Watch this video, and of course you'll see the squibs near the top of the building a second before the collapse, but you'll also see that as the building begins to visibly fall, that there is a bunch of dust left in its place. If the building fell due to damage on the SW corner (which may be fake see thread about photo fakery), then dust would only be created as the building impacted the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY

See what I'm saying?

Very smart observation!

oh yea

wow, nice pick up

It's smoke that is left in the air, not dust and those squibs are more likely the window damage seen here in the image below, taking down WTC7 with explosives would not involve blowing outer walls as that would tend towards an explosion. There's no reason for any explosive charges to be on the wall and the fact that window damage does match up to 'squib locations' is a dead givaway.

Case closed.

:D

I love how every remark you make is not even considering the fact that every tell-tale sign of a controlled demolition was observed with WTC 7.

You claim to be so logically skilled, and yet you don't even look at C.D. as a possibility. For every point you make about why it might not be C.D., we have two or three to shoot it down.

watch closely as the windows blow with ejected dust (squib)... and you'll see that these squibs happen in a very unnatural sequence. Compare to other known demolitons of similar buildings, and you'll see that the bottom of the buildings are blown first, initiating descent, and then additional charges go off from bottom to top in order to assist in the breaking of the building as it falls and impacts the ground and debris.

You're missing these telltale signs

• Repeated extremely loud explosions in sequence
  
• Visible light flashes in sequence (not windows breaking just to add that in)
  
• Several miles of detcord strung over the interior
  
• A period of time where the demolition crew could set charges

But I agree, the bottom first collapse does look initially like a controlled demolition and I am perfectly fine with considering it, but if I can provide problems with your theory (early penthouse drop and the lack of the above) or other methods of collapse then it is perfectly legitimate debate. If you prove my points wrong and establish evidence of the above I will be more than happy to 'admit' a controlled demolition.

The building is changing geometry and dropping rapidly so ejected dust can simply be overpressure, what is the 'unnatural sequence' you are referring to?

I'm not entirely sure about this, while building demolitions do focus on breaking up support columns I'm not convinced they use explosives to break up the external walls. Even so why would they plant explosives so high up? Destroying the lower floors would serve their purpose just as well and the more explosives planted the greater the chance of detection.

Do you not think it's a remarkable coincidence the very low quality video you have provided matches up exactly with the window damage observed from a different angle?

there is no audio in any of the collapse videos that I'm aware of...

it's not a prerequisite of a demolition to have visible flashes, and we don't have a view of what I'm calling squibs from a 90 degree angle so you could see a flash, and we don't have video (that I'm aware of) that shows the lower sections as collapse ensues. No opportunity to see flashes in the areas we're talking about.

Haven't demolitions been done with remote sequencing? Even if it is not done typicallly, I doubt anyone can prove that it cannot be done.

Any time in between the construction and destruction of the buildings, but most likely not on 9/11 itself, there was opportunity to place these. And if it was indeed done in secret, that would kind of necessitate remotely detonated devices would it not?

The fact that the penthouse collapsed is a tell-tale sign. If damage to the facade was the cause of collapse (with help from fires) then you'd see the damaged corner or wall lean, then begin falling at a high speed. You wouldn't see a straight down descent where the whole building falls at the same rate and trajectory. You'd see large portions of the building falling, but probably keeping a large portion standing for some time afterwards.

Assuming it were a typical controlled demolition, there are explosives placed every couple of floors to assist in the breaking of larger pieces, so that cleanup is easier. They had to get rid of the evidence quicky, or be exposed. It is also possible that incriminating evidence for other crimes was also kept in that building. Who knows whic hfloors/offices they might have resided in... they may have needed more explosives near the top to accomplish this destruction of evidence, but that' is just speculation (notice I qualified my statement with "may have")

I didn't provide it... I just linked to it. If there were explosions in the upper floors.. where do you think the extra pressure would go? That's right, straight out the broken windows. And it is very unlikely that the falling structure could have produced such pressure, since it had barely begun to fall when those "squibs" appear.

There are live interviews going on mid-collapse in which you hear nothing. High explosives have quite the range, but it's still a trademark

No, but there are lots of videos 'straight on' which show some smashed windows but that is about it. You would hope in such an intact building to have the chance to see them but I'll agree it is not a prerequisite.

Well perhaps, I am no demolition specialist. Regardless of this, each charge requires initiating, and typically that means a couple of hours per column drilling and pre-weakening and affixing, which brings me to the next point

Even in secret there's a lot of charges needing to be placed, and a lot of people who'd have to be in on it to ignore the people doing it?

No offense but you do not have the qualifications to state this. Why would explosive demolition target the penthouse for collapse initially and then wait up to 8 seconds before the full collapse? I think that the penthouse would be significant evidence against a controlled demolition. NIST managed to find a way for the column to fall first thanks to south side damage and that seems pretty plausible to me?

It's still speculation, the final report should clear this up thanks to the wonder of FEA modelling.

Thank you (for qualifying), honestly I love a clean debate, but too many people say things like the collapse requires no proof of controlled demolition to be considered it.

Sorry, linked is what I meant. Yes explosive overpressure would go straight out of broken windows, but it would be significantly faster and more energetic I would think. The fact that the only visible sign is when the building starts changing geometry benefits the 'just a window' theory I think.

Link please. I have not seen this.

it was a government stronghold... they could have just ordered a mandatory evacuation drill for a few hours a couple of times per year to get it done, but I'm sure these f*ckers are more imaginative than you or I.

I have to disagree... the sagging of the penthouse in the video I linked to happens only a fraction of a second prior to full motion of the building itself.

But it is a pre-requisite of any conspiracy theory which invovles government agencies to automatically question the methods, deciders, and findings of such a report. The report itself is not proof of anything other than providing an official response to conspiracy theories, which neither supports the official theory, nor disposes the conspiracy theories.

A much larger debate needs to take place on this building, with complete resources and evidence available to the public. Full transparency is needed.

Well I guess I can accept that. Moving forward.

Could be, but the thing that interests me is the fact that the squib-like projections happen only a fraction of a second after collapse is visible. Pressure moving up the stairwells/elevator shafts/heat ducts would not happen that fast, in my opnion. And in order to get gaseous materials moving that fast, there needs to be some sort of compression first. There would have had to be a large section of the building that was still air-tight. That's hard to believe. Then that air-tight section would have had to be breached, causing energy release and sending air/dust out windows. Otherwise the collapse in a building that was laden with broken windows throughout would simultaneously release pressure and not allow it to build.

It really looks like a planned sequence doesn't it? Regardless of what it actually is... it really does look like an intelligent sequence.

I often wonder if that building was supposed to be more heavily damaged when the towers fell, and since it wasn't, the collapse had to be delayed for several hours to make the fire theory seem more plausible.

Quickest link I could find was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jub8tQvrFxY

There are other videos which contain it, but I don't really have a good repository of WTC footage, I agree it's quite far off and a handheld mic only but there's no evidence of high explosives there.

Still, you need to find an example of it occurring to form a coherent theory.

That is the central or west penthouse, the east penthouse falls a good 6-8 seconds before the main phase of the collapse. I have been having trouble finding sources for this because every goddamn video of the collapse is 7 seconds long and excludes the east penthouse.

It's unfortunately not that simple. NIST is not just a 'government agency', it is composed of the finest engineers frankly in the world, or at least a bunch of them. Their models seem to match the external damage, the tests they did and all relevant physical evidence. It provides pretty strong evidence that the collapse hypothesis was at least feasible?

I can't really disagree with this but there are possibly legal issues, copyright etc. Still I wouldn't mind having access to NISTs media library!

Uh they would move at the speed of sound.

Why?

That's not true at all, all that overpressure requires is a reduction in volume of the enclosing area, this happened as soon as the building began to fail.

Undoubtedly, the penthouse is weird but the 'crimp' and the rate of decent is quite similar to a controlled demolition

This is pretty unlikely, I mean the amount of work required is insane to estimate the damage. Plus please remember the whole "pull it" comment isn't relevant if you want to talk about explosive demolition. (As confirmed by "Demolition Expert #3")

Unfortunately that's not the best link you could have provided, as there's recordings of a bomb sound, and firefighters saying, "Get back that building's going to blow up". They didn't say "It's gonna collapse".

Oh Okay. I'll have to look into that further.

The thing I love about science is that if you have a capacity for it, you can understand all of it. You don't necessarily need to be an expert to do simple mathematical calculations to prove "experts" wrong or mistaken. There is no expert in the world who can successfully convince me that 2+2=5. If a layperson has the methods and calculations of an expert, he/she can do the same work, so long as they follow the rules of the equation and don't fudge numbers/variables. NO one has come close to proving any 9/11 Truth structural "experts" wrong...

Why? If I drop a large box which has holes in it... the air moving out of the holes does not move at the speed of sound. It moves at a rate proportional to the amount of pressure created by the falling box, and the size and quanity of holes.

Shock waves moving at the speed of sound are generally created by explosions, not unassisted implosions.

What would that be necessary or why is it hard to believe? It's hard to believe because there were so many windows with smoke pouring out... hard to believe that a large portion of the building would still be air-tight to create that compression.

No, what I'm saying is that the reduction in volume of the enclosed are is not enough. The area must also become un-enclosed (I know that's not a real word) or breached in order for that pressure to be released. Otherwise the pressure would just continue to build. At some point, inevitably, the pressure would overcome the structure, either breaking a window, door or wall.

Actually, thinking about this more has lead me to conclude that there wouldn't need to be an "air-tight" section of the building necessarily, just that more pressure builds in the relatively enclosed areas (not air-tight) than can be released by the windows and other damaged areas.

I don't think that motion in the building for a split second is enough time for the creation of stored energy due to compression of air, and release of that energy through the windows, ejecting dust/debris. Especially not in a visible from down to up.

Then what of Ocam's Razor? Isn't that the most likely scenario then? Has any building ever exhibited this many known characteristics of a demolition and not actually been one?

At any rate, Thanks for being so honest with your opinion. Perhaps I shouldn't call you a "troll" any longer. For now anyways... ;)

There is one recording of something which does sound somewhat like high explosives sure, but watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

You can clearly see just how horrendously loud explosive demo charges are. I mean there is only one single sound that sounds ANYTHING like that in the video I provided and it's magnitude is much longer. You can also see significant flashing even given the angle. I admit there were a lot of uses of the words "bomb", "explosive", "explosion" etc on the day and I certainly can't fully explain them, but there are a number of plausible reasons for them to be used without the presence of bombs or explosives.

Sure thing, the NIST report has some good speculation into this.

I think this does show you're not a scientist. While you might think that 2+2=5 is wrong, it's perfectly legitimate as long as you are aware of how inaccurate you are. If you have +/- 0.3 accuracy, 2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6 = 5 :)

It's a question of knowing how erroneous your calculations are, and frankly you do have to be an expert to do almost any calculations involving the towers, nothing is as simple as people would like to make it seem :)

Like who? I wasn't even aware there were 9/11 truth structural engineers.

We're not talking about dropping a large box that has holes in it, we're talking about reducing the volume of said box and creating a compression in the air. This does propagate at the speed of sound because that's precisely what it is, sound.

Shock waves in air always travel at the speed of sound, because that is the propagation speed in air? If you clap your hands is that an explosion? No it's just a shock wave from the compression achieved as your hands meet.

It doesn't have to be airtight, not at all, air will escape from every exit. I think you are underestimating the volume of air and the speed at which it was compressed.

Well yes looks like I didn't even have to type above, that's exactly right, the speed of egress is determined by the size and rough layout of the exit points, the fact that areas with significant amounts of damage appeared to be 'blown outwards' slightly as the building began to collapse is not surprising and very very weak evidence of a CD. (Primarily because nobody has yet shown any good reason for them to plant explosives there, sure they could have been breaking up the fascia but surely that just increases the chances of a charge not detonating and being found etc)

Again, neither of us are experts in this but I'm pretty certain there was more than enough time, bear in mind air does have to be accelerated by the falling building and that alone will create pressure.

Occam's razor is not a "scientific truth telling device", it doesn't tell you which is correct but only reminds you to make assumptions when you have to. The assumptions made by the "Controlled Demolition" crew are rather numerous but in different areas

• There was time for people to set demolition charges
• Demolition charges let off no light or typical sounds
• Nobody noticed these charges being set
• Building coincidentally suffered enough damage to make firefighters think it was going to collapse and ignite heavy fires

That's just a list I thought of in a few seconds. Both sides make assumptions but the "Controlled Demolition" side currently don't want to admit that any of them (pull it) are wrong.

Wow... that's amazing. Honestly though, it very much supports the CD theory for the Towers... not having audio of the WT7 Collapse, we can't say anything about a lack of booms from that occurance.

For instance, the videographer in the above clip is probably a similar distance from the blasts as the firefighters were from the blast they heard, and the sound is exactly the same in my opinion. The only difference is that the firefighter's sound is going to be echoed from lots of buildings reflecting sound.

Keep in mind that if the WTC towers were a covert CD operation, then they would do what they could to minimize the comparison to other events. They would have spaced out the explosions so that they did not appear to be connected in any way. Wouldn't you?

This would explain why in the "did hbo hide bomb evidence?" video, which features the same blast sound in the first clip you provided (with firefighters alarmed by the sound) there was only one blast, and why there were singular blasts heard and felt by people before the first collapse.

To me they sound the same.

Also take into consideration that they fell top-down. This serves two important purposes. First, it makes us think that planes caused the collapses, and secondly, it covers the sound of additional charges going off simultaneously.

And of course remember that the towers were 110 stories, and this building in the second clip appears to be about 30 storeys or so. That would be 3.6~ times as tall or more. The sound of falling debris would be tremendous.

yea I saw the flashes. But again, you have to try to think like the 9/11 perps (assume for a moment that it was an inside job) and then try to imagine how they thought about it. They'd HAVE to hid the flashes as best they could. They'd put most of the charges near the core so that flashes would be minimized. Basically, they'd need to take measures that normal demolitions teams would not need to take.

But my point is not disproven. If I have the available variables, and plug them into the same formula used by an expert, then I should always come to the same conclusion. Then, that sorta makes my calculations of expert quality, even though I would not have a degree in that field.

Yes, and some experts have done these calculations and come to the conclusion that the official story is absolutely false. See Steven Jones, David Griffin, Kevin Ryan and many others.

youre right that compression occurs, as it would in my dropping a box scenario, but it does the release of pressure through the windows does not happen at the speed of sound solely because it produces a sound when it occurs... IT COULD happen, but only if the amount of pressure exceded the limits of the surrounding air, then it would create a shock wave which would travel at the speed of sound.

But releasing compressed air doesn't ALWAYS produce a shock wave.

Accelerated, yes, as before it was relatively motionless. But remember that as the bottom floors hit the ground and were basically pulverized (by one method or another) that those areas of the structure should have immediately released any gasses contained therein. That gasseous material wouldn't have travelled up stairs etc. to find a window when there are breaches of the structure nearby to escape from.

Right you are. The thing is that skeptics like to envoke Occam's Razor to prove us wrong, which is absolute nonsense. Just pointing that out to anyone who wants to do so in the future.

We have speculated and found ample time for this to happen. Whether or not our speculation reflects actual events, we cannot know at this point. But the fact remains that it is at least remotely possible.

As far as we know, but what we know is limited to audio-less recordings. Another thing to ask about is whether thermite reactions create large bangs/booms. Think about this. We've all seen the video of a thermite cube eating away at a car engine and then finding its way to the ground. Wasn't that relatively quiet compared to an explosive charge?

Perhaps with WTC7 they ONLY used thermite, and did not break up the building near the top as we've assumed. Just speculating on other possibilities...

You don't know that.

Well the "pull it" quote may or may not assist us in this effort. Frankly, because it is open to interpretation, we shouldn't use it as proof of one or another theory. But if you already are sure that it is a CD, then it's obvious what he meant. That is, if you've already accepted one theory as truth, then the pull it phrase fits in nicely and does not contradict anything in that theory.

I noticed you didn't answer the most important question, "has any collapse exhibited this many known characteristics of a controlled demolition and not been a controlled demolition?"

Allow me to answer this - NO.

Bringing down a building in its own footprint is the object of a controlled demolition. It must be completelt planned, it doesn't happen by accident. It requires the near simultaneous of the vertical support columns.

FEMA initially said the building was brought down by fire. If this isn't a desperate lie I don't know what is.

Over 5 years later we have had no official explanation for the total collapse of a 47 story skyscraper, just ridiculous internet theories.

NIST has contracted out the explanation with the stipulation that only the behavior of floors 2 - 46 be addressesd. The reason for this sshould be pretty obvious.

Is it possible to rig a building with explosives? Uh, I believe it is. Does it really matter if anyone saw this being done? Not really. Where are they gonna go, the police, the FBI, the press? Please.

Are you trying to say that because this hasn't happened before it is impossible?

Fine, because this didn't happen

A guess?

A preliminary report has been published and a final report is due soon.

... Please explain it to us.

What? Do you think a reporter wouldn't report on this? What about a french, or russian, or iranian, or iraqi or afghani, or saudi reporter etc? There are plenty of people with the incentive to make the US seem like a bunch of corrupt evildoers.

I'm not entirely sure we have no audio for that, I'm pretty sure even the interviews going on a few hundred yards down the road would have heard the bangs.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllll this is subject to debate, but I will agree the sound is very similar. It could of course just be a large chunk of steel hitting the ground but you're free to speculate :)

It's really not that easy, you need to ensure that all the explosives are detonated, and that the structure is sufficiently weakened. What you're proposing is that the building was slowly weakened by explosives, but explosive weakening is not that precise a task. Especially if something has suffered significant structural damage. I have no idea what sort of calculations they'd have to do to make the building 'resistanceless' (the common quote) as it fell without using dozens of charges on each level.

Well frankly the 'evidence' for bombs in the WTC is limited to rough physics calculations which either say
a) Yep just about had collapse energy
B) No just about didn't have collapse energy.

Frankly I tend to agree on the first, the trusses were designed to hold minimal vertical dynamic loads and large lateral dead loads. I can't see them providing any serious resistance to a large amount of dynamic loading from above. You can at least, see the inward bowing on the columns which agrees with NISTs theory, and the outer walls being pivoted. I believe there's significant evidence that at least the initiation of collapse is plausible without explosives.

But this is only increasing the amount of work that has to be done. Plus how the hell do you hide the flash? the flash is caused by ludicrous amounts of extremely quick expansion, in order to hide it you'd have to somehow cover the explosives with something which wouldn't be destroyed immediately and wouldn't provide a barrier to pressure. Really I don't even know if it's possible to hide flashes, and bear in mind there's a lot more speculation here.

Certainly if it's something as simple as a+b=c, but when talking about elastic/nonelastic deformation, fracturing, linear compression etc. When do you know when these forumulas are appropriate? How do you know you are putting the right numbers into the right equation. Sure you can duplicate some maths, but duplicating methods correctly takes a lot more work :)

Steven Jones is the best you have, David Griffin and Kevin Ryan are not experts in this field, and I have issues with even Steven Jones' theories, namely that somehow 1000C material is molten steel.

What are the "limits of the surrounding air"? I don't agree with you at all, any compression will propagate at the speed of sound I believe, even if the particles don't the wavefront will. I could be 100% wrong here so i'll try and find some sources to back my claim up.

Which air wouldn't? Sure there may be some open areas at the bottom, but the volume of the tower has reduced, and if there aren't enough exits the compression will proceed up the tower no problem, which is what appears to have happened.

Fair enough, I have no need for it's use because I am fairly confident the evidence supports my theory (Primarily because I used to believe in controlled demolition before i spent some serious time investigating).

I can't reply any further as it's 9:30am and I should be in work, I'll try and more fully detail my points at a later date. You should read Gravy's 911 Myths.pdf here: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf .. It really is very very good at disproving several common claims.

Later, and thanks for arguing rationally instead of just insulting me.

The isolated pockets of fire could not have cause the the load-bearing members to fail simultaneously. Yes it is impossible. As far as the alledge damage to the Southwest corner if it were fatal the building would topple towad that side following the path of least resistance.


A guess, huh? Given that fire has never brought down a skyscraper or even caused one steel column to fail, I'd say that was a really, really bad guess wouldn't you? Clearly, FEMA wasn't the proper agency to handle the investigation. They should stick to what they do best - protecting our country during emergencies.

Ah, maybe I shouldn't be too hard on them after all they were only given a budget of 600k and volunteer investigators. I know hindsight is 20/20 but looking back maybe we should have had a bigger investigation into (according to the official story) the largest engineering failures in world history. Maybe we should have had the largest, most painstaking investigatiuon in world history. Maybe we should have spared no expense or had no time constraints. Maybe we should have had structural engineers, metallurgists and forensic investigators on the scene. Maybe should have examined the steel more closely and not shipped it off overseas. Perhaps then we would have had definitive answers (not guesses) to what reallly happened and could take steps to prevent it from ever happening again.

Nah.

It's quite obvious the investigations have a pre-determined conclusion. Given that the only total collapses of steel-framed, high-rise buildings have been due to controlled demolitions, explosives should be the first choice.


Not really impressed here, a preliminary report five and a half fucking years later? All these people who work in skyscrapers have been taking their life in their hands. Apparently either fire or structural damage can inexplicably cause a total collapse of a building. Controlled Demolition Inc. must be shaking in their boots. Apparently they've found a cheaper, better way to bring buildings straight down.

As to why they would only look at floors 8 - 46, I'll leave you to figure that one out. A little simple research and common sense is all that is required. Although if you don't understand that the behavior of the other floors is relavent data it might be beyond you.

The press hasn't shown WTC -7 since 9/11 nor have they mention its ommission by the 9/11 Commission. Sure the the press is supposed to be our protector again tyranny but we all know that's not how the real world works.

Guess what? We're what the press is supposed to be.

Nobody claims that fire caused load bearing members to fail simultaneously. The building did topple southwards, you can clearly see both the south wall falling first, and the building tilting towards the south in the latter stages of the collapse and parts of the north fascia lying completely over the top of the rest of the rubble. This alone suggests you've not even read the NIST preliminary report.

The largest structural failure? What about WTC1 and 2? Still, you were talking about FEMA. NIST is fully investigating the collapse and won't be making any such guesses.

Are you saying that because this has never happened before? It cannot happen?

Actually both cause structural failure, but yes five years. If you read their FAQs they explain why they have taken so long over it.

You said 2-46 before, but even so I am not going to research your points for you. Present your evidence and I will address it.

Are you trying to say that WTC7 has never been shown on TV since 9/11? I have seen it personally in the UK.

I'm a traitor? But I'm British, who am I a traitor too? Even if the towers were brought down by the American government, I am no traitor.

e^n it's all very nice to shroud yourself in the comfortable scientific arguments you've accepted from others whom you've grown to admire.

You seem to be using the WTC7 collapse to prove your point that it's possible to argue that 2+2 = 5. Allow for a large enough error factor in your calculations and you can round the result off to the point of being meaningless.

Yes you can use the powerfully persuasive word "topple", and then look at the ruins "spread" and argue what clearly you wish to believe on a subjective level.

As anyone interested in the collapse of WTC7 knows, there are several video views of it's collapse. Yes the penthouse did drop several seconds before the complete building collapsed. The point is, this was a massive structure of 47 storeys, occupying a whole city block. The video evidence clearly shows the building did not "breakup", "collapse piecemeal", "topple over", "topple noticeably or significantly" or any of the other spins you and the NISTians at JREF wish to use in order to avoid what your eyes are telling you. The inescapable truth is the videos show a massive 47-storey building with a city block footprint, simultaneously 'let go' of all it's underlying structural support. The rug was pulled out from under it (controlled demolition), if you will, and it did the expected high speed freefall collapse. The videos show that it dropped vertically, at a uniform speed, no hesitations, no sections leading others, no delays after initiation, and a remarkably level roofline all the way down!

Now you can use Gravy's masterpiece of WTC7 quotations all you like but it doesn't alter what happened. Anyone who doesn't want to believe the collapse of WTC7 was an inside job is going to look for absolutely any way possible to discredit those who believe otherwise.

For JREF NISTians, the fire and debris damage don't account for the collapse that was observed so they allow sufficient error factor in their 2+2=5 calculations to make it so.

For JREF NISTians, they don't know how it was done..so therefore, in their arrogant belief in their infallibilty, they believe it couldn't have been done.

For JREF NISTians, because they didn't hear what they thought they should hear, or the sound evidence wasn't good enough, or substantial enough, or not corroborated enough, or too distorted, or to mixed with all the other location noise, they believe no demolitions could have occurred.

For JREF NISTians, because of a large collection of collapse quotes from non-engineer firefighters, who had their trained expectations shocked by the unexpected WTC 1 & 2 collapses, had their senses shocked by the horrific loss of over 300 of their brothers, and who'd been told by their superiors to evacuate the WTC7 area in anticipation of it's collapse; these JREF NISTians particularly accept this as prove of a non-controlled demolition collapse.

For JREF NISTians, they blindly grasp the belief that NIST is a virtuous organization that would only do the right thing. That NIST engineers have so much integrity that they bow to no man. The same NIST that prominently used, a lame SW Corner damage photo of WTC7 in their June 2004 preliminary report. A photo that was well debunked in another thread as a clear distortion or falsification of the true damage in order to strengthen NIST's future case arguing the effect of debris damage.

To quote Dr. Frank Greening, a man once held in the highest esteem of the JREF NISTians, and the man who actually can be credited with the term NISTian;
(This was extracted from his online radio discussion with Jim Fetzer on April 4, 2007)
"Researchers are under pressure to get the right results. The right results aren't always the right results, they are the results that the company wants, or the organization wants and if you get bad results, ie. embarrassing results, or controversial results..uhmm they might try and suppress you. And I think this happens everywhere and it's a crying shame and I think it's a big problem, in science, and industry and in government and unfortunately the universities are a party to this"

In his followup comments in the JREF Conspiracy forum, he made it quite clear that while he admired NIST scientists, he felt NIST management was acting in a similar fashion.

Anyone who is a fan of courtroom TV or legal novels knows that a good lawyer can spin and argue that black is white and when finished has everyone convinced that 2+2=5! The lawyer doesn't have to believe what he or she says, they just have to make the listener believe it.

In this case I believe we have a lot of people who are so afraid of 9/11 truth, that they desperately want to belief 2+2=5!

MM

Cant wait for NIST's explanation why WTC -7 fell. Oops, I mean the behavior of floors 8 - 46. That couples nicely with their pre-collapse theory on the Towers.

British, huh? Thought I smelled something funny. Don't you wankers ever shower?

You clearly have no idea what I was demonstrating and I won't insult your determinism by asking you to research it

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...073116607499063
40 seconds in.

Wow you can not get enough of labeling people can you? Ok I'll play this game too.

Haha you don't even have a clue what you are talking about, no sections led others? Ok then explaining this: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...857754400064872 shouldn't be a problem.

Ok, except it completely does, in fact as the building starts to collapse it shows a massive geometry change and windows / facade panels start falling off immediately. What is more confusing that in a controlled demolition you would expect the building to break up in fact it is the basis behind the "squib theory".

And those who refuse to believe it wasn't an inside job will insult, degrade, ridicule and if possible, silence their opponents. So far at least 4 different arguments have boiled down to the person I was debating insulting me and leaving. I think it's fair to say I don't ever do this, unless you can find an instance?

What?

What?

Ah so the lack of several key signs can't be taken as evidence it didn't happen, it's just unlucky we don't have conclusive proof! Seriously while you were waxing lyrical about how amazing you are and how pathetic we "JREF NISTians" (again, I registered there at the same time and have posted way more here) are did you stop to think that you weren't actually saying anything here? You have presented no facts, evidence or reasons to believe you are qualified to make statements without evidence.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, what you have just said is "ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE IS DISCOUNTED BECAUSE I THINK PERSONALLY WITH NO EXPERT EXPERIENCE THAT THESE FIREFIGHTERS WERE NOT THINKING STRAIGHT". Are you trying to tell me that these firefighters were wrong? Is it unthinkable to you that WTC7 did collapse "naturally"? (without explosives or other aid)

Please explain why this picture shows a clear gouge between at least floors #8 to #17:

Still held in high esteem by most people I think, me included.

Surely you take credit for using it like it actually meant anything.

Certainly, do you know why he thought this?

So that's an entire post insulting JREF posters and me, calling us blind slaves to a report you haven't read and haven't provided a single bit of evidence to rebuke.

I'm not going to respond to your posts again until you provide something interesting and i do not mean a fricking link to another "WTC7 SMOKING GUN" video, all of them get things wrong within the first few seconds. If you can find me one that doesn't say that it fell in "UNDER 7 SECONDS" or whatever i'll watch it.

Still 8-46 is it now instead of 2-46 before, can you source this and tell us why please? You haven't done so so far.

Yeah I shower, do you ever stop fucking your own family, building terrible cars and shooting guns at each other? See I can insult other countries too. Seriously what are you thinking here? Everyone here (i'd hope) is far too intelligent to even care about your pathetic little insults. Try using sarcasm, it's big boy comedy.

2+2=5 proof? I know exactly what you are talking about. You aren't the only person here with an engineering background. Saying someone doesn't understand you is a great way to dismiss their criticism.

Your pathetic example of WTC7 toppling;
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...073116607499063

A great example of your determinism to see what isn't substantially there!

I and many many others have watched countless videos of controlled demolitions. Some are more symmetrical than others as would be expected given the variety of challenges involved.
The WTC7 collapse in comparison is right up there in terms of symmetry. Some minor irregularity late in it's collapse can hardly be considered a case for toppling..talk about reaching for straws. You really are in bed with the JREF NISTians.

Yes the pentouse collapsed several seconds before the primary roofline down collapse.
I suppose you could try and argue that every broken window, dropped pane of glass or other falling debris constituted "other sections leading others"..geez. Let me be clear about what I was addressing; Once the full collapse started, as seen from the completely dropping roofline, the videos show that WTC7 dropped vertically, at a uniform speed, no hesitations, no sections leading others, no delays after initiation, and a remarkably level roofline all the way down!

Yes of course the building broke up!! Surely you didn't think I was suggesting it drove downwards through it's basement and bedrock like a 'knife through butter'! Controlled demolition results in a building, WTC7 in this case, imploding on itself. It uses the weight of the building to crush itself.

My reference to the videos not showing WTC7 breakup was in reference to an expected decay of a building that was going to totally fail as a result of fire and debris-induced structural damage. If WTC7 had sustained enough fire and debris damage to result in it's total eventual collapse, I would have expected this to have followed a more natural progression over an extensive time frame with building sections gradually breaking up as structural support integrity failed at the weakest points first. Certainly a 7 second, or 17 second if you want the penthouse included, sudden total collapse would not be a logical expectation. Apparently it is for you though!

I don't care what your post count is at the JREF Conspiracy Forum. I've noticed how they pointedly choose to ignore your comments there. I'm assuming it's because they aren't ready to recognize you as one of their 'chosen' yet. At least here in the LC Forum we respond to you and acknowledge your existence. I did think you had some integrity but more and more it's clear that you are solidly married to your beliefs and place ego ahead of truth and serious evaluation of the observed events.

The key refuge of the JREF NISTians is their claim that we have no right or currency to argue against the Official NIST Doctrine unless we prepare a courtroom case. They sit back with all their carefully prepared case histories, engineering studies, formulae ad nauseam, quotations, expert opinions, etc. while ignoring the fact that this is a forum that does not and could not function as a courtroom. The goal is to bring about a serious, honest investigation that will bring about a courtroom calibre examination of 9/11.

Our duty as 9/11 truth seekers is not to try the case but to substantiate the 'argument of reasonable doubt' thus justifying that there is a valid case to be pursued.

What goal do you and the JREF NISTians have in attempting to cripple this pursuit of a legitimate investigation other than shelter your fears that it might reveal something you find too horrible to face or something that you actually believe in and wish to protect?

Your c2001 Willie Cirone picture, which was terrible to begin with, is even more unusable with all your added construction lines. As I've said before in another thread, which you apparently abandoned, the Cirone photo is shot at too extreme an angle to allow any appreciation of the extent of corner damage. My comparison photo below clearly shows how NIST used a photo that's whole purpose was to create a belief in massive SW corner damage to WTC7.

http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=w...p2ahireswx4.jpg

Yes Dr. Frank Greening is still held in high esteem by many people. I gained some respect for him after hearing him speak on Jim Fetzer's online radio show April 4, 2007. This quote bears repeating. Too bad JREF NISTians remain deaf to it's message.

Dr. Greening quote;

"Researchers are under pressure to get the right results. The right results aren't always the right results, they are the results that the company wants, or the organization wants and if you get bad results, ie. embarrassing results, or controversial results..uhmm they might try and suppress you. And I think this happens everywhere and it's a crying shame and I think it's a big problem, in science, and industry and in government and unfortunately the universities are a party to this"

Dr. Frank Greening, better known in the JREF Conspiracy Forum as Apollo20, directed his coined term "NISTian" at the majority of JREF Conspiracy members who treated the NIST WTC Report as if it was the bible.

In a thread in the JREF Conspiracy Forum titled "Debate! What debate?", Dr. Greening had these comments to make about the JREF 'regulars';

"I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFe
eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the
following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?” you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal ar refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”!

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory.

NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying..... This is the
JREFers Bible!?!?!?" endquote Dr. Frank Greening

MM

MM I always enjoy your posts especially when you put the j'ref hotshots in their place. When backed into a corner they have no other choice other than to lie.

Oooh really struck a nerve there, ha stinky? Maybe I should have been more specific - do you shower more than once a week?

What everyone here (but you) is smart enough to see through is NIST. Their report on the Towers and their stipulation that only certain floors be considered when addressing the collapse of WTC -7 violates a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning.

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what it is.

You've given it your best and failed. Now git.

how did a thread about some dust couds turn into a thread about personal hygene? :rolleyes:

if you read my posts they were clearly about more than the personal hygiene (note the correct spelling) of one foul-smelling brit.