Can someone explain the Penthouse on top of World Trade Center 7 collapsing right after an explosion is heard? Then the entire 47 story sky scraper dropping out of the sky about 5 seconds later? Never hit by any planes.
Can someone explain the Penthouse on top of World Trade Center 7 collapsing right after an explosion is heard? Then the entire 47 story sky scraper dropping out of the sky about 5 seconds later? Never hit by any planes.
Last edited by LogicAndSanity; January 22nd, 2013 at 04:25 PM.
Yes, it's been explained numerous times. Explanations abound. All over the internet, bookstores, and libraries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
Content from external source:
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.
What do you find lacking in these explanations?
How and why did the Penthouse fall first? With an explosion heard (right before) at the 11 second mark? and if a wikipedia article explains this away. Can you explain away this eye witness testimony of bombs being planted in the buildings? Including firefighters saying "You don't understand, there could be more, any one of these f*cking buildings could explode."
The Penthouse fell first because the internal structure of the building had collapsed.
There were plenty of explosions, how could there not be? Huge fire. Things falling from 1000 feet.
Clearly that firefighter had experienced extreme events, and only had a very limited picture on what was happening. Lots of people though there might be bombs.
BBC reporter announces building 7's collapse before it occurs.
Is she an evil conspirator? No. Did someone direct her to make that report? Obviously. She didn't just make it up. The newscaster didn't just make it up. This is especially evident because it -actually happened- 20 minutes later, precisely as described in the early report. Clearly BBC just has a psychic in its employ or something though, right?
The long-predicted event itself occurred in 6.6 seconds, the roof hitting the ground in half-a-second longer than it would have taken a ball dropped from it to do the same. Technically its not free-fall speeds though, so this rapid collapse is hardly significant right? So insignificant it doesn't even get a 3 word mention in the 9/11 commission, in fact. That multiple eye witnesses attest to having heard/seen explosions within the building certainly isn't evidence of anything suspicious (even though by the definition of the word evidence eye-witness testimony is evidence), as they were simply confused, or not professional enough to have a good grasp of what they're seeing or hearing. What, after all, does a New York fire-fighter know about the difference between a fire collapse and a demolition?
In the months and years to follow, many people seem to believe building 7 was a demolition. Many demolition professionals, when shown a video of the building 7 collapse without context, identify it as a demolition before knowing it was a WTC building. Thus, a 3D model is produced simulating what happened according to the best guess of NIST. It's a pretty convincing piece of work, but there's absolutely no data to back it forthcoming. Requests for the data that would give the 3D model real authority beyond the realm of guesswork are consistently denied, because were it released it would apparently pose a 'public risk'. Surely there's nothing suspicious about that though, they just don't want to reveal the structural weaknesses that made building 7 prone to abrupt collapse to Joe Six-Pack, or Al-Qaeda Al on his laptop in Afghanistan. After all, with that sort of information, a heinous plot against the WTC might be hatched.
I'm sorry, but the 'nothing to see here' narrative surrounding building 7 blows my mind. I don't understand it in the slightest, and how intelligent people can so happily defend it without acknowledging the major question-marks surrounding that collapse is baffling.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
That BBC report was a case of miscommunication on a very hectic day. There were reports that WTC 7 was collapsing/will collapse by personnel on site. Jane Standley had to think on her feet and made an honest mistake, she commented later how embarrassing it was.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...c2-861141.html
Asked what she could tell viewers about the reported collapse of Building 7, Stanley replied, "Well, only what you already know. Details are very, very sketchy." She was thinking on her feet, she explained, having been confronted with a statement that she had no way of checking. She described it as "a very small and very honest mistake", which wasn't quite true, since the "very honest" response to the original question would have been "I can't tell you a bloody thing about any collapse because this is the first I've heard of it, and frankly I don't know which way is up right now". One wishes BBC correspondents would occasionally adopt this degree of candour, but habits die hard and the engrained instinct is to conceal your ignorance rather than advertise it. So you have a choice: either the BBC had inadvertently revealed that, in concert with other broadcasting organisations, it was working from a prearranged script drawn up as part of the biggest conspiracy in world history, or a flustered reporter did the best she could in the middle of a breaking story. Probability of the former, vanishingly small; probability of the latter, approaching certainty, and yet if you opt for flustered cock-up, the conspiracists will dismiss you as a hopeless dupe of the new world order.
Who's statement? Where did she receive this information? Why did she run with it as if it was fact (which it turned out to be 20 minutes later), to the extent that her newscaster would open the segment with the statement that the building has collapsed? She's clearly not 'to blame', she's a foreigner to new york, and most new yorkers couldn't have identified building 7 unless they worked near it, so if you receive a seemingly solid report that another building has collapsed, you have every reason to run with it. That's just it though, she obviously received a seemingly solid report from somewhere. It doesn't require the BBC to be running a pre-arranged script, just a single somebody somewhere jumping the gun in the media-frenzy. This eerie prediction is often excused by the fact that some firefighters thought the building might collapse, on the supposition these opinions got their way back to her like a game of 'telephone' in which the details were muddled. Maybe that's true. She none the less, in concert with her news anchor, predicted an event before it happened on live television to a suspicious level of detail. When a reporter makes an honest mistake in reporting something, usually it's that what they reported didn't happen the way they claimed, or that they mixed up the details. I've never before witnessed or heard of a reporter apologizing for the honest mistake of reporting an event with accuracy before it takes place.having been confronted with a statement that she had no way of checking.
It by no mean damns her, nor implies her a fiend, but I'm pretty sure its unprecedented (unless anyone has other examples of reporters mistakenly but accurately prophesying events) and should warrant suspicion/investigation.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
I am not trying to play semantics- but I think its an important point. The reporter did not "predict" that it would collapse. That would be claiming foreknowledge of events yet to happen. She erroneously reported something had happened even though it had not.
That it did happen later does not then turn the report into a prediction. The fact that she is actually standing in front of the building whilst making the report suggest she is clearly not well informed about what she is reporting. She certainly could have checked the facts simply by turning around and looking. Its just crappy reporting.
I am curious as what "level of detail" in her report you find suspicious? She didn't say much other than it had collapsed and that first responders had been pulled earlier in the day.
The fall of WTC7 was predicted well before it happened. That's why the firefighters were pulled out. They saw the side of the building sagging, they heard it creaking, and knew it was likely to collapse.
This would have been reported on way or the other, probably from reporters on the ground interviewing retreated firefighters. This report of "Building 7 is about to collapse" just got morphed in the retelling (in what everyone would admit was an exceptionally busy news day) to "Building 7 has collapsed".
Surely you know the roof was pretty much on the ground before that 6.6 seconds started? That's the subject of this thread. The penthouse fell first, because the interior structure of the building collapsed, then the skin fell in essentially free-fall.
Excellent video explaining WTC7:
The frequent reference to the building having collapsed, punctuated with statements of certainty like 'and indeed it has.' The anchor also states 'This was not as a result of the attack, but because the building had been weakened.' That's a rather specific account of what hasn't happened yet. The anchor asks, 'Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers building collapse..?' to which she answers, 'Well, only really what you already know, details are very very sketchy...' this is one of the most revealing aspects of the report in my mind. She makes it very clear that she herself is rather poorly informed and that the information she's gleaned isn't yet reliable. The only 'fact' they both share is the collapse of the building, suggesting the report of that collapse might not have even started on her end. Considering she's several stories up in a windowed building several long miles away from the event in a city in which phone-lines are down, it's hard to imagine how she'd have gleaned any accurate information from events taking place on the ground at around the same time. This is why I find the 'telephone' scenario so highly doubtful, as there weren't any telephones to relay that misinformation back to her. It seems far more likely to me the report of the building collapse came from the BBC's end. She clearly has no details on building 7 to offer, clearly in fact doesn't know the first thing about it, or she'd have known it was right behind her. The only 'information' she has, and the only 'information' she offers, is on the feelings of New Yorkers in general at that moment.I am curious as what "level of detail" in her report you find suspicious?
I actually don't believe she's at fault here. But someone, whether on her end or the BBC's end, told her/the BBC the building had collapsed, and apparently they were trusted enough for the BBC to treat it as fact without any confirmation. I understand the events of the day were extremely hectic, and that confused reports are bound to happen.... but this wasn't a confused report. It was a fairly accurate report on something that hadn't yet occurred.
Was it her report, though? She was their 'correspondent on the ground', but she never claims or is credited with reporting the collapse herself. The Anchor reported the collapse, presented as a fact, and then deferred to a reporter on the ground to discuss it. Prediction is maybe the wrong word, but a series of events which had not yet occurred was reported, and then occurred seemingly precisely as it was 'mistakenly' reported to have.The reporter did not "predict" that it would collapse. That would be claiming foreknowledge of events yet to happen. She erroneously reported something had happened even though it had not.
That it did happen later does not then turn the report into a prediction.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
LogicAndSanity (January 23rd, 2013)
And right, Mick. The WTC7 computer model as composed by NIST. It is rather convincing, as I said above. I might even accept it, if the data used to compose it wasn't classified and saw sufficient public review. That it remains classified in spite of many multiple requests for disclosure isn't at all encouraging. The claim that building 7 was the only steel structure to burn uncontrolled for nearly 7 hours is blatantly false. Spraying water at a fire doesn't mean its 'under control'. The Windsor Building fire which has been discussed here burned for 2 days, I wouldn't call that 'controlled', and though a partial collapse occurred, the building didn't crumble into nothing before even being close to fully engulfed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in649824.shtml
There's another fire which burned for nearly a day. Malfunctioning water-main impeded firefighters efforts, leaving the fire to burn largely uncontrolled until the army came in and started dousing the building with helicopters much later in the event. Again, there was some partial collapsing, but even after spreading over 26 floors, the building didn't crumble down into dust.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Sure, it was a unique event. But you've got to look at those various building individually. The part of the Windsor Tower that were steel framed and lacked adequate fireproofing collapsed very quickly, much quicker than WTC7. The building did not collapse totally because it had a concrete core, and the lower floors had been upgraded with fireproofing, and many were reached by fire hoses.
NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 100+ feet. How does a building fall faster than free fall?
The "level of detail" is simply that it supposedly collapsed and wasn't part of the initial attack- How is that suspicious? Pointing out the building wasn't part of the initial attack is hardly a detail that should give pause as it was widely understood to be the case.
How do you reconcile these statements??:
And.
Clearly she was quite confused, details were sketchy..and she reported false information.
Perhaps your bias leads you to that conclusion. But the FACT is it was a completely INACCURATE report. At the time of reporting no such event had occurred...that it did collapse later does not validate her report has being preemptively accurate. The only detail which could be deemed "precise" is that it collapsed.
Being a unique event though, shouldn't investigating it thoroughly and forensically be of significant, if not paramount importance?
And again SR, I've seen nothing to suggest the collapse of the building itself was her report specifically. The anchor introduced the collapse as firm fact himself, and then gave the stage over to the reporter at the scene, who clearly knew next to nothing about building 7. SHE is giving an admittedly confused and un-detailed report on New Yorkers in general, and offers no information on building 7, or its collapse. She never once states herself building 7 collapsed, or offers up any information on its collapse. In fact, she rather directly states she has absolutely no information about the collapse. The words 'Only what you already know', her only fleeting reference to the collapse the anchor describes, suggests strongly to me that her 'knowledge' of the collapse came from the Anchor's end.
There was, however, no confusion whatsoever on the end of the Anchor. He's making a firm statement that building 7 has collapsed. Not might have, not could have, not is going too, not is reported to have, but has, 'indeed', collapsed. She assumes no such air of certainty about anything she mentions, so I find it hard to believe she leaped to an uninformed conclusion herself that the BBC just shrugged and dived into headlong. If anything, it seems to me like the BBC relayed the information that a collapse had taken place, and she was simply commenting from as close to the site of the event as she could get.
Last edited by Grieves; January 23rd, 2013 at 11:55 AM.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
In that sense, no more than the Windsor Tower, which was also a unique event. Of the collapse of that freeway overpass due to fire - also unique.
"at free fall" is not the same as "faster than free fall".
http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/hdg/report/windsor1.pdf a hundred-and-fifty page summation of an investigation into the cause, spread, and effect of the Windsor fire, composed and finished the year-of, by the Japanese National Institute of Land and Infrastructure management. Alas its in Japanese, but it seems quite thorough, and English summations of their findings can be dug up I'm sure.In that sense, no more than the Windsor Tower, which was also a unique event. Of the collapse of that freeway overpass due to fire - also unique.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/...W-Astaneh.html a page from our old friend Astaneh-Asl, who was a member of the team investigating the Oakland overpass collapse. Here is his report on the event, 10 pages long. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/...olor-Final.pdf
Now take a look again at the NIST report. http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf It certainly seems a little longer on first glance, but if you actually read through them both side-by-side it becomes obvious how much more specific and detailed the investigation of the bridge-collapse was. This was the very same bridge collapse after which he made his comment about molten steel at the WTC, I believe.
Here's another link to another scientist's examination of the bridge collapse
http://www.imechanica.org/files/ball...ge%20essay.pdf
and another one
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...41248874,d.aWM
and the final, 178 page report as composed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridg...inalreport.pdf
Seems both events have been investigated forensically to a rather thorough extent, and the information on those forensic investigations seems to be readily available to the public. Of these three incidents, WTC 7 seems to be the subject of the least thorough investigation, albeit the computer-model from NIST is unique amongst them. Perhaps if the data on that simulation weren't confidential, it would shed a bit more light on the investigative process surrounding building 7, and reveal it to not be as comparatively inadequate as it seems. Unfortunately it is.
Last edited by Grieves; January 23rd, 2013 at 12:42 PM.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
That's not the NIST report, that Astaneh-Asl's preliminary report from 2002, and it's on the WTC towers, not WTC7.
The nist reports are here:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...nalreports.cfm
Particular for WTC7, NCStar-1A, at 130 Pages.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=861610
First, note the date on NIST's full report on building 7, that being 2008, 7 years after the event. Second, note the summary, where the information gathering methods are described:
no mention whatsoever of a forensic examination of the evidence.NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
How long should it have taken?
What "forensic" examination should have been done?
And why on earth is a Japanese report on a Spanish building fire relevant to the length of a NIST report on WTC7? Either way, a brief look at the Japanese report does no suggest it vastly more detailed than the NIST report.
The relevance being that in the cases of both other events you referenced, investigations were conducted more thoroughly, and completed in more timely a fashion, than a significant aspect of the most heinous crime in modern history. Again, I don't read Japanese, but throughout the PDF you can see that a thorough investigation has taken place, and that it included an examination of the physical evidence. You can also see, on the very front page, it was completed in 2005, the year of the event taking place, and still appears, if its size and its diagrams are any indication, to be thorough. Its just an example of an event we both agree as being unique and significant getting the proper investigative treatment... prompt but not half-assed.
Now look at the final report of the overpass collapse ( http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridg...inalreport.pdf ) and compare it side-by-side with the NIST report on WTC 7. The NIST report seems thorough enough, but it doesn't actually begin to compare from an investigative standpoint to the final report on the overpass collapse. That's because in the overpass collapse, the physical evidence was thoroughly examined, and the findings were largely a result of those examinations. Also note that the final report on the overpass collapse came out in 2007, the year of the event it investigates.
Now you've got NIST, who didn't conduct even a remotely meaningful examination of the physical evidence, coming out with a report seven years late. A delay which quite obviously had nothing to do with a more thorough or extensive investigation, composed of the suppositions of various experts who, though unquestionably skilled in their fields, are clearly and in most cases admittedly supposing, based upon ' accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster', a selection of eye-witness and first-responder accounts (but not including those that differ from the official account), and a computer simulation which, though impressive, has no basis as evidence.
Its inadequate. Too little far too late. Obviously and painfully. Like so many other aspects of the investigation surrounding the events.
Last edited by Grieves; January 23rd, 2013 at 04:53 PM.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Do you feel that's strong evidence of deliberate demolition of WTC7?
I am going to link the post I made on that other thread: http://metabunk.org/threads/364-9-11...ollapse/page22
------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.... Building 7 has been debunked a long time ago. CT believers need to start coming up with new theories, tsk.
Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.
Excerpts from Mark Roberts "World Trade Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement"
Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?
Here’s why:Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.
“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”
Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”
Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.
Something that conspiracy theorists forget is the amount of fire burning from building 7. Here's a few pics that show the amount of smoke shooting out of the buildings:
This is what a firefighter, who was there on that day, had to say:
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Larry Silversteen, who owned the building at the time had this to say:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
This is what his spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, had to say:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Is that enough info for you? I believe the big white elephant out lasted his welcome.
(P.S. What Silversteen means by pulling, it means "Get the hell out of there!"
Thanks http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
More of the building 7 damage:
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
No. I feel its strong evidence that an agency that's supposed to be the lead investigative body in what I've many times and I don't think wrongly described as the most heinous crime in history, the supposed 'CSI's of the building collapses, was inadequately funded/granted far too little authority/conducted a truly shoddy investigation and failed to consider and examine all possibilities in a timely and effective manner. I can't say why that would be, whether it was a matter of political pressure, grand conspiracy, or sheer incompetence... but I find it unacceptable on the verge of shameful, and I'm very surprised every American doesn't feel precisely the same way.
If you want strong evidence for the collapse being some kind of demolition, watch it.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Also, Clock, I don't give a damn about Larry, aside from thinking a him a deplorably greedy man for going to court with his insurer fighting for the right to receive double the pay-out for the collapse of each of the buildings, given 'two separate planes constitutes two separate attacks', and his policy in regards to terrorism payed out 'per attack'. I also find the timing of his taking out that insurance policy somewhat suspect, given he started it two months prior to the event. If he didn't have some idea of what was going to happen, then he just 'got lucky', which is a disgusting thought in and of itself.
Also, which fire department commander was Larry talking too..? I haven't ever once seen this fellow named, nor has he ever come forward and said 'yep, I had that conversation, and nope, that's not what he meant.'
Just saying.
Last edited by Grieves; January 23rd, 2013 at 05:21 PM.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
George B (January 23rd, 2013)
So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?
Lots of places identify Assistant Chief Frank Fellini - see the links below - he's not hard to identify, so I don't think you can have done much searching!!
In this interview he says they kept firefighters away from 7, and here he mentions establish a "collapse zone" around itnor has he ever come forward and said 'yep, I had that conversation, and nope, that's not what he meant.'
Just saying.
Here's some more references to Fellini "pulling" his men away from the building.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Clock (January 24th, 2013)
Looks to be a small office fire that spread to about 2 floors towards the end of the video. Remember, no jet fuel on this building since no planes hit it. Some "corner damage" does not explain the building dropping out of the sky the way it did.
Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?
Mike C, there's absolutely no documentation in anything you linked of a conversation between Frank Fellini and Larry Silversteen. Frank Fellini is indeed a fire chief. He did indeed begin quarantining building 7. Given the various interviews and accounts, it sounds as if he was rather busy. So at what point did he take the time to have chat with Larry Silversteen, and why in the hell would he bother to consult Larry in regards to his vital, pressing task at hand?
As I said, I've never seen anything confirming Larry Silversteen had a conversation with a fire-chief. I still haven't. That's all I've said/am saying about that.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
That a steel building hadn't fully collapsed due to fire before that day does not rule out the possibility that it could happen.
The point is- the behavior of the penthouse indicates that the building collapsed unlike any typical controlled demolition.
Why does it have to go to unbelievable? Why not just more incredible?
The events of that day WERE incredible. Nobody denies that. But the explanations seem to fit. The way building 7 fell has been explained, and it makes sense.
Controlled demolition of building 7 that was somehow covered up is VASTLY more incredible, and simply does not fit the evidence.
Exactly. Grieves, if you deny the explanations that Mick, MikeC, SR1419 and I have given to you while you listen with deaf ears, then I'm sorry, there's no one to blame here except for you. If you believe that the situation was poorly handled than that is fine, but don't go whining to us because you've been disprooven.
I noticed that you didn't respond to what Mick said about your comment being evidence of WTC 7 being a demolition. It was before my first post on this thread, shouldn't be too hard to find.
here is a great picture and video:
and again, this site is important: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Last edited by Clock; January 24th, 2013 at 01:45 PM.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
Oops, they made the mistake of leaving the rating system enabled on that video. I'm afraid the majority of clear minded, free thinking people aren't buying the official story anymore.
Not a scientific surveyOops, they made the mistake of leaving the rating system enabled on that video. I'm afraid the majority of clear minded, free thinking people aren't buying the official story anymore.
Most people don't look at such videos. It's generally the conspiracy minded, and the debunkers.
Actually clock, I answered his question quite directly with a 'No.' Seems you missed it.
I've also never denied that the building was on fire, nor that it suffered considerable damage to one corner. Structural damage to the bottom corner of a building is an understandable cause for a collapse, in the direction of that damaged bottom corner. Building seven didn't collapse due to structural damage though, remember? It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed. It took them seven years to compose a believable account of the building 7 collapse, and even then the account seems entirely inadequate compared to the findings of an investigation of a far less significant event. The NIST report on building 7 isn't 'proof' of anything, and their 3D model would never be considered admissible in a court of law without disclosure of the data used to produce it.
debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements with which to do its 'debunking'. Now how about you lay off the personal attacks/criticisms, and try posting something that isn't a direct steal from/link too the same old overly biased and often demonstrably wrong website?
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
LogicAndSanity (January 24th, 2013)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks