|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 23, 2011 10:03:38 GMT -6
FZ
1) I woll find that report, but I believe it came from a gov agency.
2)The building collapsed straight down which is evident in all the videos. It's a real stretch to say fire caused the beams to all fail at the same time and collapse symetrically. Yes there was a little bit that fell outside the footprint of WTC, nothing significant. There was also loud booms on the bottom floors right before the collapse. Please review the collapse with the video footage released by NIST 9 yrs after the fact, the shows the penthouse collapsing first.(no fires at the top)
3)This is Mr Siverstein's big problem. He's on record saying that they decided to "pull" the building. The you have Mr Hess and Mr Jennings, 2 NYC gov officials who reported bombs going off in WTC 7 and TRAPPING them in a stairwell. They were rescued by firemen an hour later. As for the fires, the above photos show they were minor and located on a couple floors.
I conceded the fact the Mr Silverstein aquired the WTC complex about a month before 9/11 and insured against terrorist attacks. You failed to address the FBI supplying explosives for the 93 bombing.
|
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 25, 2011 19:11:14 GMT -6
FZ 1) I woll find that report, but I believe it came from a gov agency.
2)The building collapsed straight down which is evident in all the videos. It's a real stretch to say fire caused the beams to all fail at the same time and collapse symmetrically. Yes there was a little bit that fell outside the footprint of WTC, nothing significant. There was also loud booms on the bottom floors right before the collapse. Please review the collapse with the video footage released by NIST 9 yrs after the fact, the shows the penthouse collapsing first.(no fires at the top)
3)This is Mr Siverstein's big problem. He's on record saying that they decided to "pull" the building. The you have Mr Hess and Mr Jennings, 2 NYC gov officials who reported bombs going off in WTC 7 and TRAPPING them in a stairwell. They were rescued by firemen an hour later. As for the fires, the above photos show they were minor and located on a couple floors.
I conceded the fact the Mr Silverstein aquired the WTC complex about a month before 9/11 and insured against terrorist attacks. You failed to address the FBI supplying explosives for the 93 bombing.1) that would be interesting to take a look at. 2) I think your assertions are not precisely on the mark. I think there's evidence out there that says it did not fall down symmetrically like a controlled demolition, or look like one either. www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdfQuite a nice report against the notion of being a controlled demolition. The writer, Brent Blanchard, is an expert in that field. To be fair, here is a detailed rebuttal from Jim Hoffman, a computer software engineer whose website 911 research, which focuses on conspiracy theories about 911. 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.htmlAnyway, even with both sides represented, it dosen't seem to be a stretch at all to say this wasn't a controlled demolition...or at least shed credible doubt, to say the least. Possible further discussion maybe? 3) Note assersion 7, point 2 of the Blanchard paper. The "pulled" comment is not an industry term, by his account. Jennings and Hess from the loose change vid? could be a subject to look into. minor fires? WTC south side that Truther websites usually don't post. Where there's smoke there's fire maybe?  |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 25, 2011 20:13:27 GMT -6
FZ-
#3 Will be argued forever. There are more people who say "pull" is a demo term than not. There are videos out there where people have called CDI and asked what pull means. They say it means demo the building and they are the premier demo company in the world. I'll address the rest later.
|
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 26, 2011 11:40:14 GMT -6
Not the CDI audio tape of a receptionist, answering that "pull it" means to pull something down?
Really, in all fairness the whole "pull" debate is less than paper thin. About the only people who claim it is an industry term, are Truther-type bloggers, etc.
One can look at many examples of the "real world" use of the phrase "pull it down" listed on those sites. In all of them that I have seen, it's the literal use of the term "pull"; seemingly not an industry slang-type use. (as in the term "pull" used in skeet shooting.)
Personally, and I think most people looking at it critically, see that the whole debate on the use of the word "pull" as quite a subjective leap to mean blow up the building, or detonate explosives, etc, the common things the truthers have attributed to the quote.
Point 3 can be debated forever by truthers, but it's things like this, that do not help their credibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 11:47:35 GMT -6
And Danny Jowenko.
|
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 26, 2011 20:01:58 GMT -6
You are referring to the same Dutch expert who also stated WTC 1 & 2 were not brought down by CD? He did state WTC 7 was CD, in his opinion. There is information and vids out there. The part I really like on one is where he says " I Don’t Know, It’s Guessing For Me." when talking about the lack of information and pictures of the entire WTC 7, namely the south side, to support/not support his hypothesis. F12: This guy you cite says WTC 1&2 were not. Even his comments regarding WTC 7 has that little gem of a disclaimer listed above. Interesting tho. I've never seen anything attributed to him after 2007. This is old stuff. Kinda remember him from back in the day. I wonder how much he actually reviewed any of the official reports, and if he then elaborated on those old interviews. If you don't cherry pick, I think citing Mr. Jowenko might actually take away from your case. |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 20:35:41 GMT -6
There is a second longer interview with him. Unfortunately, we will never be able to interview anymore. It seems his car drove into a tree one Sunday moring in transit to church. Pretty convient that the most prominent expert to speak out on WTC 7's controlled demo is now dead. They got Barry Jennings too!
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 26, 2011 21:16:54 GMT -6
FZ-Another SOer pointed out that I might wanna mention, how WTC 1&2 exploded outward in a debri field exceding 1300 ft. Or ask you to explain how huge chunks of the towers, some weighing well over 20 tons were thrown so far?
|
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 27, 2011 11:52:59 GMT -6
Unfortunately, we will never be able to interview anymore. It seems his car drove into a tree one Sunday moring in transit to church. Pretty convient that the most prominent expert to speak out on WTC 7's controlled demo is now dead. You kinda make my point here. If this is the most prominent expert (RIP) on WTC 7 being a CD, and he admits making guesses, I would think Truthers would not want to put too much weight on those interviews. It's like making the case that WTC 7 being a CD IS SPECULATION and not clear cut. Now off target a bit, but relevant: Even more, this most prominent expert did not support the theory of WTC 1&2 being a CD. Quite the opposite. That in itself is interesting, because the only way to use this guys opinions, is to cherry pick thru his interviews and only take the information that supports what many truthers claim: all 3 towers were "brought down" by explosives/controlled demolition I'll take an off the cuff guess. The towers were really, really, tall. Really. ;D I don't know if that So'er has ever seen a building collapse or partial collapse, (I have) but to me debris falls outward as well as downward. As for debris field being over 1300 feet - over a quarter of a mile, I don't know. The main debris field from WTC 1 did not go much farther than WTC 7, and that was only 400 or so feet away. Not sure where that figure comes from, unless its the diamater of both towers added together, which makes sense. Anyway, that SO'er should join the conversation!  |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 27, 2011 16:49:00 GMT -6
"Anyway, that SO'er should join the conversation!"-FZ
Unfortunately, some folks don't like to be made fun of and there usually are in this forum. Several SOer's PM me with stuff. Some ask questions and some offer things for me to add to my posts. At least you can discuss this in a civil mater FZ and I applaud you for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 27, 2011 17:03:52 GMT -6
 Debri being blown out laterally.  Explosion at beginning of collapse.  Debri ejection field(primary shown at 1200 ft) |
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Jul 28, 2011 11:48:28 GMT -6
Debri being blown out laterally. Explosion at beginning of collapse. Debri ejection field(primary shown at 1200 ft) The bottom picture says it all. As tall as the towers were, with the forces being exerted on the structure as it collapsed ( Not explosives say I) I thinks it's entirely within reason debris ended up nearly 500 feet away in a radius around the tower. The tower was over 200 ft wide. there is the 1200ft Dia measurement. What I've never been convinced of is that there needed to be some sort of explosives to have debris falling hundreds of feet from the tower. |
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 28, 2011 13:21:38 GMT -6
I can provide different problems with the "official story", namely the Pentagon and the Flight 93 shootdown in Shanksville FZ, but it seems you have done some research and are well versed in all aspects of the 9/11 story. The main piece of evidence that remains for me, is the actual footage of how the towers collapsed. The tops of WTC1 & 2, simply explode and the "puffs" preceding the collapse all the way down are not airpockets from floors pancaking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2011 22:43:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Jul 29, 2011 5:49:26 GMT -6
OKC bombing was a false flag op also Jimmy. Every bomb expert said there was no way a truck bomb did that. They also found at least 2 more bombs inside the building,ATF members were warned not to go in that day, and numerous other problems.
Read this.....Final Report:On the Bombing of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building April19,1995 by the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. I own it and will loan it out if you wish to read 556 pages.
|
|
