WTC 7 collapse

[iamspartacus]

hoosiers said:

It's not my job to make you believe what's staring you in the face

The level of proof that DH requires is at the extreme low end of the proof scale typical of a CTist. Belief plays a large part in their lives. I can only conclude that they have a (I must be careful what I say here) different grasp of reality to other people who do not accept their theories.

[echnaton]

hoosiers said:

This is not a rebuttal...

Noted.

hoosiers said:

...just an article describing a mind-set that is all too prevalant here.

When you can’t argue the facts, argue the people!

Care to address any of my points about the insurance money?

[bughead]

hoosiers said:

This site isn't going to keep any CTs because of the abusive postings of the majority of its members.

I find the majority of the members here to be intelligent and kind, even the ones I disagree with, especially in comparison to other sites.

It's not my job to make you believe what's staring you in the face.

Does a giant faceless enemy stare you in the face? Weird. I believe what stares me in the face: reality in front of me, not some imagined reality in which I and only I have the facts.

, but it's probably just a case of your being mind control slaves and there's no cure for that. Have another beer guys.

Patronizing everyone else proves your point so well!

Last time I checked, religion was considered a form of mind control, and science was considered a form of unbiased questioning of the universe.

Have yourself another beer. Unless it's my turn to buy.

[Dead Hoosiers]

Staring you in the face. Watch the vid. Silverstein admits on PBS that WTC7 was "pulled," a decision made by himself and NYFD. This is a non-topic. Duh!

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

[twinstead]

hoosiers said:

Staring you in the face. Watch the vid. Silverstein admits on PBS that WTC7 was "pulled," a decision made by himself and NYFD. This is a non-topic. Duh!

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

Oh no, not the infamous 'pull' statement.

[frenat]

It has been shown over and over that in the demolition industry, they "shoot" buildings when referring to explosive demolition, not "pull" them.

[JayUtah]

Further, Silverstein has subsequently denied that he intended his statement to refer to demolition, and even the original proponent of that interpretation has withdrawn it. This is clearly a case where all the evidence points in one direction, yet you want to go in another.

[ktesibios]

I have a few questions about the whole "Silverstein and the NYFD decided to 'pull' the building" meme.

What, exactly, is the customary role of a property owner or manager in deciding the extent and nature of firefighting efforts on that property?

Doesn't making an informed assessment of the risks and likely results of fighting a fire in a particular way- or fighting it at all- require rather specialized technical knowledge? Should a property owner be expected to possess this knowledge?

Don't firefighters have a command structure which is expected to bear the responsibility for making decisions about the risks they will take? Is a property owner part of this structure? What defines his share of the responsibility?

It would certainly be courteous of the fire department to inform an owner of what they intend to do and why, but is it a necessity, and is there any reason to grant him any say in what that will be?

I know my own customary response to people who in ignorance insist on telling me how to perform technical tasks at which I'm expert (it usually involves curse words in ancient Egyptian and then, if necessary, in plain English). For that reason, the idea that Silverstein was a decision-maker in this instance seems very fishy.

I know we have at least one member who is versed in firefighting practice. I'm hoping for some knowledgeable comment about this.

[jaydeehess]

The only time a building is "pulled" is if they want the building to move away from another structure, to fall in a specific direction. The CT would have us recognize that WTC7 fell straight down, obviously not 'pulled' . Had it been demo'd is such a way as to 'pull' it in a specific direction then the best direction for it to go would have been towards WTC 1 since this would only bounce the rubble of already demolished or wrecked buildings.

[turbonium]

Doesn't making an informed assessment of the risks and likely results of fighting a fire in a particular way- or fighting it at all- require rather specialized technical knowledge? Should a property owner be expected to possess this knowledge?

Don't firefighters have a command structure which is expected to bear the responsibility for making decisions about the risks they will take? Is a property owner part of this structure? What defines his share of the responsibility?

It would certainly be courteous of the fire department to inform an owner of what they intend to do and why, but is it a necessity, and is there any reason to grant him any say in what that will be?

I concur, this is what I thought was one of the odd or "fishy" comments made by Silverstein. He says that the Fire Dep't commander called him, saying they weren't sure they would be able to save the building.

Now remember, this is the Commander of the Fire Dep't, during the most critical stage of when his crew was fighting a 47 story highrise fire. He somehow decides to abandon his primary duties and responsibilities at this point to call Larry and give him the news update that "they weren't sure they would be able to save the building"!

Another bizarre part is that Silverstein suggests the next course of action to the Fire Dep't - that maybe the best thing to do is "pull it". Then he mentions that the Fire Dep't decided to follow through with his suggestion to "pull it".
Now, whether "pull it" meant to pull the firefighters, or pull the building, can be left aside for the time being.

The point is that the Fire Dep't would be the party qualified to decide on the next action to take - just as they would be for the entire duration of the firefighting effort, from start to finish. It seems as if the Fire Dep't commander, unsure of what to do, consults with Larry for his advice on the next course of action to take. Of course, that is quite prepostorous - he certainly is not doing that. So let's take the argument that he was "updating" Larry on the situation. How does the Fire Dep't commander get the audacity to think reporting the situation to Larry is more important than performing his primary task of managing the firefighting underway in WTC 7?

Can you imagine this scenario occurring in a similar firefighting effort, or any other profession dealing with life or death?

How about during life-threatening emergency surgery....

Mr. Smith has multiple gunshot wounds. The supervising physician, coordinating his team of surgeons, nurses and assistants, suddenly leaves the OR in the middle of the procedure and phones Mrs. Smith. He tells her something like, "We aren't sure if we'll be able to save your husband's life!" Um...not too likely.

But let's say the supervising physician suddenly has a complete loss of ability in determining his priorities! Maybe he cares so much about informing Mrs. Smith on how things are going that he decides it's more important than actually trying to save Mr. Smith's life! What happens next?

Mrs. Smith replies to the doctor, "Well, maybe the best thing to do next is remove the shell fragments from the cauda equina". And the doctor decides the next thing they do is remove the shell fragments from the cauda equina.

[Dead Hoosiers]

jayutah said:

Further, Silverstein has subsequently denied that he intended his statement to refer to demolition, and even the original proponent of that interpretation has withdrawn it. This is clearly a case where all the evidence points in one direction, yet you want to go in another.

I don't need an interpreter to tell me what I saw and heard Silverstein say. Why he subsequently lied about it is what's interesting.

I'm going in another direction because of Silverstein's PBS interview, the testimony of the wives/mothers, firefighters, engineers, live newscasts, demolition experts, video evidence and plain common sense.

[twinstead]

hoosiers said:

I'm going in another direction because of Silverstein's PBS interview, the testimony of the wives/mothers, firefighters, engineers, live newscasts, demolition experts, video evidence and plain common sense.

Jay wasn't kidding when he said all the evidence points in another direction. All those things, if interpreted by people who know how to perform investigations, actually are at odds with your theory, not support it.

The only thing I can think of that would make you so sure of your case is ideological bias.

[nomuse]

Um....whenever I get medical care, those trained professionals consult me (the patient) before they do anything. Hrm. In those times I've needed to call upon the services of the police, they have asked me if I want to prefer charges, if I want to appear in court. Heck, in your example, if the choice for Mrs. Smith was herculean efforts resulting in a mental vegetable, or to let Mr. Smith die with dignity, I would certainly hope they DID consult Mrs. Smith. So your examples work against you here. The conversation characterized in the post above would, I think, be more along the lines of; "Mr. Silverstein, we don't think we can save your building, and making the effort is going to cost lives. Do you agree with our pulling out?"

[Dead Hoosiers]

twinstead said:

hoosiers said:

I'm going in another direction because of Silverstein's PBS interview, the testimony of the wives/mothers, firefighters, engineers, live newscasts, demolition experts, video evidence and plain common sense.

Jay wasn't kidding when he said all the evidence points in another direction. All those things, if interpreted by people who know how to perform investigations, actually are at odds with your theory, not support it.

The only thing I can think of that would make you so sure of your case is ideological bias.

Don't we all tend to biased to one degree or another? I admit that I'm skeptical of our government's explanation of things. Ever since Waco.

But I disagree that all the evidence points towards WTC7 collapsing due to a few random fires. If you watched the video I posted you can see that there are experts out there who state that it just isn't possible. From what I've learned about highrise fires, none has ever collapsed due to fire--even fires that have raged for days. I'll listen up if you can find proof that it's ever happened before 9/11.

[Dead Hoosiers]

nomuse said:

Um....whenever I get medical care, those trained professionals consult me (the patient) before they do anything. Hrm. In those times I've needed to call upon the services of the police, they have asked me if I want to prefer charges, if I want to appear in court. Heck, in your example, if the choice for Mrs. Smith was herculean efforts resulting in a mental vegetable, or to let Mr. Smith die with dignity, I would certainly hope they DID consult Mrs. Smith. So your examples work against you here. The conversation characterized in the post above would, I think, be more along the lines of; "Mr. Silverstein, we don't think we can save your building, and making the effort is going to cost lives. Do you agree with our pulling out?"

If my neighbor tells me his dog is incurably ill and he had the vet "put him to sleep," I don't need to pull out my pocket commentator to interpret his statement to me. I may not know anything about the disease or the chemical used to down the dog, but I am able to understand what my neighbor told me. If he later tells me that he didn't mean the vet euthanized the dog and refuses to give any further explanation should I then believe it when his family and friends tell me that what he really meant was that the dog took a sleeping pill because the professional term for euthanasia isn't "sleep?"