|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 6, 2006 23:35:31 GMT -4
They can't just pick any time to demolish the building out of the blue. The time was perfect to use them.
So they just let the explosives sit about in a burning building for 5-7 hours and hoped they wouldn't be affected?
Why did he make the decision with the fire Commander, surely he should have been making it with the people that planted the explosives, unless you're about to claim that the NYFD did the planting.
There was no firefighting effort made on WTC 7.
I was meaning the numerous firefighters who died in WTC 1&2
He either knew about it before talking to Silverstein, or only found out during his conversation with Silverstein. The former seems more likely than the latter.
If he knew about it previously, then why send his men in 1&2 to die? If it was a big hush hush secret and no-one should know in case they talked, whuy was Silverstein blabbing to the Fire Commander, a man who would be very likely to turn him in?
Ah --but was it really "clearly damaged so severely"? Nothing indicates that was the case, in even one single photo or video from all those we have seen.
That's right, you only accept eyewittness accounts that back your ideas. I'm sure if there was an eyewittness report of hearing explosions from WTC 7 you'd be all over it like a wooly dog, but eye witnesses who stated the nature of the damage to the building can safetly be ignored because there aren't any images.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 0:07:54 GMT -4
How could Silverstein have been sure that the collapse of WTC 1 would have damaged WTC 7? Without that event then there would have been no plausible reason to demolish WTC 7 and placing explosives in the building before hand would have been a huge risk. With a fire going, explosives in place might well have detonated before being triggered, an event that would not have gone unnoticed, caused great suspicion, and led to a far different type of collapse scenario. There is simply no rational using explosives that makes any since.
Silverstein would not have been able to predict with any certainty whether or not WTC 7 would sustain any damage from the collapse of WTC 1. The chances were good, but not 100%. But recall what happened:
WTC 7 "mysteriously" caught on fire inside sometime later on during the day. That is, as FEMA noted, it hasn't been determined what time any of the fires first began inside the building. They say "it is likely" they started as a result of debris from WTC, but there is no evidence at all to substantiate that theory.
As for the risk of having fires inside a building that already had explosives placed inside? Fire can certainly cause explosives to burn, or at most cause a deflagration in some types of explosives. But they will not properly detonate - and cause a corresponding high energy shockwave - without the chemical reactions created by using the correct detonation methods and materials.
Also recall that all the photos and videos show only small, limited fires. Nothing like the "towering infernos" of the Philadelphia and Spain highrise fires, for example. If the WTC 7 fires did cause any explosives to prematurely burn off, the numbers would not have been significant enough to result in a failed controlled demolition. There could certainly have been redundancies (extra detonation sequences with extra exlosives) built in for contingencies in case of such a scenario unfolding.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 7, 2006 0:25:16 GMT -4
*Sigh* Went in doubt, just add more explosives, it's not like anyone will notice them....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 0:29:46 GMT -4
So they just let the explosives sit about in a burning building for 5-7 hours and hoped they wouldn't be affected?
Explained in my previous post.
Why did he make the decision with the fire Commander, surely he should have been making it with the people that planted the explosives, unless you're about to claim that the NYFD did the planting.
Recall that Silverstein made the suggestion to "pull it. And they made that decision to pull..". That would indicate the Fire Dep't Commander contacted the demo people to go ahead with it. Nothing in the conversation suggests that the NYFD had to have planted the explosives.
If he knew about it previously, then why send his men in 1&2 to die? If it was a big hush hush secret and no-one should know in case they talked, whuy was Silverstein blabbing to the Fire Commander, a man who would be very likely to turn him in?
The Fire Dep't Commander may have only known that WTC 7 had explosives inside. Why would he have had to be informed about explosives inside WTC 1 and 2? I agree, if he did know about WTC 1 and 2 beforehand, it would have been deliberate murder of his own men. Not that such a sinister theory is absolutely impossible, though it is farfetched. But as I said, it wouldn't be necessary for him to have known.
That's right, you only accept eyewittness accounts that back your ideas. I'm sure if there was an eyewittness report of hearing explosions from WTC 7 you'd be all over it like a wooly dog, but eye witnesses who stated the nature of the damage to the building can safetly be ignored because there aren't any images.
Well, isn't that exactly what you are doing in this case? Supporting the view of only the very few witnesses who claim to have seen extensive damage to the building?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 0:36:08 GMT -4
You missed an option, although you kind of hint at it in your other ones. There were no firefighters in the building but they were still fighting it from the outside! THAT is the effort that was pulled. Simple, logical, consistent with reality.
No, as I've pointed out - FEMA noted they decided not to fight the fires early in the day, and as I also posted...
By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
Them having setup the building beforehand with explosives then letting it burn uncontrolled all day and expecting the explosives to still go off as planned? That's just rediculous.
Already addressed this point. Explosives need proper detonation. You can't throw Molotov cocktails through the windows and make the building come down in a series of explosions.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 0:43:09 GMT -4
So to reiterate....
Silverstein can't be suggesting to the Fire Dep't Commander to "pull" firefighters out of the building - they were not in the building.
Silverstein can't be suggesting to the Commander to "pull" the firefighting effort - that had already been done, through the 11:30 am order given by Assistant Chief Fellini.
Those are the facts that conclusively prove that "pull it" did not mean, and could not have been, in reference to the firefighters or the "firefighting effort".
"Pull it" meant demolish the building. There are no other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 7, 2006 3:47:16 GMT -4
That would indicate the Fire Dep't Commander contacted the demo people to go ahead with it.
So the Fire Commander is now in so deep that he not only is told about it, but is told who put the explosives in so he could give them the go command?
The Fire Dep't Commander may have only known that WTC 7 had explosives inside. Why would he have had to be informed about explosives inside WTC 1 and 2? I agree, if he did know about WTC 1 and 2 beforehand, it would have been deliberate murder of his own men. Not that such a sinister theory is absolutely impossible, though it is farfetched. But as I said, it wouldn't be necessary for him to have known.
So he was told aboput WTC 7, but not 1&2, and he wasn't supposed to put this together and realease that he was now knee deep in a cover up of his own men. How exactly did the conspirators know he would dob them in? Not only is it "farfetched" but totally implausable.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 7, 2006 3:52:36 GMT -4
Well, isn't that exactly what you are doing in this case? Supporting the view of only the very few witnesses who claim to have seen extensive damage to the building?
No, because you latch onto eyewittnesses who's statments are generally disputed by others (helicopters hitting the pentagon), or who statements are based about their interptations of what they saw (thought it sounded like a bomb). We rely on eyewittnesses whose accounts should be relaible, aren't in dispute by the majority of the wittnesses and are without interuptation of the event.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 7, 2006 6:01:18 GMT -4
Explosives need proper detonation. No: heat them up enough and they will "cook off" quite happily, or unhappily if you're nearby
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 7, 2006 6:36:10 GMT -4
No: heat them up enough and they will "cook off" quite happily, or unhappily if you're nearby
Depends on the explosive. Some will go off with fire, others like symtex or C4 burn quite well, and totally safely.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 7, 2006 8:55:35 GMT -4
It never ceases to amaze me how these conspiracy mongers will casually accuse someone like the FDNY commanders of sending hundreds of people needlessly to their deaths without a shred of evidence. Turbonium do you believe that these people have no morals or ethical standards at all? I am truly amazed that you can make these accusations so casually.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jun 7, 2006 12:13:41 GMT -4
As for the risk of having fires inside a building that already had explosives placed inside? Fire can certainly cause explosives to burn, or at most cause a deflagration in some types of explosives. But they will not properly detonate - and cause a corresponding high energy shockwave - without the chemical reactions created by using the correct detonation methods and materials. I wasn't talking about the fires setting off the explosives, I was talking about the fires destroying the miles of detonation cord required to set off the explosives. Small, limited fires? Maybe if you only look at 1 or 2 pictures from the early morning and ignore anything taken later in the day.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jun 7, 2006 12:32:08 GMT -4
I have a thought based on earlier comments in the thread, regarding the speed of fall of the buildings.
It seems to me that the collapse of one floor of a building onto another floor would be a pretty loud hammer blow to the building structure as a whole. The shock waves traveling through the frame are not limited in velocity by the speed of sound in open air, but are going to propagate through the system pretty quickly. The steel frame would resist being damaged by this, but vibrations have to go somewhere. As the mass of building above the "supposed" fire falls, the building is being vibrated madly, with supersonic shockwaves bouncing through the frame and being either reflected back up from the base of the structure or dissapated somewhere IN the structure, like the concrete floors.
Running this though my Universe Simulator (my head) I find that the concrete is being shattered ahead of the falling mass, and is not contributing very much resistance. Also, as the fall progresses, metal is being twisted and bent, further distressing the concrete. As the concrete shatters, it releases a lot of dust.
Can anyone run this through their own Universe Simulator and comment further?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 7, 2006 13:39:01 GMT -4
No: heat them up enough and they will "cook off" quite happily, or unhappily if you're nearbyDepends on the explosive. Some will go off with fire, others like symtex or C4 burn quite well, and totally safely. But I thought that thermite was used to detonate the columns. Oh ya, thermite is not an explosive but it will burn like the dickens and produce molten metal that persists for days. Except that no molten metal was ever found. I am confused again. Darn these conspiracy guys. Does anyone know what explosives are normally used in building demolition, and how they handle fire? I bet Turbonium doesn’t. And how about that radiation thread Turbo?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 7, 2006 16:59:21 GMT -4
Running this though my Universe Simulator (my head) I find that the concrete is being shattered ahead of the falling mass, and is not contributing very much resistance. Also, as the fall progresses, metal is being twisted and bent, further distressing the concrete. As the concrete shatters, it releases a lot of dust.
It's certainly an interesting idea. I'm doubtful that it would be possible to set up a reasonance in either the short time, or at the frequecy required, but proporgating shock waves might have some effect on shattering the floors below. I'm thinking that it might take running through one of Jay's pet projects to determine it for sure, or at least a better understanding of shockwave proporgation in highrise structures and their effects on concrete and steel, than I currently possess. Might make a great Thesis if you can see a justification in it.
|
|