CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse

Originally posted by impressme
As far as WTC 7 being hit by wreckage from WTC 1 that has never been proven.

False.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e7e517abf71.jpg[/atsimg]

The building in the center is WTC 6, and the pile of wreckage to the left of it was WTC 7. You can see right away which way the wreckage fell from the direction the unique wafflle pattern of WTC 1 siding is leaning. The towers were just too flipping big for it NOT to have hit WTC 7.

It's one thing for you to question perceived innacuracies, but it's another thing entirely to attempt to rewrite the events of 9/11 to your liking.

A couple of Firefighters may have reported severe bulges in WTC, however most of the firemen do not support that outrages lie. There wasn’t enough fires on each floor to bring WTC 7 down perfectly in its own footprint, without damaging the buildings on each side of WTC 7 if anything the building should have falling with the least resistance. Perhaps part of it could have falling, but not all of it, which is impossible and defies science and logic.

I am quoting NY deputy fire chief Pete Hayden, who documented the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control. He also was the one who reported there was a three story tall bulge in the side of the building caused by the fires. I've already posted the link to his interview many times and I know you've seen it.

Your accusing him of lying isn't based upon any objective review of the facts. You're accusing him of lying becuase you don't want to believe what he's saying is true. Personally I think your accusing fire fighters of lying and contributing to the deaths of 343 of their fellow firefighters is disgusting and irreprehensible, but I do acknowledge you have a right to your opinion. My beef is when you decide to make up lies to convince others of your opinion...and let's face it, your accusing firefighters of actively contributing to a coverup of the murder of their fellow firefighters with zero evidence to back the claim up is by definition a lie.

I can say anyone who defends the OS has not done any research on the topic. .

Then please explain why I have consistantly shown that I know your own conspiracy stories better than you do.

Oh come on Dave, you are criticizing someone about not wanting to discover the truth.
Many posters have said the same to you in many 911 threads Dave, or are you going to deny that to?

People have accused me of many things here. The difference is that I can show exactly why what they're saying is false. Noone has been able to show why what I'm saying is false. You can start with the comment I originally made in this thread- explosions in the base of the towers wouldn't have caused the towers to collapse up at the ninety-somethingth floor.

Goes to show, you have never researched the different kinds of Thermite. Our military uses thermite in their weapons and bombs or do you deny this to?

Bait and switch. We're not talking about weapons and bombs. We're talkign about controlled demolitions, which requires a more surgical application, particularly if you're claiming they were responsible for the type of precision collapse we all saw on 9/11. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

Despite your blind patriotic beliefs (That my government is perfect,) we will dismiss your rude disrespectful comments. As far as a candy wrappers Dave, do you have any proof that there wasn’t a truck full of explosives driven to the WTC? No you do not.

True, but then again I don't have evidence the towers weren't destroyed by time travelling space aliens, either. It's a logical fallacy to demand proof of what didn't destroy the towers. The objective is to show what did destroy the towers.

You really have no credibility, Impressme. If memory serves, you yourself openly admitted there is no way, shape, or form that anyone can ever show you anythign that can convince you it wasn't a conspiracy, which makes your pretending to be a researcher here rather duplicitious.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

As far as WTC 7 being hit by wreckage from WTC 1 that has never been proven.

False.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e7e517abf71.jpg[/atsimg]

The building in the center is WTC 6, and the pile of wreckage to the left of it was WTC 7. You can see right away which way the wreckage fell from the direction the unique wafflle pattern of WTC 1 siding is leaning. The towers were just too flipping big for it NOT to have hit WTC 7.

It's one thing for you to question perceived innacuracies, but it's another thing entirely to attempt to rewrite the events of 9/11 to your

You are joking right? The photo you provide can be construed to anything imaginable as you have just demonstrated. Not only are you making up this garbage as you go not even the lying NIST supports your ridiculous theory. Again more of your OS opinions nothing more.

I am quoting NY deputy fire chief Pete Hayden, who documented the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control. He also was the one who reported there was a three story tall bulge in the side of the building caused by the fires. I've already posted the link to his interview many times and I know you've seen it.

Perhaps so, but why aren’t the hundreds of other firemen supporting this firemen story? They are not.

Your accusing him of lying isn't based upon any objective review of the facts. You're accusing him of lying becuase you don't want to believe what he's saying is true. Personally I think your accusing fire fighters of lying and contributing to the deaths of 343 of their fellow firefighters is disgusting and irreprehensible, but I do acknowledge you have a right to your opinion. My beef is when you decide to make up lies to convince others of your opinion...and let's face it, your accusing firefighters of actively contributing to a coverup of the murder of their fellow firefighters with zero evidence to back the claim up is by definition a lie.

Because I don’t believe what he is saying is true, your right this is only his hearsay and not one single photo support his wild accusation, nothing.

Personally I think your accusing fire fighters of lying and contributing to the deaths of 343 of their fellow firefighters is disgusting and irreprehensible,

I just love how you play the game of twisting the facts and turn them into something very disgusting into trying to win a losing argument, and that is what I find “irreprehensible”.

Bait and switch. We're not talking about weapons and bombs. We're talkign about controlled demolitions, which requires a more surgical application, particularly if you're claiming they were responsible for the type of precision collapse we all saw on 9/11. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

Bait and switch Dave, please… Dave only you could come up with such nonsense, no Dave we are talking about super na-nothermite the only kind the military uses it was already proven, it was a very fine grade na-nothermite the kind our military uses to make weapons & bombs, or are you going to deny this fact to?

True, but then again I don't have evidence the towers weren't destroyed by time travelling space aliens, either. It's a logical fallacy to demand proof of what didn't destroy the towers. The objective is to show what did destroy the towers.

What are you talking about Dave? You have rejected science that prove demolition you reject everything except the OS.

You really have no credibility, Impressme.

I am afraid no one supports your rants Dave. As far as my credibility goes Dave, it speaks for itself.

If memory serves, you yourself openly admitted there is no way, shape, or form that anyone can ever show you anythign that can convince you it wasn't a conspiracy, which makes your pretending to be a researcher here rather duplicitious

What? I have "never", ever admitted or even think in those twisted terms as you just described, you are really being dishonest.
Unlike you Dave I have an open mind and I am subject to change my mind as credible evidence is being discovered. I am not the one in here who has a repeated record of dismissing every piece of evidence as you have Dave. Perhaps, you should consider the OS your truth.

Originally posted by impressme
You are joking right? The photo you provide can be construed to anything imaginable as you have just demonstrated. Not only are you making up this garbage as you go not even the lying NIST supports your ridiculous theory. Again more of your OS opinions nothing more.

This is a nice little rant but you have done nothing to address his point. Perhaps instead of complaining you could find some pictures that don't show any damage to the south side of WTC7? I know I've posted plenty that do.

Perhaps so, but why aren’t the hundreds of other firemen supporting this firemen story? They are not.

They aren't? I have yet to see a single quote from a firefighter that day that disagreed with him. Or are you saying every single firefighter down there should have known exactly what every other firefighter was doing at all times?

Your accusing him of lying isn't based upon any objective review of the facts. You're accusing him of lying becuase you don't want to believe what he's saying is true. Personally I think your accusing fire fighters of lying and contributing to the deaths of 343 of their fellow firefighters is disgusting and irreprehensible, but I do acknowledge you have a right to your opinion. My beef is when you decide to make up lies to convince others of your opinion...and let's face it, your accusing firefighters of actively contributing to a coverup of the murder of their fellow firefighters with zero evidence to back the claim up is by definition a lie.

Because I don’t believe what he is saying is true, your right this is only his hearsay and not one single photo support his wild accusation, nothing.

You just pointed out how correct Dave was, allow me to quote him: "You're accusing him of lying becuase you don't want to believe what he's saying is true"

Congratulations on admitting your bias unintentionally.

I just love how you play the game of twisting the facts and turn them into something very disgusting into trying to win a losing argument, and that is what I find “irreprehensible”.

I just love the way you don't deal with any points made by anyone and instead try and pick semantics, like quoting a word Dave used as if you don't make lots of mistakes in grammar yourself. I find that reprehensible

Bait and switch Dave, please… Dave only you could come up with such nonsense, no Dave we are talking about super na-nothermite the only kind the military uses it was already proven, it was a very fine grade na-nothermite the kind our military uses to make weapons & bombs, or are you going to deny this fact to?

Nobody needs to deny it, because it's complete hogwash. You've just invented this supposed fact because that's what you want to believe is true. There are thermite variations used in the military, but they certainly aren't anything like what Dr Jones proposes.

Stop thinking you're an authority on a topic because you heard about it the other day and you've decided what you want to happen. It's utterly boring.

I am afraid no one supports your rants Dave. As far as my credibility goes Dave, it speaks for itself.

I support Dave's posts, and if I have so little credibility, why is it that I seem to be able to stop people even posting here by posting in their threads?

Unlike you Dave I have an open mind and I am subject to change my mind as credible evidence is being discovered. I am not the one in here who has a repeated record of dismissing every piece of evidence as you have Dave. Perhaps, you should consider the OS your truth.

Haha. Oh this is precious. You see, throughout your posts you show a clear preference for evidence that supports your opinion, claiming that whatever you believe might have occurred is fact and did actually occur. Then when someone presents a highly qualified, first person experience of something you disagree with, you try and find a way to discredit it. In this case you are calling a hero a liar in order to further your own egotistical game. After all this you have the gall to claim you don't dismiss evidence or that you have an open mind.

Don't make me laugh, you wouldn't know what an open mind was if your brain fell out.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I love this guys style of annoying/arguing.

you dot ever honestly and directly answer/converse. Theres always a slight variation in what you claim we say, and what we actually say.

I dont think anyone who believes in the CD theory, would believe that 1 big bomb in the bottom of WTC is responsible for the collapse. It could of however had a big play in it?

Originally posted by VonDoomen
you dot ever honestly and directly answer/converse. Theres always a slight variation in what you claim we say, and what we actually say.

I dont think anyone who believes in the CD theory, would believe that 1 big bomb in the bottom of WTC is responsible for the collapse. It could of however had a big play in it?

To be fair to Dave, it is incredibly hard to understand what theory people believe in. I can definitely tell you that there are people who believe that a single nuke per tower was used, and I can also tell you there are people who believe that some sort of hurricane using power generation machine that also emits some sort of supernatural effect (or at least wholly unknown to science) was used.

We have to take our best guess from the evidence the person is presenting, and we both get things wrong on occasion.

It's just the nature of the truth movement, there is no one camp of thought or one theory that has won out. Almost everyone has their own unique theory variation, whether it's ammonium perchlorate fireproofing (originally a joke, now being taken seriously), thermite in the beams, thermite on the outside of the beams, thermite in nano form painted over the beams etc etc etc.

If you really want to make sure we get things right, remember to post exactly what you think happened.

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by smurfyWhy don't you ask [John Gross] why he said he saw no molten metal at the WT7 site, and that nobody else had had said same? Then tell me why the same phrase "self assured blind zealotry" should not be applied to him.

Because John Gross wasn't asked about molten metal, he was asked about molten steel. Which, to my knowledge, noone has ever presented any evidence of.

My statement was directed to explicitly to Dave..so are you his batman? never mind I don't care. What John Gross is about is prevaricating, as you are doing in your post. By denying molten steel, John Gross was actually distancing himself from any idea of anything molten, as that implication meant there was grave danger at the ground zero aftermath from all the heavy toxic metals present in the molten "stew" as he would have/ should have known, even had there not been molten steel present. Further to that, he is saying that he could not know if molten steel was present in the "stew" As far as evidence of molten metal, the FEMA investigation found pieces of columns with holes in, that according to them were an effect of steel that had melted,

"The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found."

The NIST also in regard to the twin towers would not have dealt with that for the very same reason, because they didn't 'effing know. They also dealt with the towers as per models of seperately percieved incidences, like the floors bending and possible collapse, the role of the perimeter walls and how they were tied together with the core. Once they got themselves to that stage, they assume that video showed the rest, to their satisfaction. In other words, they have no collapse sequence from the very start to the very end. BTW the very thing that the reporter talked about in the NASA satellite images, the heat images, could possibly have given John Gross more information if he had really wanted it, (If he did not already know) but, contrary to what he said on the video, he later would not give the reporter his e-mail address, which would have been the primary way to send images

Guys, all we want is a new independent investigation... Why is that met with such outrage... ? If it has to fall on the people's shoulders to investigate, I suggest we abduct a few of the top suspects under citizens arrest, Habeas Corpus does not protect suspected terrorists, which is what they are, so we hold them in a room somewhere for a few days, perform some Gitmo-style enhanced interrogation, video tape the whole thing and post the confessions on YouTube.

I love reading daves posts....

He has this small skill of spinning anything his way, regardsless of the lack of logic...

He seems to think that if he speaks down to people, most people will back down, uneasy at his authoritative tone....which he has had some success with some .....

Do you find it easy looking at yourself in the mirror dave...alf...weedy and other "types".....??



I would struggle, lying so much , publicly.

Originally posted by exponent
I support Dave's posts, and if I have so little credibility, why is it that I seem to be able to stop people even posting here by posting in their threads?

I have seen your posts. People giving up on responding to you is not out of awe or intimidation, but frustration. You supporting 'good ol dave's' posts is telling that you are easily led by his articulate fiction.

There is enough prima facie evidence of treason committed by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld surrounding the events of 9/11 as well as intentionally misleading Congress and the People of the United States into supporting an invasion of Iraq, to warrant a complete U.N. fact-finding investigation into the events of 9/11, as well as a criminal investigation by INTERPOL.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


If there is "prima facie evidence " of serious crimes by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld it is not getting posted on here and what are you going to do with it ?

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
I have seen your posts. People giving up on responding to you is not out of awe or intimidation, but frustration.

I'm supposed to feel bad about that? Even if it's true (and it doesn't fit with the facts) then I should be happy that the questions I ask frustrate people so much they are unable to answer them. Surely that indicates the questions I am asking have no easy answer?

You supporting 'good ol dave's' posts is telling that you are easily led by his articulate fiction.

Dave's posts are not filled with fiction, they are filled with references to a good understanding of the events of 911. I've been involved in researching 911 for a long time, and I don't need leading anywhere.

Once again, I have an open offer to debate in the formal debate forum, but surprisingly nobody is taking me up on that either! Come on, surely it's easy to embarrass someone as leadable as me?

reply to post by exponent

You can pat yourself on the back as much as you want. The truth of 911 is the truth. Your espousing of fiction with your good buddy dave is nothing more than distracting fodder in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, go ahead, knock yourself out. You are not convincing anyone.

reply to post by impressme

Perhaps so, but why aren’t the hundreds of other firemen supporting this firemen story? They are not.

So I take it, this firefighter is also lying about the condition of WTC7 as well?

Why is it then that on released audio conversations from the "fire fighters" you could clearly hear them talk about "pulling" the building (Tower 7). Anyone could of been using the same frequencies that day to be communicating, no one has identified the "fire fighters" voices around that "pulling" the tower....Just by that"evidence" alone their is plenty to make one think that this was planned and controlled. I don;t need anymore than that to make me question the the mass if information that is available out there so imagine what we can't have access too, what has bee censored !!!

reply to post by Fox Molder


You are incorrect. They were talking about pulling firefighters away from WTC7, not pullng down WTC7. The only "pulling down" of any buildings at the WTC complex, was at WTC5 and 6 during the clean up of ground zero with actual cables.

I would suggest you go back and actually reread their accounts. They all mention getting pulled out from WTC7.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by exponent

 

You can pat yourself on the back as much as you want. The truth of 911 is the truth. Your espousing of fiction with your good buddy dave is nothing more than distracting fodder in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, go ahead, knock yourself out. You are not convincing anyone.

This is the mark of someone who knows he's getting spanked in an open debate, rather than anyone who can actually show why his opponents are wrong. If there was genuinely anything I was posting here that was found to be false you wouldn't simply say I'm lying and then run away giggling. You'd be all over me like Rosie O'Donnell on a chocolate cake pointing out why what I was saying is false.

BUT, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- what have I ever posted here that was false? Your not liking the facts I post in no way makes the facts any less of a fact.

reply to post by GenRadek
Man, I love that video. I can't count on all my fingers on toes how many times I've seen this video paraded around by advocates of the official story as evidence of a fire-induced collapse. When we have cross-referenced eye-witness testimony of concatenations of staccato explosions debunkers claim that the witnesses are not reliable and these explosions could be anything, so why give their claims any credibility? But when one random firemen comes along and states that WTC7 was leaning, they're all too happy to jump on it as evidence. Serious confirmation bias in operation. Even if WTC7 was leaning, should a leaning building collapse through itself symmetrically? Er… yes, yes it should. Logic should tell you it should.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by impressme
As far as WTC 7 being hit by wreckage from WTC 1 that has never been proven.

False.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e7e517abf71.jpg[/atsimg]

The building in the center is WTC 6, and the pile of wreckage to the left of it was WTC 7. You can see right away which way the wreckage fell from the direction the unique wafflle pattern of WTC 1 siding is leaning. The towers were just too flipping big for it NOT to have hit WTC 7.

It's one thing for you to question perceived innacuracies, but it's another thing entirely to attempt to rewrite the events of 9/11 to your liking.

A couple of Firefighters may have reported severe bulges in WTC, however most of the firemen do not support that outrages lie. There wasn’t enough fires on each floor to bring WTC 7 down perfectly in its own footprint, without damaging the buildings on each side of WTC 7 if anything the building should have falling with the least resistance. Perhaps part of it could have falling, but not all of it, which is impossible and defies science and logic.

I am quoting NY deputy fire chief Pete Hayden, who documented the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control. He also was the one who reported there was a three story tall bulge in the side of the building caused by the fires. I've already posted the link to his interview many times and I know you've seen it.

Your accusing him of lying isn't based upon any objective review of the facts. You're accusing him of lying becuase you don't want to believe what he's saying is true. Personally I think your accusing fire fighters of lying and contributing to the deaths of 343 of their fellow firefighters is disgusting and irreprehensible, but I do acknowledge you have a right to your opinion. My beef is when you decide to make up lies to convince others of your opinion...and let's face it, your accusing firefighters of actively contributing to a coverup of the murder of their fellow firefighters with zero evidence to back the claim up is by definition a lie.

I can say anyone who defends the OS has not done any research on the topic. .

Then please explain why I have consistantly shown that I know your own conspiracy stories better than you do.

Oh come on Dave, you are criticizing someone about not wanting to discover the truth.
Many posters have said the same to you in many 911 threads Dave, or are you going to deny that to?

People have accused me of many things here. The difference is that I can show exactly why what they're saying is false. Noone has been able to show why what I'm saying is false. You can start with the comment I originally made in this thread- explosions in the base of the towers wouldn't have caused the towers to collapse up at the ninety-somethingth floor.

Goes to show, you have never researched the different kinds of Thermite. Our military uses thermite in their weapons and bombs or do you deny this to?

Bait and switch. We're not talking about weapons and bombs. We're talkign about controlled demolitions, which requires a more surgical application, particularly if you're claiming they were responsible for the type of precision collapse we all saw on 9/11. I shouldn't need to point this out to you.

Despite your blind patriotic beliefs (That my government is perfect,) we will dismiss your rude disrespectful comments. As far as a candy wrappers Dave, do you have any proof that there wasn’t a truck full of explosives driven to the WTC? No you do not.

True, but then again I don't have evidence the towers weren't destroyed by time travelling space aliens, either. It's a logical fallacy to demand proof of what didn't destroy the towers. The objective is to show what did destroy the towers.

You really have no credibility, Impressme. If memory serves, you yourself openly admitted there is no way, shape, or form that anyone can ever show you anythign that can convince you it wasn't a conspiracy, which makes your pretending to be a researcher here rather duplicitious.

Since WT1 also had a noticable sideways lean over as it fell, that also means that a good part of the building at height fell towards that lean as you can see in your picture, and towards the top of your picture , (the quite marked incursion of WT1 into the building in middle top of your picture) which is still standing. In fact that building should be more damaged than WT7. I accept that WT7 would have had some damage to the East/South corner. The leaning of the remaining shell of WT1 indicates nothing in particular, (unless you want it to) other than that piece of columnwork is still standing.