Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Seacowboys, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    I am angry about 9/11 but I do not know who I am angry with so I will reserve my maudlin flag waving sentiments until there is some clear direction there and that will not happen until someone actually explains how the hell and why Building Number 7 collapsed.
  2. STANGF150

    STANGF150 Knowledge Seeker

    Lowest Bid Contractors. Sympathetic Reaction
  3. Catullus

    Catullus Monkey+++


    uuuhhhh...some debris falling out of the sky must have knocked it down...quit worrying about it and keep moving along people...
  4. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

  5. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    I'd call it a simple insurance scam. The owner knew the other building owners would be receiving big payoffs on their insurance, and probable rebuilding of the structures with a lot of Federal money. So why shouldn't he cash in too? Sometimes the simplest explanation can be the best - an application of "Occam's Razor".......

    GREED does not need a far-reaching Goobermint Conspiricy that couldn't possibly be kept secret with so many involved...... [dunno]
    Hispeedal2 likes this.
  6. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Seawolf, it would take a week or more to set enough charges to bring down a building like that so that eliminates an opportunistic Insurance fraud.
  7. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    Exactly. You missed another important point in Seawolf's post:
    I agree, Occam's Razor doth apply.

    If you want an interesting comparison, compare the Truther arguments to the moon landing arguments:
    I have no idea what your thoughts are on the Apollo landing, but I find interesting the number of "experts" willing to throw out an opinion while ignoring the factual evidence. What was it SW said about greed? Beware the "truthers". Their motivations are more suspect IMHO. I also find it interesting that after all the dust settled in the Truthers' minds, they settled in on one building, #7, to rally around. The rest of the "theories" kind of crumbled over time.

    The estimates are that for the moon landings to be hoaxed, 400,000 would have to keep a secret... how many do you think would have to for a building that has 24/7 traffic, tourism, and full time offices? If two humans know a secret, its no longer a secret. Now apply that to the numbers we are talking here.

    Plenty of food for thought here:
    tulianr and BTPost like this.
  8. goinpostal

    goinpostal Monkey+++

    Those buildings were built on top of an underground river,and a good portion of Manhattan Is.was a swamp at one time.
    I believe that that when the Twin Towers fell it was the equivelent of having a large earthquake next door,complete with liquifaction of the unstable ground underneath.
    This caused an instability of building7's foundation,and a shifting/twisting/binding of the buildings steel superstructure.
    Once enough shifting/twisting happend,it put the concrete floors in an incresing bind till one of the upper floors gave way.
    As one floor callapses into the next,momentum,and force is added to impact the already weakened next floor.
    When the next floor gives way,now you have the weight of two floors hitting the weakened floor below them,and so on,and so on untill the building is no more.
    What I've been amazed at,is the fact that none of the neighboring buildings didnt follow suit.
  9. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Is there any Geologic Documentation of that Theory, Matt... I would be interested in reading It.
  10. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Conspiracies be damned, Al; just give me a reasonable explanation that will jive with what I KNOW and I'll be cool with it but all you're doing is the same **** everybody else is doing a shouting that if it were a conspiracy somebody would know about it.
    I am angry about 9/11 but I do not know who I am angry with so I will reserve my maudlin flag waving sentiments until there is some clear direction there and that will not happen until someone actually explains how the hell and why Building Number 7 collapsed.
  11. Avarice

    Avarice California Health Junkie

    Building #7 is an anomaly. Looks like a demolition, smells like a demolition, it was probably a demolition. Also, employees or workers, someone who had business in building #7 report explosions in the basement. That guy conveniently died after coming out with his story. Coincidence?
  12. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    I did. Here it is again:
    Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

    The building had massive damage from the top down and along the South side from falling debris. It wasn't only the debris, but the intense heat and fuel that was falling from the twin towers as well. That in conjucntion with NYFD pulling out of the buildings following the collapse of the twin towers allowed the fires to rage inside in various places, unchecked. The rest is history.

    Look at the "other" angles and pics. Not just the ones from 9/11 Truth. The others I linked ^ are more enlightening. The down-played fires and frame by frame on how it fell, as well as how the rubble lays afterwards is often left out by the Truthers. All this information is out there. If you only look at the Truther sites, you won't get the full story vice-versa. When you take into account the fact that no conspiracy of such size is possible and all the angles/pics, the "official" account is accepted by most because it is the most plausible scenario with the most supporting evidence.

    If you want to be mad over foreign policy that led to muslim extremists hijacking planes, blame the gov't. I just don't buy the hype behind the Truthers. The Truthers obtained the "Truth" when Dylan Avery set about to film a FICTIONAL account of 9/11. He then claims to have came to believe in the fictional account. Mind you this was one year before the 9/11 commission released its findings. Consider the source and keep in mind that before loose change, Dylan was a wannabe screenplay writer with no creative talent. I think he found a way to make his name without the creativity to write a real screenplay- write a "creative documentary". That same documentary has be edited 3 times thus far to make the theory better fit the hard facts as they became available.
    tulianr likes this.
  13. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Regardless of the cause, regardless of the fault, on 9/11 we must NEVER forget those who shunned common sense and rushed in to save those who needed saving. Those brave men and women who lost their lives, doing the job they SWORE to do. Never forget the blood of those people, spilled in the name of public service and selfless sacrifice. Leave the argument for fault and cause for the rest of this year. Never EVER forget. Someone will have to answer for it, to us or to the Lord of all Creation. DO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE TRUE TRAGEDY. WE, THE PEOPLE, ALLOWED this to happen. One way or the other. Only we are responsible and answerable for the politicians and/or Government who were involved had direct knowledge of or did NOTHING to prevent it.
    9/11 Bud Commercial - AIRED ONLY ONCE - YouTube
    tulianr likes this.
  14. TnAndy

    TnAndy Senior Member Founding Member

    Except in any building fire, the structure begins to collapse at the worst point, and moves on from there.....unless this is the first building in history to change that pattern.

    When a WHOLE building lifts up a few inches ( which you can clearly see in the "truther" video), then falls immediately into it's own footprint, there is only one explanation: controlled demo.

    And if one building is a lie, then it follows the lie moves on to the rest of the story.
  15. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    See, that's the part that gets me; the intense heat falling from the towers? We're talking basically diesel here with supposedly no oxidizers and as professional as their rebuttal presentation is, it still doesn't add up to a statistically high probability. Add to that, the fact that their presentation is in fact a "rebuttal" and loaded in every direction to support their agenda which is pretty much totally to debunk the conspiracy nuts, I don't give their side any more credibility that the other. I have been in the demolition and damage control industry for most of my adult life and one presentation smells as bad as the other. I am offering no conspiracies, just pointing out that I am not satisfied with the present explanation and believe that any engineering that I have seen supporting this is mostly conjecture and highly improbable.
  16. goinpostal

    goinpostal Monkey+++

    History channel had a documentery on the building of the Twin Towers.They talked about the underground river,and the hurdles they had to overcome to defeat it.The show was pretty interesting.
    Another interesting tid bit on the show was about the first terror attack on the WTC.They said that if the truck bomb had been placed against a certain wall,that it not only would have toppled one tower into the other,but it would have flooded the subway system with a wall of water.
  17. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Is there a vid on youtube?
  18. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    The intense heat we are talking about isn't a one room office fire with a little accelerant. It's 10,000 gallons of kerosene-based accelerant that ignites at 400 degrees and burns between 800 and 1500 degrees F once it gets going. Its more than hot enough to melt aluminum and at the low end burn of 800 degrees F, is 200 degrees more than enough to weaken steel. Add to that all the other various hot-burning items associated with offices- plastics, rubbers, polyester based carpeting and upholstery. Now, imagine the fuel leaking onto floors below through stairwells, elevators, vents and the like. All of this is burning inside a huge concrete structure. Concrete being an insulator, acts like an oven and holds in heat... how fast does that 1500 degree fire spike higher just from the enclosed burning?

    The Truthers will say that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Its not needed. A typical house fire, no accelerant, burns at 600 degrees F and can reach 1200 degrees if the right household items are present- more than hot enough to weaken steel.

    Now, that super-heated debris is falling through the top of WTC 7. Setting several fires of its own and weakening its integrity from the strikes as well. I can easily imagine the rest.

    As for the "jump", I would have to see the video that you guys are talking about. The immediate question I would have is "how is the camera mounted that shot the video?" What do you suppose the release of energy is like when support columns are over-weighted by falling debris and weakened by fire?

    No doubt you have to get several angles to understand the amount of damage to the building. Here is one example:
    WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube!

    This one is interesting in that it shows the entire systematic collapse. Not just the final pancaking:
    WTC 7 Collapse - YouTube!
    ^ By watching the horizon in the background of this video, I did not see a "jump" hence why I asked how the other camera was mounted.

    As for the official report sounding more like a rebuttal, it kind of is. The CTs were claiming explosions the next day and the theories ran wild before the official account was put together. Heck, Loose Change was being made before the 9-11 Commission released their report.

    I can understand not being satisfied. Trying to recreate the seemingly improbable scenario is difficult. The number of variables is so large, no one can possibly take into account all of them for even a 70% solution. Some facts are indisputable by the hard evidence we do have at hand-
    - Jets hit the Twin Towers
    - The heat was undoubtedly intense
    - Falling debris damaged and lit afire WTC 7
    - Packing explosives into busy buildings is unlikely
    - There is no eyewitness to such events
    - The size and complexity of such a conspiracy makes it highly improbable
  19. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    I stand on my last statement.
  20. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    I would just like to point out, that:

    1. Building 7 Housed the New York City Emergency Command Center, which was evacuated after the second plane hit, due to lack of Comms.
    2. That command center had it's own backup Diesel Power Generators, including, as I recall, 5000 USG of Diesel #2 in tanks on the roof, and major Comm Links to the Radio Systems on the Top of both Buildings One, and Two, which were severed when the planes hit.
    3. If these "Truthers" had ANY expertise in Energetic Materials Science, they would KNOW, that any thought of Controlled Demolition, is just not possible, without MONTHS, of Prep'ing the buildings, and that that would REQUIRE Miles of Detcord to be strung, just to get the Timing of the Demolition Correct for a flat fall. It is a MAJOR Engineering endeavor, and there are only a handful of people, qualified to make those calculations, in the world. Architects and Building Design Engineers, are NOT on that short List, no matter what they tell you, in their videos.

    . ...... YMMV....
    tulianr and Hispeedal2 like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary