PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

reply to post by GenRadek
I am aware of the substation. In my mind, that doesn't explain the number of simultaneous failures that would have to happen to result in the level of symmetry I see. But it's definitely an important factor to consider.

I'm also aware of the lean towards the south during collapse, but I wouldn't describe it as having "fell to the south," and the photographic evidence shows the vast majority of the debris being in the same place where the building was - which I understand to be the definition of "in its own footprint" - and not stretching hundreds of feet to the south, which it would have done if your cell tower was a fair comparison. If you can point me to some evidence / analysis that contradicts my perception, I'd be open to looking at it.

reply to post by magicrat

In my mind, that doesn't explain the number of simultaneous failures that would have to happen to result in the level of symmetry I see.

More like sequential failures since the penthouse collapsed 6 seconds before the rest of the building.

reply to post by ANOK


Since you are clueless about physics (potential energy pushing up, top section without potential energy etc) why should I listen to a word you say? Simply put, you are talking nonsense, you have no clue what you talk about.

The only evidence of the so called 'lean to the west' is a vid that only shows part of the building.

The building isn't leaning to the west, you are seeing the one wall that the vid shows, falling inwards.

What you miss in the vid is the other three walls falling inwards.

Proof of this is post collapse pics, that show all four walls on top of the collapsed building, so they all had to have fallen inwards as the building collapsed.

If the whole building had fallen in one direction, to the west, then it wouldn't be in its footprint, which post collapse pics show it most definitely was.

This old tired excuse has been debunked so many times. Round and around we go again.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Since you are clueless about physics (potential energy pushing up, top section without potential energy etc) why should I listen to a word you say? Simply put, you are talking nonsense, you have no clue what you talk about.

edit on 18-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Huh you mean like equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation that you keep ignoring?

Again another empty OSer post with no evidence to back up their claims.

You go on about 'potential energy pushing up', 'top section without PE', and I'm clueless? What are you talking about?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


So what you have to do now is show that any kind of explosive can survive 6 hours of burning and then blow up a building, without showing any flashed and bangs on video. Oh right, the truth movement cant get anything done.

It is still beyond silliness why a conspirator would create such a silly plot. And without that damning evidence, it is just that, a silly theory, made up by silly people.

reply to post by ANOK


No I am talking about your obvious lack of understanding of physics, where you said potential energy is pushing up, and the top section had no potential energy when it was still attached to be building.

reply to post by -PLB-


No, you have to prove fire and gravity can collapse a 47 story building into its own footprint from fire.

Stop putting the burden of proof on us, you are the ones claiming the OS is correct, the burden of proof is on you buddy. Until you can prove the OS correct there will always be questions, and people around to demand answers.

reply to post by ANOK


It is not my task to educate confused truthers on the Internet. I have actually attempted it some time ago, but it was completely fruitless. Your baseless assertions don't impress anyone but the already confused.

reply to post by ANOK

No, you have to prove fire and gravity can collapse a 47 story building into its own footprint from fire

Well, since we have an observed record of it happening then it is proven. Except for that footprint nonsense, thats just your word choice, it has no bearing on reality. The building was observed burning and then collapsing and was also observed to have sustained damage from the collapse of the nearby towers. Unless you have something to add then fire and gravity it is. That's pretty much the end of the story.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by magicrat

 

WTC 7 fell down. That's not evidence of controlled demolition, thats evidence of gravity. Symmetry? To what definition?

I had in mind the definitions I posted above. I didn't say it was evidence of controlled demolition; only that symmetry is an unexpected result of asymmetrical damage.

And if it didn't all fall "in its footprint" then all if did was fall down near where it stood - evidence again of the existance of gravity.

Actually, I see that as evidence of a lack of resistance from the structure below the collapsing portion of the building, and that's always seemed weird to me.

No, he provides his opinions and adjectives and expects everyone to accept them as fact.

If you haven't seen his photos and diagrams, my only guess is that your computer doesn't show images? Or you've developed a blind spot in regards to his posts? You may disagree with his analysis or see things in a different way, but to say he only posts opinions and adjectives is just flatly untrue. I won't bother pointing links to photos - anyone can browse through posts, and I know you've been on just about every single thread in this forum, so you've seen them too.

See- that's the problem - he's made no claim except to claim everyone else is wrong and therefore something else must be right.

I disagree strongly. He presents evidence and shares his analysis. I see the debate tactic you're describing used most frequently by you (with all respect - you've been very polite and thoughtful in responses to me, but I feel like I can open up any 9/11 thread and find you saying "no it's not." without providing any evidence or logical argument).

He must first present proof for his negative claim - that fire did not cause the collapse. Now, since we can't really prove a negative than it is beholden upon him to present evidence in the affirmative, that is to say "here is the direct evidence of the use of explosives in the controlled demolition of WTC 7" or something to that effect.

Really? If I see something that couldn't have possibly happened the way I'm told it happened, I'm not allowed to question it without having my own complete explanation of how it happened? I don't know how it happened - but I believe strongly, based on evidence, research and analysis, that it could not have happened due to fire and gravity alone. Forcing me to create my own theory doesn't help me see the error of my ways - it just gives you more ammunition to attack me with later.

And? Do you see evidence of explosives? Because unless you do then all you are convinced of is your own bias.

I do see evidence of explosives, but not proof of explosives in my opinion. I see evidence that I believe makes a natural collapse (i.e. fire and gravity alone) impossible, so I consider other possible factors. Controlled demolition, extensive damage from the ConEd substation, lousy construction, etc... I will acknowledge my bias, which has pushed me to look for info and analysis from debunkers for years in an effort to counter that bias.

Why? If its possible once and the same condition exist again why is it unlikely for the results to be the same?

Because fire is unpredictable, no two buildings are the same, and there would be a very long, complex and specific series of events that would have to occur to create the result, making it very unlikely that it would repeatedly happen organically.

There are no other "points". Incredulity and opinion are not points. You can't prove the negative - "fire didn't cause the collapse" so you are therefore burdened to prove the affirmative "________ caused the collaps" And ______ must be something other than "I don't like what you think because it denies my bias with regards to conspiracies".

I think a very strong case can be (has been) made that fire could not have caused the collapse. I think requiring me or anyone else to prove the affirmative is simply a way of painting me into a corner where it's easier to argue against me. Why not try to pin down things we can prove?

No, thanks for asking - I never got anyone to point to any independent evidence that this video was ever broadcast anywhere on any PBS station. I am not saying that just because I didn't see it that it did not happen - just somewhere you would think there would be a link to something other than a conspiracy site that mentions the broadcast. Also, and this is just my opinion, but I think if PBS, which is under constant scrutiny by a number of political organizations, broadcast some pro 9/11 government conspiracy videos then we probably would have heard about in the media.

I totally agree with all of this. I have a hard time believing this aired on PBS and the only one who noticed was Infowars...

reply to post by hooper
Isn't that similar to saying that this video proves it's possible to saw a woman in half without hurting her? There's an observed record of it happening, so there's no reason to suspect there are factors involved that I can't see, right?

reply to post by samkent
Fair enough. I think the penthouse collapsing prior to the rest of the building supports a demolition theory at least as well as it supports a fire damage theory, but I'll accept your semantic correction.

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I am aware of the substation. In my mind, that doesn't explain the number of simultaneous failures that would have to happen to result in the level of symmetry I see. But it's definitely an important factor to consider.

I'm also aware of the lean towards the south during collapse, but I wouldn't describe it as having "fell to the south," and the photographic evidence shows the vast majority of the debris being in the same place where the building was - which I understand to be the definition of "in its own footprint" - and not stretching hundreds of feet to the south, which it would have done if your cell tower was a fair comparison. If you can point me to some evidence / analysis that contradicts my perception, I'd be open to looking at it.

There was a lean in WTC7, but not until much of the collapse had already occurred. the mobile/cell phone example is of course pathetic, I presume it as a joke. IMO, you will find leading posts by 'the numbers here' who alawys attempt to draw all three collapses together as a rational possibility with the main suspect as fire, they offer nothing else, and that is also the official explanation. My standpoint, regardless of the end result or cause, is that the official view also means then that those buildings were not fit for the purpose neither now, or when they were built in the worst case scenario. The twin towers were vunerable and that should have been known in the first instance, WTC7 also a hi-rise was also vunerable as it turned out. There is much room for suspicion, and while 'the numbers' waffle, Anok makes the valuable contributions.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

So what you have to do now is show that any kind of explosive can survive 6 hours of burning and then blow up a building, without showing any flashed and bangs on video. Oh right, the truth movement cant get anything done.

It is still beyond silliness why a conspirator would create such a silly plot. And without that damning evidence, it is just that, a silly theory, made up by silly people.

You are obviously NOT getting the point; shaped charges with C4 aren't going to make much of a flash and the "bang" is like a firecracker -- and the Firefighters reported "bangs."

The "leftovers" would be nothing much except what a forensics and a bomb squad might discern. Steel would have sharp cuts, there would be little "balls" of metal left of aluminum and iron. A mechanism MIGHT be found but only by someone who knew what they were looking for -- most of it would be destroyed by the blasting cap. Your point about "LEFTOVERS" was clearly a point made in the OP video; the NIST did NOT investigate for explosives and FEMA only got on sight after most of the steel was removed and no doubt BushCo agents got a chance to remove most things that might incriminate. The CRIME SCENE was destroyed by then.

Whatever charges were in "6 hours" of fires probably went off. But MOST of the building was not in even 15 minutes of fire and even the heavily burning parts would have a fire move on after about an hour when all the material burnt out.

It's seems you are trying really hard not to get the point -- and it's tiresome. I've talked about Flash and Bang so far 6 times and I'm afraid I'm going to start cussing and a person with an agenda if I have to go longer.

>> it's because of people like you that Conspiracies so successfully get away with murder. I think this video from A&E is a lot clearer than the pro-Bush ones, and I think that most people who watch it are going to come have more questions.

You know what would be a good idea, for a foundation to be made to build to scale REPLICA buildings and fly planes remotely into them while abandoned after construction and see again. If not let the facts speak for themselves.

My irrelevant opinion is that it was a controlled demolition. The reasons behind it are another issue.

It stops becoming irrelevant when we all see the same thing. The reason is then revealed after knowing how it was done.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

No, you have to prove fire and gravity can collapse a 47 story building into its own footprint from fire

Well, since we have an observed record of it happening then it is proven. Except for that footprint nonsense, thats just your word choice, it has no bearing on reality. The building was observed burning and then collapsing and was also observed to have sustained damage from the collapse of the nearby towers. Unless you have something to add then fire and gravity it is. That's pretty much the end of the story.

Footprint is not nonsense, it is the holy grail for demolition, even more so now in up to date electronic timing devices. That is a mile away from you saying pictorial observation of a collapse makes fire and gravity the culprit since there are all the different ways to make a building fall down in it's own footprint, or any other way for that matter.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I am aware of the substation. In my mind, that doesn't explain the number of simultaneous failures that would have to happen to result in the level of symmetry I see. But it's definitely an important factor to consider.

I'm also aware of the lean towards the south during collapse, but I wouldn't describe it as having "fell to the south," and the photographic evidence shows the vast majority of the debris being in the same place where the building was - which I understand to be the definition of "in its own footprint" - and not stretching hundreds of feet to the south, which it would have done if your cell tower was a fair comparison. If you can point me to some evidence / analysis that contradicts my perception, I'd be open to looking at it.

There was a lean in WTC7, but not until much of the collapse had already occurred. the mobile/cell phone example is of course pathetic, I presume it as a joke. IMO, you will find leading posts by 'the numbers here' who alawys attempt to draw all three collapses together as a rational possibility with the main suspect as fire, they offer nothing else, and that is also the official explanation. My standpoint, regardless of the end result or cause, is that the official view also means then that those buildings were not fit for the purpose neither now, or when they were built in the worst case scenario. The twin towers were vunerable and that should have been known in the first instance, WTC7 also a hi-rise was also vunerable as it turned out. There is much room for suspicion, and while 'the numbers' waffle, Anok makes the valuable contributions.

The FLAWS in WTC buildings is just handwaving by the NIST. It would be great if there were some metallurgical proof that everyone could examine. WTC 7 was an unexceptional building with a very fantastic explanation for it's destruction that defies any historical evidence or physics.

Remember that WTC 1 had both an extremely large truck bomb and a fire for many hours (before sprinklers were added) before 9/11 so if there were these amazing flaws -- why did they not show up then?

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

No, you have to prove fire and gravity can collapse a 47 story building into its own footprint from fire

Well, since we have an observed record of it happening then it is proven. Except for that footprint nonsense, thats just your word choice, it has no bearing on reality. The building was observed burning and then collapsing and was also observed to have sustained damage from the collapse of the nearby towers. Unless you have something to add then fire and gravity it is. That's pretty much the end of the story.

Footprint is not nonsense, it is the holy grail for demolition, even more so now in up to date electronic timing devices. That is a mile away from you saying pictorial observation of a collapse makes fire and gravity the culprit since there are all the different ways to make a building fall down in it's own footprint, or any other way for that matter.

If you have any examples of NON-Demolitions that fell inside their own footprints -- go find them. I'm sure there have to be one or two outside of 9/11. But just saying it repeatedly is NOT being honest or inquisitive.

The HOLY Grail for an investigation would be going back in time and stopping the clearing of the site and access by non-investigators, and by making sure it would be the FBI with demolitions experts. Since we can't do that, we rely on what was left after the prime suspects had a month to clean it up. Traces of explosives and thermate are going to be very small and chemical in nature. Traces of a shaped charge (if that was what was used) would be cut beams -- but if the cutters got there to remove beams before photos are made -- it's hard to prove.

There was much made of diagonal cut beams just after the collapse. This was before crews had much access -- but it was at first claimed that the "incredible power of the collapse cut beams in half" -- but that cannot happen, a beam bends before it cuts or breaks. Later it was claimed that these diagonal cuts were OF COURSE how teams would remove beams and it was a "he said, she said" argument going nowhere.

>> That's all we have now.

The pro-Bush team seems to have gotten slicker over the years, and dotted more "i"'s crossed more "t's. But they cannot explain the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 unless they come up with another theory -- but they don't need to because enough folks bought the first explanation and they still control the justice department.

>> Our corporate-run Government is too corrupt to ever bring war criminals and the planners of 9/11 to justice, and I won't be holding my breath. Nothing happened to those that conspired against JFK, and nothing happened to those that killed his brother, or JFK Junior. And nothing happened to the those that created the false flag for Vietnam.

Nothing will happen to precious Bush and Cheney operatives, and many of them still have jobs so it's inevitable, we'll be debating the NEXT false flag and everyone will say that up is down. You get so many "ANTI government" extremists on Tax's or on Oversight, but when it comes to military or a false flag that does everything to enable that military spending and power -- a million Pro Government people come out of the woodwork. Tea Baggers, Global Warming deniars, people who believe in Creationism -- they all line up for saying that everything made sense on 9/11.

I just have to wonder at the psychology of people who can see a demolition and be told it isn't what they saw.

Originally posted by casenately
You know what would be a good idea, for a foundation to be made to build to scale REPLICA buildings and fly planes remotely into them while abandoned after construction and see again. If not let the facts speak for themselves.

My irrelevant opinion is that it was a controlled demolition. The reasons behind it are another issue.

It stops becoming irrelevant when we all see the same thing. The reason is then revealed after knowing how it was done.

edit on 18-1-2012 by casenately because: fix

The PROBLEM with a scale replica is that there are a LOT of parts to that building. It would be an intensely difficult model and you'd have to compromise on how many joints, welds and cables you put on it. No matter what you did -- it would not fall down unless you purposely made it weaker than speck, or if you degraded the metal.

The claim would be that the weldings were "too thick" -- the handwaving theory of the NIST and supporters is that everything was shoddily constructed. This flies in the face of the previous bombing and fire in the North Tower which SHOULD Have exposed metal that was only 1.5 times load bearing in strength.

>> The thing is -- all the "flaws" would have to be consistent, otherwise your scale model is going to lean too much, and fall how you would expect it to fall.

Finding some way to make a structure fall INTO it's greatest direction of strength (straight down) only ever really happens in an earthquake or demolition.

>> Whatever the result, it won't convince either side -- it's too hard to satisfy the parameters.

THE BEST model, I believe, would be a simplified example of Pancake collapse -- and showing how it can NEVER happen at free fall speed. Only a "house of cards" collapse could fall as fast as a demolition -- and of course, that means all the supports just "slip out of place" --- but we use welded steel in our construction, it only happens in third world countries in concrete buildings without re-bar, or poorly built wooden ones.