the towers. lol.

a reply to: audubon

I know what your link was trying to say but what my (tired) reply was meaning is I have read differing reports that building 6 fully collapsed some time after but yes agree with you completely that details on it are obscure and were never mentioned in the press a fact I find extremely strange. UK news is very different to a lot of US news channels. The BBC act on official sources. Does not mean a news channel is in on it. I could go on about Murdoch and the level of control MSM is under but probably derailing. Why are you laughing at the BBC comment I made about them rarely reporting incorrectly? They don't report hearsay as they are publicly funded and the public and other bodies can hold them to account. They will retract incorrect reporting. There really wasn't chaotic reporting on the BBC that day, just their usual reporting style. They repeat stories and try not to speculate. The report wasn't a second or two long. They went live to their correspondent in US as they had just been given the latest story - that WT7 had collapsed. They spoke at length for several minutes then the line broke up - some say conveniently. Your two second bloopers comment leads me to believe you haven't actually watched the broadcast. The building collapsed some 20 minutes after it.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: audubonNot all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

and not all steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed from fire. only three, in fact. ever.
and all on the same day. in the same place.
and none since then.

The Leprechauns were very busy that day in New York. They had to suspend the laws of physics for a day so that their dastardly deeds could be accomplished.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: ParkerCramer
Can you help me out Mr. big ?

What exactly caused the steel beams to fail on THREE buildings in the same day?

Thank you for your expert opinion.

ParkerCramer
MTUBY

a reply to: MrBig2430

Also what caused them to explode into dust clouds

I surely hope that you're not a Woods fan boy and are saying that everything, including steel, was reduced to dust.

Cuz that didn't happen. If you believe that then you are out of touch with reality.

The dust was mostly drywall, ceiling tiles, insulation, and concrete.

more impressive THAN most controlled demolitions?

1-Cuz it was a bigger building, meaning that it had more of the above mentioned materials to act as a dust source.

2- cuz unlike in a real controlled demo, there was no effort to control dust. No removal of said material. No fire hoses spraying during the collapse. Etc

Why did the piles smolder for a year

Cuz there was so much rubble and fuel sources that the fire fighters couldn't reach it to put the fires out.

.

and how did the basements go unscathed largely

This is poor research

It's well documented that the bath tub was severely damaged and a major concern for the city.

and noone was burnt?

Explain just who you expect shoulda been burned and why

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UB2120

Excerpts From The Mad Scientist’s Handbook: So You’re Ready to Vaporize a Human

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

As it would take more than 70 of the world's most powerful lasers combined to vaporize the water of just one person, death ray energy conservation is paramount. Remember: A successful mad scientist is as efficient as she is devious.

Lets be ridiculous, and use the 120 pounds of water in a person to 70 lasers. We will go with 70 lasers to 120 pounds of WTC material to get done what Wood fantasizes about?

One tower weights 500,000 tons. So to vaporize one tower would take over 500,000,000 lasers?

So what do YOU think vaporized the towers. lol.

They weren't.

Any claim that they were is just delusional

a reply to: ParasuvO

"Vaporizing" building material would create liquid drops and gas drops that would cool and turn solid. The solidified vapor would have different characteristics and have a different appearance than dust.


Buildings create dust when they collapse....

Rubble Dust: A Health Risk For Haiti's Earthquake Survivors?
www.npr.org...

Bodies pulverised by New Zealand earthquake 'may never be found' as dust clouds choke Christchurch
www.dailymail.co.uk...


Building collapses after earthquake
m.youtube.com...

Earthquake causes building to collapse
m.youtube.com...

Dust production is more a function of collapse than demolitions setting off. The charges setting off produced more smoke than dust. The majority of dust is from the actual collapse. Look at this CD video.
1515 flagler building collapses (at around 1:00 )
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: audubonNot all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

and not all steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed from fire. only three, in fact. ever.
and all on the same day. in the same place.
and none since then.

The Leprechauns were very busy that day in New York. They had to suspend the laws of physics for a day so that their dastardly deeds could

be accomplished.

Care to actually state a thesis and proof?

a reply to: ParasuvO

Dust creation is a product of a mechanical mechanism. The grinding of 200,000 tons of falling steel smashing drywall and light duty concrete.

Vaporized material would turn to gas and liquid, solidify, and crystallize.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: audubonNot all high-rise buildings are constructed the same way.

and not all steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed from fire. only three, in fact. ever.
and all on the same day. in the same place.
and none since then.

The Leprechauns were very busy that day in New York. They had to suspend the laws of physics for a day so that their dastardly deeds could

be accomplished.

This is very telling.

The laws of physics can't be suspended, obviously.

Therefore, either:

1- conspiracy believers don't fully understand physics like they believe they do - proving how deeply Dunning-Krueger Syndrome has taken them over

2- they aren't serious researchers and haven't made an honest effort at understanding the many engineering reports and white papers that explain the collapses, and instead have relied on getting their information from others that are blowing smoke up their arse and decided that what they just read sounds like something they can repeat and make them "sound" informed to the other poorly informed conspiracy believers.

3- they've tried to understand the reports but are just flat out too stupid

4- they aren't truly interested in actually learning about any truth cuz they are what the CEO (?) of ATS calls activists, and are only interested in getting attention to their cause, whatever that may be. Which makes them liars.

originally posted by: daftpinkThere really wasn't chaotic reporting on the BBC that day, just their usual reporting style. They repeat stories and try not to speculate. The report wasn't a second or two long. They went live to their correspondent in US as they had just been given the latest story - that WT7 had collapsed. They spoke at length for several minutes then the line broke up - some say conveniently. Your two second bloopers comment leads me to believe you haven't actually watched the broadcast. The building collapsed some 20 minutes after it.

Here is the video in question. The studio anchor says that "the Salomon brothers building has collapsed" and asks the location reporter "What can you tel us about the collapse?" The location reporter replies that "Only really what you already know, details are very very sketchy'. Later, the news anchor says "Presumably there were very few people in the Salomon building" (the location reporter waffles a bit about the confusion).



That's precisely two namechecks for the Salomon building (rather than "WTC7", which probably helped confuse an already confusing situation). I think my summation that the mistake lasted a second or two is accurate. The reporter never confirms or contradicts the anchor's assertion, and it's clear she doesn't have many details at all.

Here is a BBC News interview with a cab driver, who was at the studios for a job interview but due to a misunderstanding ended up being interviewed on live TV. The anchor believes he is a music industry executive. Note how the interview doesn't break down at any point, because the mistaken identity is not revealed, even by the interviewee.



Here is a BBC news anchor claiming to have been the victim of Josef Fritzl:



Here is a remarkable exposé about Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon:



Seriously, this sort of screw-up happens all the time. In the WTC7 instance, the horror of the day has prevented people from recognising that it was a classic of the genre.

a reply to: neutronflux

Here is a link to her FAQ page. (drjudywood.com...)

By directed she means aimed/controlled. A generic comparison would be something similar to the microwave based riot control devices that police use. Those devices will cause a person’s skin to burn but will have little to no effect on their clothing. Whatever was used on the towers caused certain metals in the buildings to turn to dust yet others metals and paper, office items were untouched. There were cars and trucks found around ground zero with their engine blocks gone but other parts of the engine left behind. There are buildings around the towers that had certain parts of exterior cladding vanish. It appears that whatever kind of device or process was used on the towers was able to target the molecular bond of certain metals but have no impact on other materials.

There are pictures from ground zero hours after the events and the pile of debris is not big enough to compensate for two 110 story buildings. Even accounting for the debris sticking out of the side of and on roof tops of the other buildings. Where did the towers go?

I am not trying to convince anyone, but I believe that we should continue to investigate the events until an answer is found. In my opinion, the work Dr. Judy Wood has done proves that nothing conventional was used to destroy the World Trade Center buildings.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

2- they aren't serious researchers and haven't made an honest effort at understanding the many engineering reports and white papers that explain the collapses, and instead have relied on getting their information from others that are blowing smoke up their arse and decided that what they just read sounds like something they can repeat and make them "sound" informed to the other poorly informed conspiracy believers.

I think most "truthers" started off in this category. They're not that stupid, they just haven't put any significant time into reading up on the subject. They saw a couple of cleverly produced but misleading videos and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, and think they're informed. Years ago, I took the time to explain some of the "questions" truthers have, in face to face discussions when this would come up at work or at a social gathering, and most of them are receptive to the truth and can understand it when it's explained properly.

However, people who originally fell into this category get hardened in their position the longer they hold it. There's no way after believing the OS is fake for 16 years that they could possibly turn out to be wrong, they're too smart for that (in their minds). It's a lot easier for them to just surround themselves in confirmation bias, ignore contrary information, or just pretend anyone who presents info they can't rebut is a "government agent". It spirals out of control. This long after the fact, you are only gonna be able to get through to a small percentage of them. That's why I generally avoid 9/11 threads anymore. Most truthers by now have closed their minds and are passionately dedicated to remaining ignorant.

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: neutronflux

There are pictures from ground zero hours after the events and the pile of debris is not big enough to compensate for two 110 story buildings. Even accounting for the debris sticking out of the side of and on roof tops of the other buildings. Where did the towers go?

I know you're never gonna admit this, because you think you're too smart for your mind to be tricked, but that's simply a trick of your mind. The towers were giant structures, true, but they also contained a large percentage of empty space. When you remove the empty space, the building materials and furnishing take up a much smaller cubic area than the towers appear to occupy when they're standing. If the towers were mostly gone, what were they cleaning up for 8 months? Literally thousands of people worked there sorting and removing the debris, more than has probably ever worked on any collapsed or demo'd building, and it still took 8 months to remove it all.

Building 7 simply fell because the leaser said 'pull it!'. Historical fact.