9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Discussion in '9/11' started by phoenyx, Feb 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whatever, Bob. I don't care.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Trolling noted.
     
  2. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you're suggesting that Blues didn't fully understand everything I meant, that may well be true. I don't always fully understand what people mean either. I still remember my reintroduction into this forum, believing that you (atleast I think it was you, if not, it was another who questions the official story) believed the official story. That was embarassing :p.
     
  3. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope. But then, I only just got back to this thread after a long time away. I have actually begun to review the thread, but I like to start from the very beginning and, well, the thread is rather long :p... I'd like to point out that I am not saying I -know- that Silverstein didn't order the demolition. I'm just saying that even assuming that he did mean 'bring the building down' when he said "pull it", he clearly stated that "they" made the decision, so he certainly wasn't assuming responsibility for it.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not going to go rummaging through this thread to find accounts you supplied previously. Furthermore, I never stated that everyone agreed that the building was being blown up. I'm just stating that the testimony above seems to clearly indicate that some people very close to the event at the time clearly thought it was.

    Neither do I. The FDNY currently employs over 10,000 uniformed firefighters and over 3,600 EMTs and paramedics. If they all knew that WTC 7 was going to be blown up, it would have made headlines on day 1. Now, as to whether a few were informed that it was going to blow up, that's another story. I think the testimony above clearly suggests that some were informed. So does this video clip:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

    Ah, I see. Wasn't Ganci in charge as well? I know that he died on 9/11 though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Ganci,_Jr.

    So why does Silverstein mention a commander, and the New York Times also mention the name of a specific commander, Frank Fellini?

    I disagree.

    As far as I know, the FDNY has no training in controlled demolitions. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

    Again, I disagree. I believe that AE911 has the most plausible theory for who was probably involved: http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/595-faq-1-who-demolished-the-twin-towers-and-building-7-and-why.html

    Even NIST only -suggests- that the fires were the cause of the collapse... http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm

    True.

    Who believes this? Nigro certainly wasn't an FDNY commander, unlike Fellini.

    Could you link to atleast one of your sources?

    The New York Times article is apparently disagreeing with your narrative again...

    Could you link to an article stating this?

    Once again, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to go digging through 1000+ posts to find your evidence for you :p. If you want to make your case, you're going to have to present it to me yourself...

    Again, I disagree. Let's start with the very first point in the article, since it's something we've already been discussing: **Certainty of impending collapse
    To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing. But to be certain that it will collapse is another. A detailed study of the FDNY accounts by 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen shows that more than half of those who received warnings of WTC 7&#8217;s collapse (where a degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that Building 7 was coming down. (The figures calculate to 31 out of 58. See MacQueen&#8217;s report &#8220;Waiting for Seven&#8230;&#8221; at page 4.)**

    This person apparently heard what sounded like a demolition countdown directly:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't suggesting anything other than what I posted, he twists posts to suit his claims.

    I understand but that's not the issue with Blues.
     
  5. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed, Silverstein had no authority as posited.

    In response to an earlier post of yours, I posted the link and a large amount of testimony that confirmed that 'pull it' meant for the men to 'pull back'.

    All it really suggests is that some thought the building would blow up.

    Yes, Ganci was killed in the collapse and Nigro took his place.

    He was quoted on a PBS programme well after the fact. His memory may be as bad as his grammar. Nigro has confirmed he received the call. As to the NYT article? I don't know poor reporting? It doesn't matter in light of the fact that Nigro confirmed it.

    There is no hypothesis in this scenario that does not implicate the FDNY is some fashion. Every hypothesis posited requires the FDNY to be complicit.

    Agreed, but they are implicated as the charges must have been laid by the FDNY. No-one knew that 1WTC would strike 7WTC, so any idea that explosives were pre-deployed is absurd. The whole notion itself is absurd. Why demolish an empty building no-one even knows exists? It's insane.

    That scenario relies on 1WTC striking 7WTC. It does not address how that extraordinary claim was perpetrated, therefore I can dismiss it as the fancy of some with a vested interest in the claim.

    No, they actually state that:

    "...fire, plus design flaws, plus lack of fire fighting, due to structural instability of the building, exhaustion, crushed fire equipment and broken fire mains.&#8221;

    Nigro confirmed it in the interview.

    I have posted several already. This is a good place for you to start:

    http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

    I'm sure it does and I don't know why you are even using it. I'm sorry, but I don't use, or give credence to newspaper articles.

    It's in the above link and Nigro's interview is on youtube.

    I have to go through it again on your own thread? I'm sorry, but I don't know if I care that much. I'm not being objectionable, but I'm tired of the subject, this site, and truther behaviour in general (yourself and genericbob excluded-I miss genericbob-he could discuss the subject without all the usual noise).

    I still see that as a speculative piece that asks the reader to believe the premise without question, and it misrepresents the testimony in places.

    Yes, apparently on a radio that could be anything.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Trolling noted. Go away Bob, we're trying to have a rational discussion without all your usual noise.
     
  6. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would argue that this could just be another way of describing what I said, I just wanted to say it in a way that didn't automatically suggest that he was doing anything of a malign nature. When we misunderstand things, we can change, or "twist" the meaning of posts. It doesn't mean that it's intentional.
     
  7. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True.

    Alright, I've read more of your post, and I understand that you don't want to go looking for stuff you've previously posted. That's fair enough, but I hope you understand that I'm not particularly keen to do it at the moment either. As a general rule, I tend to only dig up information that I myself have posted before, as I am generally more interested in showing evidence for my own case.

    The first question that comes to my mind is, why would they think that? I've done some research on this, and have come to the conclusion that someone (or more then one person) told them it was going to blow up. I still haven't come to a conclusion as to who told them, though.


    I'll take your word for it. He was Chief of Operations at the time, which definitely sounds like someone who could take the top spot if necessary.

    Perhaps...

    Or atleast, he has stated that he received the call.

    Perhaps. I don't have any other leads on this, so I'll let it lie for now.

    We still disagree on this one :p. I do believe that -someone- (or a small group of people) told some in the FDNY that WTC 7 was going to blow up, but just because some were told the building was going to blow up (or collapse) does not mean that the FDNY were complicit in the actual act of blowing it up.

    Again, we disagree. As to my theory as how it was done, it's essentially the one held by AE911, as linked to previously: http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/595-faq-1-who-demolished-the-twin-towers-and-building-7-and-why.html

    How do you know that no one knew 1WTC would strike 7WTC?

    The notion that the building was empty when it was demolished has been contested by atleast one witness (I believe it was Jennings, who has now died). But what's really absurd is your notion that no one even knew the building existed. The building actually had some very sensitive documents:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_documents_lost.html

    Notice that the article only brings up some of the things that were in WTC 7. It's much easier to determine what happened then why. Let's focus on what happened first.

    Can you provide a link for that quote?

    I don't always give credence to them either, but I definitely use them as a starting point.

    You must mean this: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
    For starters, that's a microsoft word document, not an html link, which means I had to open up openoffice, which takes a while on my rather ancient machine. But I did it. I searched for "surveying", couldn't find it. So clearly you're not quoting from the document, you're paraphrasing. The document is 110 pages long. I'm not in the mood to dig through a 110 page document just to find if what you say is true or not. Never mind the fact that 911myths.com is not exactly, say, the New York Times.

    Yes, I started this thread, but that doesn't mean that I've read all the posts in it, or that even that I remember everything said in the posts I have read. And no, you don't have to go through it again. I completely understand that you don't know if you care that much about this. I've felt this way many times, and it's the main reason I've taken long leaves of absence from this place in the past. Ultimately, discussing a single subject for long periods of time with people who you only know as aliases in an online forum can tire anyone. All I can say is that I can't remember the last time that I asked someone who disagrees with me to search for evidence I've provided in the past that refutes them. If I've gotten so tired of a discussion that I can't even be bothered to find my own evidence to present my case, I tend to just leave.

    What, exactly, do you find speculative of the above quote?

    Did you see the entire video clip?

    It seems apparent that you don't get along very well with Bob, and I can see that the feeling is mutual. It seems to me that Bob may think that you are purposely trying to "twist" what people who disagree with the official story are saying, perhaps suggesting that he believes you are trying to deceive. Personally, I do believe that there are indeed some people who are paid to try to deceive others online. Atleast one poster has even come forward, stating that he used to be someone who was one of many employees who did just that, though in that case, it was to boost Israel, not to deceive people on what happened on 9/11. That being said, I think those who do this type of thing are not nearly as numerous as some would think, and I also think that when it comes to highly controversial subjects like this, it is easy to misunderstand where someone else is coming from and thus come to false conclusions as to the intent of those who disagree with one's own views really are. I also think that any discussion wherein both sides are relatively calm can be pretty productive, regardless of what people's intents are.
     
  8. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I get it. I'm a little busy atm, and I'll see what I can do.

    Have you not heard about the diesel tanks in the substation? Ok, I'll try to find the FDNY reference.

    Read the document and watch the videos it links to.

    Perhaps...

    Actually, that was my error. he is aware of Silverstein's claim, but he doesn't recall the phone call:

    "&#8220;I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein&#8217;s statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn&#8217;t mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.&#8221; &#8211; FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro on 9/11.

    "FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro &#8211; &#8220;The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severly damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building&#8217;s integrity was in serious doubt.&#8221; [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

    Nigro's statement (extract):

    "The reasons are as follows:

    1 &#8211; Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
    2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
    3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
    4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else &#8211; as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed (thus making it 2:30 when the order was given).

    Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

    Regards, Dan Nigro
    Chief of Department FDNY (retired)&#8221;



    Read the document.

    So, please, let me get this straight: somehow, some unknown cabal somehow installed explosives in an empty building prior to the attack. This group then manipulated the collapse of the tower, in order to trigger the fires and cause the damage required to then trigger the explosives? They did this without any aid from the FDNY who were supervising all operations, and furthermore, they 'hid' all the physical evidence from the FDNY? The FDNY went on to file fraudulent reports that were used by the insurance companies prior to payout (see Aegis vs. WTC).

    Yes, well, that page stated much and yet nothing.

    I don't, but that is not the question. How did the group know that the destruction wrought by the aircraft would influence the collapse in such a fashion as to ensure the damage and fires were of such a nature as to camouflage the demolition of 7WTC?

    Yes, I'm obviously aware of all that. Jennings however, is not corroborated by other witnesses (Hess, and a fire officer).
    My reference is to the campaign to make the City of New York aware of the collapse, by 9/11 truth. If everyone knew about it, then why the campaign to raise awareness?

    [​IMG]

    Yes, I've heard all that before. And it probably had shredders and access to neodymium magnets.

    I cut and paste it from a transcript of a video (IIRC it's the famous one where 9/11 truth claim that Shyam Shander was dumbfounded-which he was, but for very different reasons). See the following link for confirmation:

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

    As you can see, the NIST do not reduce the cause of the collapse to one prosaic sentence, as is often claimed.

    And that's fair enough too.

    Well, Mark Barrett has done quite extensive work on the subject, and the bibliography supports his contentions upon examination. I've failed to see such levels of source material in any NYT article. It's in there somewhere (I do suggest you download it and read it at your leisure, for it addresses many of the myths surrounding the collapse of 7WTC), but for expedience you can find Hadyn's quote on the use of a 'transit' to determine stability here:

    "also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o&#8217;clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o&#8217;clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

    http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

    Firehouse magazine is a great source for many articles on 9/11 and I highly recommend it to you.

    Nigro also confirmed that he had 'people' look at the building to advise him on a course of action. I'll post it when I find it again.

    That's about where I'm at with this one, however, as you are quite pleasant, I've no problem with replying. Just give me time at the moment as I'm really busy.

    I'll address the remainder of your post later if you don't mind. I must be off for a while.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand it's a position you want to take in order to try to discuss the topic with him on an adult level. I've had the experience in this forum and have read his comments in other places so I take the position I take as a result.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Picking out one particular item:

    There is an interesting discussion in another forum about that infamous "bulge" corroborated by no one that I'm aware of. The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a "bulge" (if it really even existed) seen on a wall indicates compromise of structural integrity, much less that it is a symptom of impending collapse or that it would actually lead to the collapse of the building, especially when no precedent exists.
     
  11. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds good.

    I had certainly heard that the diesel tanks in the substation were given as a possible cause for the collapse soon after 9/11, but I'd never heard that the firefighters were told of this theory before the collapse even happened. I actually googled around just now, trying to find such a reference, but couldn't. All I found was an article James Glanz wrote in November 2001 in the New York Times, which stated that certain engineers had begun to believe that the diesel tanks were the cause of the collapse. This theory has since been discredited even by the mainstream, but it was certainly a theory that was out there for a time. So if you have a reference to someone telling the FDNY this before the collapse even happened, I'd certainly like to see it. Here's the article from James Glanz: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?pagewanted=1

    The 110 page doc of doom? I think I'll just take your word for it :p. It doesn't seem all that important at the moment anyway.

    Suggesting that perhaps Silverstein did indeed speak to Fire Commander Frank Fellini instead of Nigro. All of this doesn't seem to be that relevant at the moment, though it might be at some point in time. According to one web site I just visited, Fellini was indeed involved in the decision to remove the firefighters from the area, though I'm guessing Nigro had the final say:
    http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html

    As pointed out by AE911, thinking that the building might collapse is one thing, but there seemed to be -certainty- that it was going to collapse. This is where AE911 and others believe that this wasn't just a matter of surveys, this was a matter of foreknowledge.

    Alright, I've taken a look at an interview Nigro had with Diane Sawyer:
    https://vimeo.com/27733077

    He seems to be genuinely upset at what happened on 9/11. But I'm thinking that he may have become a bit confused as to who initially gave word that the buildings were going to collapse. I've begun to think that the source may well have been the OEM from the following article:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oem_wtc.html

    Assuming that this was the case, it seems that they gave enough time for the firefighters to fully clear the area before blowing WTC 7 up:
    Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone [emphasis added], 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that day. 1
    Source: http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html

    If the FDNY was fooled, they didn't have to do anything of a fraudulent nature. And as mentioned previously, I've now come up with source material that suggests that the 'unknown cabal' was in fact the office of the OEM. AE911 has done more work on who might have installed the explosives, I've linked to that in the past, but right now, I would like to know if you are atleast considering the possibility that the OEM may truly have been the ones to have advised the FDNY to clear the area.

    I disagree, but again, I've begun to think that we should focus first on who told the FDNY to clear the area.

    It was -my- question, laugh :p.

    I've actually heard the theory that WTC 7 coming down so late was possibly a mistake, that it would have been easier to camouflage the demolition if it had occurred at the same time that one of the Twin Towers was going down. As it is, even a demolition expert that didn't even believe that 9/11 was an inside job stated that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

    A lot of people don't. Kudos to you. You've clearly read a fair amount :).

    They weren't where he was though, were they?

    I never said that -everyone- knew about it. I'm just saying that clearly some people did, and knew of its importance.

    I think you're looking at this in the wrong way: the purpose of demolishing WTC 7 may have been to destroy documents, not to steal them.

    Again, I'm not going to read a long article to look for confirmation for one of -your- points, laugh :p. I can look for a quote, but I'd need a link to the transcript you mention. But for now, this doesn't seem all that important. I'll take your word that you found the quote in a video with Shyam Shander.

    True, but from what I've read, their analysis of the collapses of the WTC buildings are hopelessly flawed.

    Again, if you could give me a link for this, would be appreciated.

    The New York Times has over 1 million digital subscribers. As such, many people can (and have) looked into stories from the New York Times. The same can't be said for many smaller publications.

    It may well be in there somewhere, but I'm not about to go looking for it in there :p. Clearly, the document has views I'd disagree with; unlike speaking with you, however, the article will not respond to any of my own points.

    That link is dead. I'm also still wondering about the New York Times article stating that people were told to clear the area at 11:30am though. And ofcourse the article on the OEM being the one to tell the NYFD to clear the area.

    No problem, and thanks for the compliment. I'd like to say that I also find you quite reasonable, which I definitely haven't found to be the norm when discussing this subject with those who believe the official story.

    Definitely. You almost went through the whole thing, just a question as to why you found a quote speculative, a bit about a video clip and a commentary regarding Bob which I can imagine you may well want to put off for another day (you've made it clear that you're not fond of him :p).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Fair enough.
     
  12. Iconoclasm

    Iconoclasm Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I look in fascination about the 9-11 debacle and what happened on that day and who gained? Conspiracy Theories are all rooted in fact! When we are told "the government" was involved, that is a pretty broad statement! The truth of the matter is that the Bankster controlled "Federal government" was involved with some of their BushCo minions. One must always ask, who gained? It does not take much intelligence to realize who gained buy the 9-11 attack? The same people who use you for cannon fodder. The same people who made you slaves of their financial system since 1913 with a permanent income or "slave" tax and created an agency called the Internal Revenue Service to enforce their shakedown!. The same people who rig our election system.The same people who create and fund the wars. The same people who control ALL Federal Agencies. The same people who control Central Banks in every country with the exception of Iran and North Korea! The same people who allow the police to run amok. The same people who decimated and subvert (on a daily basis) your Bill of Rights by telling you it requires "scholars" and "interpreters" to comprehend, which, of course, IT DOES NOT!
    I have found that virtually every forum I have participated in ave been infiltrated by government shills who stifle debate to shut down discussion.
    The people on the so called United States of America and the people of this planet had better wake up pretty soon. When the next election is over, I am certain economic collapse is going to occur. I believe it will occur prior to next February.
     
  13. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to mention that even the government's official story is itself a conspiracy theory (a very bad one, but it is one nonetheless), people just don't know the true meaning of the term.

    Getting to the 'whodunit' is generally a lot harder then finding out exactly what was done. That being said, I definitely that atleast some government officials were involved.

    A lot of people have been predicting that the economy will collapse for some time. I can definitely see it happening, but it seems sketchy as to when. I definitely think that crypto currencies like bitcoin are the future.
     
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So? All that means absolutely nothing. It is up to 9/11 truth to now prove that Hadyn is lying and that the bulge didn't exist. Until then, 'interesting discussions' don't mean a damn thing.
     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll try to find it and it may be in the document you haven't read. See Aegis vs. WTC about the concerns regarding the substation and its tanks.

    I find it surprising you object to the size of this document. You only need to read the contents and select that which is relevant.

    It can suggest whatever you like, however, it was Nigro who made the decision from his own statement. I have yet to see a statement to prove otherwise.

    Belief systems do not interest me.

    I think your sources are confused as Fellini was dead by the time the decision was made.

    I don't believe the FDNY could be fooled in such a matter given their training. That has been a constant theme of my posts, and even if they were fooled, it doesn't change the fact that the reports used in the Aegis vs. WTC case were then fraudulent.

    I thought it was mere opinion myself offering little in the way of real information.

    Which was supposed to answer mine, but it didn't.

    Yes, I've heard that one, but there is no evidence for the claim, and the engineer was duped by Gage with the questions. Gage manipulated the questioning to arrive at the desired result. Protec (a demolition firm) state that it wasn't a CD, so which is it? I'll go with Protec as that is the rational view. I think the notion of controlled demolition is utterly ridiculous in light of the evidence.

    Indeed, I've forgotten more than I can remember on this subject, especially all this old stuff.

    Hess? He was with Jennings.

    I was explaining my original point that you seem to have misinterpreted.

    And I'm telling you it is easy to shred documents and wipe hard drives. Demolishing a building when one could simply destroy the documents isn't sound reasoning. This angle has always struck me as irrational.

    When I find it I'll post it. You don't seem to be too keen to read my supporting material anyway. Did you at least go to the NIST link that discounts the 'destroyed by office fires' meme?

    Yes, that is the truther side of the story. The engineering side of the story states otherwise. Why is it that AE9/11T cannot produce a paper that refutes the NIST report, yet I can link you to 50 that support it?

    I have repeatedly.

    And that means what exactly? Nothing.

    Well, that's your prerogative, but I would have thought that if you were genuinely interested in the subject you would want to read it.

    The quote is also reprinted in the WTC7Lies document. The link is dead because I copied it from an earlier post. I forget that doesn't work.

    Well, I like discussing the subject with rational individuals who can articulate their points and use supporting evidence. It's how this subject should be treated.

    That was owing to the presumption that simile is to be taken literally, nothing more. The whole premise is based upon that.

    Yes, the countdown to the collapse hoax:

    https://youtu.be/1lhwCM_dicc
     
  16. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, it means something. And no, 9/11 truth doesn't need to prove that Hadyn is lying. For starters, I'm not even sure everyone (or even anyone) believes he is lying. Perhaps Hadyn believes what he says. Doesn't mean that he's right. And even if there was indeed a bulge, it doesn't mean that it was an indication that it meant that the building was going to collapse. That being said, it's clear that the official story has coalesced around the notion that it was the fire chiefs that decided that the building was going to collapse. Here's an excerpt from an article at fireengineering.com:
    **Of all the adjacent buildings, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street, presented the greatest threat of collapse. It hovered over the debris field on which hundreds of firefighters searched. It was heavily damaged and involved in fire. It is believed these fires occurred in part because the Port Authority, against the recommendations of the fire department, had placed aboveground tanks of diesel fuel—a 42,000-gallon tank at ground level and three 275-gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh, and eight floors—inside the building, underneath transfer beams that allowed the high-rise to be constructed above an electrical substation. Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires, which were on the lower floors and burned for hours. In interviews, several FDNY officers on the scene said they were not aware of combustible liquid pool fires in the building.

    Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire—the other two had collapsed earlier that day. FDNY shrugged it off and went back to work to begin a long, continuous night of searching for brothers and other lost people on the longest day in the history of the fire service.
    **

    Source: http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...d-trade-center-disaster-initial-response.html
     
  17. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad that you're putting some effort into finding your own evidence :)...

    Is that in the 110 page document "somewhere"? Or are you talking about this? http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-4403/11-4403-2013-12-04.html

    Remember that just to access the document, I have to open openoffice, which takes a while on my computer, and tends to slow my computer down having it open. But more to the point, I dislike looking for someone else's evidence for them. If you can't even be bothered to find your own evidence, why on earth should I?

    Fair enough. The key question is what got him to make the decision to pull out those firefighters. According to Fire Engineering, the decision was reached after a meeting of the Fire Chiefs. Source: http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...d-trade-center-disaster-initial-response.html But I'm still thinking of that article concerning the OEM being the first to bring up the issue of the Twin Towers collapsing before they did and wondering if they may have said something to the Fire Chiefs regarding WTC 7 as well.

    I'm sure you don't feel that way about your own beliefs, laugh :p. Well, rest assured that I won't constantly berate you to read AE911's article at length to look for my evidence for me. Instead, I'll quote 2 paragraphs from the previously linked AE911 article that I believe are telling:

    **Certainty of impending collapse
    To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing. But to be certain that it will collapse is another. A detailed study of the FDNY accounts by 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen shows that more than half of those who received warnings of WTC 7&#8217;s collapse (where a degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that Building 7 was coming down. (The figures calculate to 31 out of 58. See MacQueen&#8217;s report &#8220;Waiting for Seven&#8230;&#8221; at page 4.)

    Early FDNY announcements of collapse
    If someone were observing the fires in WTC 7 and able to determine, in the last few moments of the building&#8217;s existence, that a peculiar set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would be one thing. But to receive warnings of the building&#8217;s collapse well before this set of circumstances arose raises suspicion. Yet, a detailed study of the FDNY reports shows that of the thirty-three cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more hours in advance, and in six cases warnings were apparently received four or more hours in advance. (See MacQueen&#8217;s &#8220;Waiting for Seven&#8230;&#8221; at page 4.) In other words, the warnings came long before the unique set of circumstances had allegedly come together to cause the building&#8217;s collapse.
    **

    Source: http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/682...foreknowledge-of-building-7s-destruction.html

    I hadn't heard that Fellini had died. Can you source that? Even if this is true, however, the above statement only says that Frank Cruthers and Frank Fellini agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. This seems to fit with the article from Fire Engineering I sourced earlier in this post, contending that the Fire Chiefs came to a decision to evacuate the area, not Nigro alone. But as I mentioned before, the final call may well have been Nigro's. In other words, Nigro may have made that final call after Fellini's death.

    As I suspected, it seems you are fond of your own belief system, laugh :p.

    Perhaps. I haven't seen any articles on this.

    No, it wasn't supposed to answer any question of yours. I asked it because -you- stated that no one knew, and that because of that "any idea that explosives were pre-deployed is absurd." Now that you've stated that you don't actually know that no one knew WTC1 would strike WTC 7, your argument that "any idea that explosives were pre-deployed is absurd" falls apart.

    First of all, where did you hear that Daniel Jowenko was an engineer? All I know is that he was a demolition expert. From AE911:
    **Jowenko was the owner of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie, a controlled demolitions company headquartered in the Netherlands. He had over 30 years of building demolition experience, and his knowledge of explosives was so respected that he was sought as a contributor to the ImplosionWorld production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America".**

    Source: http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/550-jowenko.html

    Secondly, where did you get the idea that Gage was involved in his initial interview? Again, from the same AE911 article:
    **In September 2006, Jowenko was interviewed by a Dutch filmmaker, who presented him with footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It only took a few moments for Jowenko to conclude that it was the result of a controlled demolition. "This is professional work, without any doubt," he said.**

    Thirdly, if Jowenko felt that he had been manipulated into believing something that he later thought wasn't true, it would stand to reason that -after- he became aware of the full implications of what he said, he would have retracted his statements. Again from the same article, it's clear that he did nothing of the kind:
    **While Jowenko&#8217;s initial reaction has received widespread coverage online, it was not his final word on the subject. In 2007, he reaffirmed his conclusions in a phone interview with blogger Jeff Hill. When asked if he stuck by his assertion that Building 7 was brought down with explosives, Jowenko replied with one word: &#8220;Absolutely.&#8221; He went on to refute NIST&#8217;s theory of a fire-induced collapse, stating that &#8220;I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire.&#8221;**

    On July 13th, 2011, Dr. Alan Sabrosky mentioned Jowenko's analysis in a Press TV interview. 3 days later, Jowenko was killed in a car accident:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/

    Jim Hoffman of 911research has dealt with Protec's Brent Blanchard article with a rebuttal article here:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/

    I do remember Jennings being with someone, thus my question. I also know that Jennings tried to backpedal a bit, obfuscating the truth, but in the end, he couldn't pull it off because the director of Loose Change had recorded their conversation and played the recording when challenged as to the veracity of his interview with Jennings. As you may know, Jennings died shortly thereafter. Perhaps Hess saw more then he cares to admit.

    You seem to think that it would have been easy for the criminals to simply waltz into the building, destroy all the hard drives/documents and walk out with no one the wiser. Not to mention the fact that it would remove the element of it just being a coincidence that the documents were destroyed. Furthermore, this also assumes that Silverstein didn't want the building demolished to collect insurance, which I assure you he did:
    **In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8**

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

    I'll read excerpts of relevant portions posted here, just as you read excerpts that I post here of relevant portions of articles that I find. I'll even go to source documents if you are quoting from them and thus make it easy for me to find the information in the document in question. Again, when have I ever insisted you read one of the links I post as source material? You can look or not, it's up to you.

    I've done much better then simply read what they have to say. I've read Steven Jones' critique of their work, along with the work of FEMA and the 9/11 Commission Report. Feel free to take a look:
    http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html

    Actually it means that The New York Times, despite its flaws, is a paper that is respected by a great many people. It can be said to shape the views of many people and thus, it's something that I pay much more attention to then smaller publications.

    I'm certainly interested in what happened on 9/11, but I don't believe that that document will help me much in that quest. You are free to quote relevant excerpts from that document, however, just as I quote relevant excerpts from articles that I find relevant.
     
  18. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, here:

    "There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers


    Cannot access content.

    And? They knew the building was unstable at 11:30 as demonstrated previously.

    What time did this meeting take place ( I cannot access the content)?


    You answered my question with that question and the subject has now become confused.

    Ok, point of Logic: The so-called 'plan' to demolish 7WTC relied on the supposed demolition of the South Tower being directed toward 7WTC. Either the charges were placed prior to the attack, or the perps did it under he noses of the FDNY, which is of course, absurd. Therefore, triggering these charges relied upon the impact of the South Tower in order to preserve the cover of the ruse. If it failed, and 7WTC did not suffer the insults from the South Tower, demolishing the building would have been obvious to all, and that only appears to be the case for a minority of professionals.

    Typo

    Yes, I've read Jowenko's claims, and found them lacking in light of the evidence.

    Jowenko's simplistic dismissal does not refute the evidence. He did not 'go on to refute NIST's theory' with anything of merit as implied by the blogger's statement. The scientists at the NIST obviously disagree with him, and the evidence weighs heavily toward their hypothesis.

    Are you kidding me? That was so unscientific it was risible.

    And perhaps he didn't. I'll leave you with idle speculation on that one.

    And coming up with a moronic plot like that which 9/11 truth posit makes sense to you, as opposed to destroying the evidence via traditional methods? Are you actually serious here?

    Larry Silverstein received an insurance payout of 865 million dollars for 7WTC. It also states that Larry had a 400 million dollar mortgage outstanding. The claim is that Silverstein Properties profited by 465 million dollars from the insurance settlement for 7WTC. This building was under a lease and not connected to the payout for the other buildings.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives...construction-financing-doubt-article-1.481223

    However, it appears he actually lost money:

    "Silverstein still has a $400 million mortgage on his old building. Most of that was converted to bonds and sold to investors, who now want Silverstein to pay them off with insurance proceeds before using the money to fund new construction. "The bondholders, when they initially bought these bonds, were not anticipating construction loan risk," said Karen Trebach, a Fitch Ratings analyst. Silverstein will soon collect up to $861 million in insurance on 7 WTC and has said he intends to pay off the mortgage first, Trebach said. But that would leave Silverstein with less than the $640 million he needs to rebuild 7 WTC."

    Not to mention the revenue from the site which he lost in the five year period.

    Those sources did not answer my question regarding the misrepresentation within the meme as circulated by 9/11 truth. It is simplified in order to deceive.

    That's the scholarly spirit!

    I have been doing so.
     
  19. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, to argue the opposite might require that minor detail.

    Immaterial.

    When one examines the empirical testimony it seems that the building itself was giving those on site all the indications required.
     
  20. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    E.T.A.:

    The claim: Larry Silverstein received an insurance payout of 865 million dollars for 7WTC. It also states that Larry had a 400 million dollar mortgage outstanding. The claim is that Silverstein Properties profited by 465 million dollars from the insurance settlement for 7WTC. This building was under a lease and not connected to the payout for the other buildings.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives...construction-financing-doubt-article-1.481223

    However, it appears he actually lost money:

    "Silverstein still has a $400 million mortgage on his old building. Most of that was converted to bonds and sold to investors, who now want Silverstein to pay them off with insurance proceeds before using the money to fund new construction. "The bondholders, when they initially bought these bonds, were not anticipating construction loan risk," said Karen Trebach, a Fitch Ratings analyst. Silverstein will soon collect up to $861 million in insurance on 7 WTC and has said he intends to pay off the mortgage first, Trebach said. But that would leave Silverstein with less than the $640 million he needs to rebuild 7 WTC."

    https://www.metabunk.org/larry-silversteins-9-11-insurance.t2375/

    Not to mention the revenue from the site which he lost in the five year period.
     
  21. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It not up to anyone (and certainly not any made up phantom) to do any such thing. No one said anyone is lying. You're deliberately trying to change the point to change the issue. The point is whether the alleged "bulge" was a symptom of an impending global building collapse or not.

    Whether anything means a "damn thing" to you or not is irrelevant. No one asked or needs your participation in any discussion about 9/11 in the first place. In fact, please don't bother, any discussion about 9/11 with you is a waste of time (except perhaps when you bring out issues worthy of further discussion by others who are interested in exposing the OCT for what it is).
     
  23. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I'm familiar with the truther escape clause.

    But he would be if he were wrong. Do you not understand that simple point?

    No, I'm not. But whatever, I can't be bothered with such nonsense.

    Ok, my bad, and you didn't express your point very well. Even so, I don't think internet slacktavists are in a position to judge that, and I'll leave it to the experienced.

    So, why did you even respond to me then? F*** me, your tactics are tedious and mendacious. Just FO with your games, ok? I have a better idea, don't quote me if you're going to act like a troll. Ok? I'm fed up with your endless Fisher Price drivel.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're correct, at least you recognize what you are and that you're in no position to judge.

    You're absolutely right here too. Ok then, here's one:

    [video=youtube;877gr6xtQIc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc[/video]

    So why did you respond then? You've said that countless times, yet you keep on responding.
     
  25. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "what did happen?" Well, here is the logic that I embrace ....
    it is possible to see a stunt, a trick or illusion done, and not be able to explain how it was done,
    but know for certain that it was a trick.
    Therefore, It can be known for an absolute certainty what did NOT happen on 9/11/2001
    that is hijacked airliners were NOT used as weapons! and the towers + WTC7 did not just happen to fall down,
    they were made to collapse in exactly the manner they did, because somebody engineered the collapse, that is CD.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page