|
Post by gorgonian on Mar 1, 2007 10:32:52 GMT -4
What I find amazing is that everyone here seems to think that a statement of a building collapse could be released by accident to the media before it happened. But there are records of reports that say the building "was or is collapsing." There are records of measurements that were done on the building showing the building was physically moving. How is it hard to believe that in the chaos of the day this report might have been misinterpreted? Building collapses are unpredictable unless they're planned demolitions. Ironically, this particular collapse was predicted rather confidently. Yet there are numerous eyewitness reports of a countdown being heard over radio channels before the collapse of WTC7. That's impossible unless it was a controlled demolition. I haven't seen any citation of this.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 1, 2007 11:07:36 GMT -4
Building collapses are unpredictable unless they're planned demolitions.
Define 'unpredictable'.
If you mean the ability to determine to the second when the collapse will begin and how it will look, then yes, I'd agree with you.
But it is possible to predict that a building will collapse without attaching any qualification to that. If I hack away at a tree with an axe I know it will collapse at some point. If I fill a balloon with air at a constant rate I know it will burst at some point. If a building has fires going inside it and has suffered structural damage, and shows signs of physical distortion and movement, I can be reasonably certain it will fall down, even if I don't know exactly when that will happen. The fact that I cannot say exactly when or how the tree will fall, the balloon burst or the building fall in no way invalidates the prediction that those things will, or are likely to, happen.
Presumably, WTC 7 would have been demolished anyway, even had it not collapsed, since the structural damage was likely to have impaired it beyond its capacity to function as a safe working environment. And you just know that even if it had undeniably been demolished deliberately there would have been some CT going on about how it was done to hide some evidence or other.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 18:34:17 GMT -4
It all comes back to the question of why again. Turbonium claimed that it was to save lives because someone might go into it. But in the next breath he claims that it wasn't burning very badly and was structurally sound, so I'd have to question how destroying it could save possibly livesif it wasn't likely to collapse? And if it was so unstable that it was likely to collapse so had to be destroyed to stop it killing people when it did, then why couldn't it have just done so naturally?
Othgerws have claimed that it was for the Insurance, but this leaves the problem of why Silverstein failed to insure it for more than the replacement cost when the contracts had that he had to return the propertiess in a like condition to when he leased them. The reconstruction of WTC 7 has actually cost him money not gained him it, and had he taken out the insurance policy he wanted, it would have cost him even more. If it wasn't for his investors demanding that he covered the building for the entire reconstruction cost (which he still didn't do, they ended up splitting the difference) the insurance money would have been just a pitance of what was needed to rebuild.
That leaves one possible reason, that the attacks were run from the building, and it was destroyed to cover up the evidence. This doesn't make much sense either. The attacks if as the CT's claim, could have been run from anywhere, why do it from a position that would put the conspriators themselves in danger? Building 7 was hit by huge amounts of falling debris (There is very good photographic proof of this) how could they have known previous to this that one of the towers wouldn't just fall onto WTC 7 and kill anyone inside? They couldn't. (Even demolitions have gone tradgecially wrong before.) Why expose themselves to that sort of risk? On top of that, why go to the trouble of blowing up the building and drawing attention to it? If you already control the FBI and any other investigators, then it doesn't matter if you leave the proof sitting there or not because you control them and tell them what to do and so you just tell them to ignore that floor and anything on it.
The CT's want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want a small bunch of conspriators who do apprarently irrational things through a fear of getting caught, but everyone involved in the investigation and broadcasting of the even t to have been in the know and told to follow a script. It can't work both ways.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 1, 2007 21:21:04 GMT -4
Yet there are numerous eyewitness reports of a countdown being heard over radio channels before the collapse of WTC7. That's impossible unless it was a controlled demolition.
I would like to see a source for this. If you are going to state that 'numerous' eyewitnesses reported a countdown over radio channels you'd better back that baby up.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 23:03:28 GMT -4
Yet there are numerous eyewitness reports of a countdown being heard over radio channels before the collapse of WTC7. That's impossible unless it was a controlled demolition.I would like to see a source for this. If you are going to state that 'numerous' eyewitnesses reported a countdown over radio channels you'd better back that baby up. Quoting from the Prison Planet article: Perhaps of even more interest, the EMT relates the fact that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse. Please read the whole article, in fact everyone here should. Of course you won't buy it because the BBC or CNN didn't report it, so it can't be true. The EMT wasn't a demolition expert so anything he saw or heard can't be credible. Another quick quote: He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 23:16:30 GMT -4
You claimed numerous witnesses, you have 1, who was already dicussed here. Where are your numerous witnesses? Where is your audio of the explosives going off? Have you yet bothered to go and watch video and audio of real CD's yet? Go and do so, then tell us why half of Mathatten didn't hear explosions going off inside the buildings. Demo Charges are LOUD!
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 23:17:55 GMT -4
You claimed numerous witnesses, you have 1, who was already dicussed here. Where are your numerous witnesses? Where is your audio of the explosives going off? Have you yet bothered to go and watch video and audio of real CD's yet? Go and do so, then tell us why half of Mathatten didn't hear explosions going off inside the buildings. Demo Charges are LOUD! Read the article, dude. He and hundreds of emergency rescue personnel saw and heard the same thing. He's one of the few with the courage to come forward. It's obvious though, that no testimony or evidence will ever be enough to make you doubt the official story. You're mind's already made up.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 23:35:34 GMT -4
He and other EMTs saw and heard the same thing
Buuzt. Incorrect. He CLAIMS that other saw and heard it and he CLAIMS others are too scared to come forward. You have 1 person making claims for other people, that is NOT the same thing as having other people making the same claim.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 23:37:38 GMT -4
It's obvious though, that no testimony or evidence will ever be enough to make you doubt the official story. You're mind's already made up.
It's obvious that you are willing to jump on one anonymous person's claims in a supposed e-mail to support your view even when all the evidence points in the other direction.
Have you taken up my challenge and listened to the audio of the collapses yet? Where are the explosions?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 23:47:18 GMT -4
It's obvious though, that no testimony or evidence will ever be enough to make you doubt the official story. You're mind's already made up.It's obvious that you are willing to jump on one anonymous person's claims in a supposed e-mail to support your view even when all the evidence points in the other direction. If I found 20 people saying the same thing you'd find some other excuse not to accept them, so what's the point? The videos of the collapses were taken from a great distance for obvious reasons. Sound diminishes by the inverse square law. The sound of the collapses would cover up the sound of the squibs. But you don't believe eyewitnesses so why believe a video?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 23:52:32 GMT -4
The videos of the collapses were taken from a great distance for obvious reasons. Sound diminishes by the inverse square law. The sound of the collapses would cover up the sound of the squibs. But you don't believe eyewitnesses so why believe a video?
No, some of the video was taken right next the buildings and INSIDE the buildings, I even have previously posted a phone call that was occuring inside Tower 2 when it collapsed. Go and watch a few real CD's and then say that the camera's where too far away. It's obvious you have never bothered to do so or you'd know that you're talking a load of rubbish.
If I found 20 people saying the same thing you'd find some other excuse not to accept them, so what's the point?
Yopu don't have 20, you have one that is anonymous and his story uncheckable, a story that is countered by the hundreds of others there at the time.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2007 0:58:10 GMT -4
If I found 20 people saying the same thing you'd find some other excuse not to accept them, so what's the point? How many eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash do conspiracy theorists ignore simply because they contradict their beliefs? Why is it that CT's will accept the anonymous claims of some guy on the internet, but not the testimony of people who saw a 757 hit the Pentagon? Do you believe all eyewitnesses, or only the anonymous ones who support your theory?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 2, 2007 4:35:38 GMT -4
It was pretty symmetrical, not perfectly though. You can look at videos all you want, theorize and be incredulous until the cows come home. Regardless, the entire argument hinges on the question of whether the collapse was impossible without CD. If you believe yes, this is where you need to tread lightly and present some pretty compelling evidence, because quite a few folks who have studied stuff like this for many years disagree with you. Turbonium I hate to bring up experts all the time, but I'm not qualified to judge whether the collapse I saw on TV and watch on video could only occur if the building was rigged with explosives. I must defer to experts. Fortunately for me, the vast majority of those experts are on my side so it's not that big a deal. You on the other hand must include in your theory why the expert consensus is against you; I realize your conviction is important, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in your shoes. You must have seen this video.... 911blogger.com/node/2807 A CD expert who agrees it was a CD. You can come up with as many CD experts as you like that disagree. That doesn't make it the correct conclusion. History has shown us that even one expert can be opposed by all his colleagues and eventually that one expert was found to be correct. Of course, I'd be interested to see if other CD experts, such as the one I cited - also unaware of WTC 7 collapsing - would also agree that this is a CD after watching the videos. That's the only way to get a completely unbiased, honest opinion.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 2, 2007 4:42:04 GMT -4
If it was so symetrical, explain why the Western end begins to collapse a full 6 seconds after the Eastern end. ?? Are you talking about the penthouse? If so, it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the global collapse, which took about 6-7 seconds in total. And if it was straight down explain the damage it did to the nearby buildings, one so much so that it was later on demolished. That isn't relevant either. Peripheral damage can be asymmetrical in the aftermath of a symmetrical collapse - such as with WTC 7. The videos are the relevant evidence of a symmetrical collapse, not the damage it causes to surrounding buildings. That should be easy to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 2, 2007 5:45:27 GMT -4
Why do you think the penthouse doesn't qualify as part of the overall global collapse?
|
|