9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse
Posted June 24th, 2008 by Minarchist
output
My problem with 9/11 truthers can basically be summed with their inability and/or unwillingness to produce sufficient basis to "fix" the WIkpedia accounts, and yet they object to them. That is why I came up with this challenge.
One of the biggest issues for 9/11 truthers seems to be their difficulty in comprehending how the crashes into the two main towers could have eventually caused the collapse of a third building. So I've picked the accounting of the WTC7 collapse in Wikipedia as the topic for the challenge.
What follows is the current wikipedia account of the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
At the end of this post, after the quote, is my related challenge to 9/11 truthers.
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[27][28]
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[3] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[32] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[33] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[34][32] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.
In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. According to FEMA, structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse[6]; nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location.[15]
The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse and called for further investigation:
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]
In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[35] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[36]
NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[37][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[38] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][39]
A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[40][3] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[41]
NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center in 2008.[42] NIST is utilizing ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to initiating events.[43] According to NIST, the investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 World Trade Center were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005 to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[44] In June 2007, Shyam Sunder explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[41]
Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[45][46][47] In spring 2008, a civil engineering journal published a letter written by supporters of the controlled demolition theory.[48] NIST states it has "found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event". In its final report on building 7, it would "like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements".[44]
When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building is not salvageable. As of August 2007, Fiterman Hall is undergoing deconstruction.[49] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east façade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.[50]
Click on this link to see the actual article including photos and diagrams.
THE CHALLENGE
1) Do you have any objections with the account of the collapse above?
2) If yes, please explain what each of the objections is, and include the basis you have supporting each objection in your explanations.
3) Starting with the objection which is most strongly supported,
a) go to Wikipedia, logon or create an account if you don't have one already, or stay "anonymous" (though identifiable by IP),
b) enter WTC7 and "go" to get to this article
c) scroll down to the table of contents and click on "Collapse" to get to the above section
d) click on the edit button associated with this section
e) make changes to the article section on the collapse that address your objection(s). You might want to provide footnotes to the appropriate basis from (2), and perhaps explain your objection(s) and basis at length on the talk page of the article. If you need assistance, please ask.
4) If you're not willing to do this for even your strongest objection about the article, why not? Wikipedia generally represents the consensus opinion about the topic of the article. If you have strong objections, I would think you would want them reflected here.
That is your challenge. Good luck, and let us know how successful you are.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
"Don't Feed the Troll". As
"Don't Feed the Troll".
As Bob Barr sinks into political oblivion, I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of this sort of rubbish on here.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
ignore this fool.....
Minarchist has always been too lazy to do her own research.
Believing in science and rejecting the notion that the buildings had planted thermite devices in them are incompatible viewpoints. If you think professors with doctorates risking their careers to publish peer reviewed papers in prestigious journals don't thoroughly demonstrate that the buildings had explosives planted in them then you might as well be a flat earther. Here are some of the papers:
http://www.journalof911st...
It's called reading, you should try it out for a change.
Hello!
Have you got any good answers yet? Must be hard getting any challenger when the challenge is very demanding. Perhaps you would start with easier challenges. Or maybe not a challenge, but just ask a question, and then examine it with people in DP. Going through this topic it appears to have become a failure.
I dont get it? Whats the point here?
History will eventually explain everything in detail. There are three sides to this story (9/11 building collapses)
A) People believe the planes hit the buildings, they caught on fire and fell. All occomplished by terrorist hi jacked planes.
B) People believe the planes hit the buildings, they caught on fire and fell. All occomplished by terrorist hi jacked planes. However, they want answers as to how they (terrorist) or the plots were not intercepted.
C) Like I believe, the whole thing is a false flag attack and heads should roll.
Regardless of what everyone believes, people do not like something shoved down their throat and then made to feel that they are ignorrant. I've tried to convince some of the smartest people I know of the way I see it, but it's just unimanagable to them.
My advice is just let it go! Do something productive for the Campaign for Liberty. Once our government is re-taken, then and only then will we get an honest investigation. For RP to say he thinks it was a false flag would be political suicide, so we will never hear it from until he is in the WH or out of politics.
In my opinion, the best
In my opinion, the best thing I've read in this topic. But don't expect anything to change:)
This is like the movie Groundhog Day
You are actually going to start this all over again. Last time you and your ridiculous demanding THE truth and proof long, boring threads took over the whole site. No one, I mean NO one goes to this length for this long or is this obsessed on a topic as you are that is not up to something. What exactly do you want. Wikipedia--what a total joke. No one is going to possibly take any thing you say seriously. Your thread will put everyone to sleep after the first paragraph. Your first line is your problem with 9/11 truthers is......Who cares what your problem with others is. Its not we are asking for your vote or anything .
Yes, reading puts truthers to sleep
That's pretty obvious, and explains much.
So they get their "information" from listening to Alex Jones and watching carefully edited youtube videos.
This is also why they are incapable of explaining what they believe, much less why, in their own written words. All they can do is say, "do your own research" (meaning read Alex Jone's website, and those inspired by his tripe, and watch the videos).
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
No, you misunderstood me
reading anything that comes from you puts us to sleep. Do you get through your life by reading encyclopedias to tell you what is real or true? Do you go through the day and break every experience down through endless calculations and scientific proof. When you get up in the morning do you know you won't float away before you have taken the time to proven to yourself that the law of gravity will keep you grounded. Did you read it in your wikipedia so now you know it is true, or did you have to have someone go over every scientific fact to make it true so that natural law would apply to you. When you go through this wonderful journey in life, it is always about asking questions. What was a proven fact last year in astronomy or physics or anything for that matter changes with new discoveries. It is not that the facts or proof was never there to begin with, it was newly discovered. You obviously are very educated but that is not necessarily a standard for intelligence. You seem to have blinders on willingly or not to reach beyond to come to your own ideas or conclusions without having others dictate what truth is to you; in other words to have critical thinking. If you believe as you profess in liberty and freedom why is it such an irritant to you to allow others here to come to their own ideas, beliefs and conclusions in any way they see fit? No one is asking you to have the same beliefs nor is anyone on a trial to prove anything.
What a Joke...
and you get your information from Wikipedia!!
There's been numerous times, that I've seen on the DailyPaul, "truthers" explaining to you "debunkers" what they believe, but you don't want to hear ANY of it...you just ridicule and slander.
"We dare not forget that we are heirs of that first revolution" -JFK
While you are here wasting
While you are here wasting your time trying to convince yourself that you are right the world is passing you by. It's very sad that most American's want to be like you. The overwhelming feeling of revulsion that we all feel once we dive into the rabbit hole scares you into building up walls in your mind to block out what you don't want to accept. Start tearing down the filters in your mind and free yourself from fear and anger.
This is an Orange:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Pathetic
The quality of that argument and presentation is pathetic. For your own good, don't tell anyone that matters to you (like a potential employer) that you are impressed by such tripe.
Here's a rebuttal:
Those are just key excerpts. Read, carefully, the following page for the full story:
http://debunking911.com/p...
Stop being so gullible, and, if you can't, at least stop listening to the nitwit Alex Jones. He's just found a niche of gullible people who allow him to have a steady audience of morons which allows him to sell radio ads and truther propaganda.
The surest sign you're being gullible (and this goes for anyone about any topic) is your inability to convince others of what you believe, especially on Wikipedia. You should always ask yourself: WHY am I so convinced about "this" (whatever "this" is) is true? What is the basis for me to believe this? Can I organize it and present it in a way that is convincing to others? Why not? If I can't that's a red flag.
I wish you well. Take care of yourself, and your mind.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
It's funny because those
It's funny because those pictures help to illustrate the exact argument you are railing against. All those words in between them are there to sway your brain towards not believing what your eyes are telling it. Anyway, you are really good at internet trolling I would imagine that you have a few years of experience and I doubt you even believe what you are typing. Good luck with your infiltration job, if you were here for a sincere purpose you would realize that the 9/11 truth issue is a non-issue for most Ron Paul supports insomuch as while it completely set the stage for our ruthless invasions of sovereign nations and the destruction of our constitution it is something that cannot be changed. All we can do is try to understand what truly happened that day and work towards removing the people in charge, all of them, from the bankers to the executive to the congressmen and state leaders that allow these imperialistic ideals to persist. Accepting personal responsibility for ourselves and the actions we have passively signed off on is the only way that we can rebuild the America that we have neglected.
Just remember, at a minimum the U.S. allowed the attack to happen. The government had the documents, the intelligence reports, the wiretaps, the foreign intel, and NORAD.
David Griffin says...
Here you go:
(full article here: http://911review.com/arti... )
The Collapse of Building 7
As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission simply ignored the facts discussed above. Still another matter not discussed by the Commission was the collapse of building 7. And yet the official story about it is, if anything, even more problematic than the official story about the towers—as suggested by the title of a New York Times story, “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC” (Glanz, 2001).[65]
Even More Difficult to Explain
The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.
Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.[66]
It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?
The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.”[67] Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.
This was one of the Commission’s most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.
Even More Similar to Controlled Implosions
Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional demolition—-namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:
Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . . The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile.[68]
Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."[69] Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying:
The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the "official" theory)---requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude that the evidence for the 9/11 use of pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.[70]
Much More Extensive Foreknowledge
Another reason why the collapse of building 7 creates special problems involves foreknowledge of its collapse. We know of only a few people with advance knowledge that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, and the information we have would be consistent with the supposition that this knowledge was acquired only a few minutes before the south tower collapsed. People can imagine, therefore, that someone saw something suggesting that the building was going to collapse. But the foreknowledge of building 7’s collapse was more widespread and of longer duration. This has been known for a long time, at least by people who read firefighters’ magazines.[71] But now the oral histories have provided a fuller picture.
Widespread Notification: At least 25 of the firefighters and medical workers reported that, at some time that day, they learned that building 7 was going to collapse. Firefighters who had been fighting the fires in the building said they were ordered to leave the building, after which a collapse zone was established. As medical worker Decosta Wright put it: “they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand,” which was “5 blocks away” (NYT, Wright, pp. 11-12).
Early Warning: As to exactly when the expectation of the collapse began circulating, the testimonies differ. But most of the evidence suggests that the expectation of collapse was communicated 4 or 5 hours in advance.[72]
The Alleged Reason for the Expectation: But why would this expectation have arisen? The fires in building 7 were, according to all the photographic evidence, few and small. So why would the decision-makers in the department have decided to pull firefighters out of building 7 and have them simply stand around waiting for it to collapse?
The chiefs gave a twofold explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank Fellini said: “When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing” (NYT, Fellini, p. 3).
There are at least two problems with each part of this explanation. One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).
The different accounts of the problem on the building’s south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a “bulge,” and it was “between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).
The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?
With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of “very heavy fire on many floors” (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said: “[Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other” (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).
Several of the testimonies, however, did not support the official line. For example, medical technician Decosta Wright said: “I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?” (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said: “[T]hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said ‘we know’” (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11).
The second problem with the official account here is that if there was “very heavy fire on many floors,” why is this fact not captured on any film? The photograph that we have of the north side of the building supports Chief McCarthy’s view that there was fire on three floors. Even if there were fires on additional floors on the south side of the building, there is no photographic support for the claim that “the flames [on these additional floors went] straight through from one side of the building to the other.”
Moreover, even if the department’s official story about the collapse of building 7 were not contradicted by physical evidence and some of the oral histories, it would not explain why the building collapsed, because no amount of fire and structural damage, unless caused by explosives, had ever caused the total collapse of a large steel-frame building.[73] And it certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse---that the building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: “We expected it to fall to the south” (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory explain this building’s collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dust—additional features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official account.
The great difficulty presented to the official theory about the WTC by the collapse of building 7 is illustrated by a recent book, 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, one of the authors of which is New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer, who wrote the stories in the Times about the release of the 9/11 oral histories. With regard to the Twin Towers, Dwyer and his co-author, Kevin Flynn, support the theory put out by NIST, according to which the towers collapsed because the airplanes knocked the fire-proofing off the steel columns, making them vulnerable to the “intense heat” of the ensuing fires.[74] When they come to building 7, however, Dwyer and Flynn do not ask why it collapsed, given the fact that it was not hit by a plane. They simply say: “The firefighters had decided to let the fire there burn itself out” (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 258). But that, of course, is not what happened. Rather, shortly after 5:20 that day, building 7 suddenly collapsed, in essentially the same way as did the Twin Towers.
Should this fact not have led Dryer and Flynn to question NIST’s theory that the Twin Towers collapsed because their fireproofing had been knocked loose? I would especially think that Dwyer, who reported on the release of the 9/11 oral histories, should re-assess NIST’s theory in light of the abundant evidence of explosions in the towers provided in those testimonies.[75]
Another Explanation: There is, in any case, only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.
Amazingly enough, a version of this theory was publicly stated by an insider, Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7. In a PBS documentary aired in September of 2002, Silverstein, discussing building 7, said:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.”[76] And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. (PBS, 2002) [77]
It is very puzzling, to be sure, that Silverstein, who was ready to receive billions of dollars in insurance payments for building 7 and the rest of the World Trade Center complex, on the assumption that they had been destroyed by acts of terrorism, would have made such a statement in public, especially with TV cameras running. But his assertion that building 7 was brought down by explosives, whatever the motive behind it, explains why and how it collapsed.
We still, however, have the question of why the fire department came to expect the building to collapse. It would be interesting, of course, if that information came from the same agency, the Office of Emergency Management, that had earlier informed the department that one of the towers was going to collapse. And we have it on good authority that it did. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-76).[78]
But that answer, assuming it to be correct, leaves us with more questions, beginning with: Who in the Office of Emergency Management knew in advance that the towers and building 7 were going to collapse? How did they know this? And so on. These questions could be answered only by a real investigation, which has yet to begin.
They DO not represent concensus opinion
and your acceptance of Wik as truth shows your reluctance to do your own research.
Folks who call the shots do not like independent thinkers.
I understand that you are trying to put together a rational group of arguments to escape the truther's ridiculous self damaging tirades. I respect that desire.
This is not the NIST conclusion. It will be released in two weeks or so. I suggest you delay the discussion of WTC 7 until they put out what they think happened. I am not an engineer from MIT and they are.
Below has NOTHING to do with your request and I advise everyone to ignore it.
In closing, the NIST must explain something to me or I will assume they are incompetent:
Brief study into the demolition of steel framed buildings will yield the following conclusion as accepted in the demolition industry.
"The primary concern of an engineer in the demolition of a steel framed building is SAFETY."
You F up and you are out of business.
The building MUST fall STRAIGHT. If it does not fall straight, it will hit other buildings and you will have a catastrophe.
In order to achieve the SAFETY - STRAIGHT DOWN Bible of the industry you have to drop a building using GRAVITY.
You can't blow a building to smithereens because it would not be SAFE.
They way you drop a building is you wire each support column with a cutting charge at it's base. Done at an angle and the weight of the building will bring the building down...STRAIGHT AND SAFE
FOLKS, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT.
IF YOU f%$K THIS UP, STRAIGHT DOWN WILL NOT HAPPEN AND SAFE WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Steel framed buildings are ROBUST structures in respect to building and fire codes. If you research steel and in particular "structural steel" you will understand what I mean.
The NIST must explain to me the following.
If cutting charges were not detonated in unison in the wtc 7 basement why did the building fall STRAIGHT DOWN?
Demo guys spend a lifetime getting the design and timing of the type of demolition down that we saw on wtc 7. Listen to me. It is a f%$ing art, OK? Not many men in this world know how to do this stuff and they get paid a lot to do it.
WTC 7....This kind of sh%$ does not happen in nature. If the building collapsed because of upper story fires and they are going to tell me that is what happened, then every steel framed structure in the world must be evacuated NOW.
Buildings TIP OVER.
They do not drop on themselves. This is because they are designed to hang on the structural steel at their core. The core is the strongest part of the building and is the part of the building that must be ATTACKED most thoroughly by the demolition engineer.
WTC 7's core gave way and the building dropped on itself. Some serious "fires and accidents" happened right at the building's core structure
I'll let the engineers from the NIST explain that and we can go from there.
Any event BEGS for an "elegant explanation."
WTC 7 is begging.
WTC7 collapse
Wikipedia has a basic information format and it is a good place to start to find things,but it also has the ability to be altered and so it can't be used as a reliable source of constant information.The threads change with the wind so to speak.The arguement with the towers is they had jet fuel that melted the girders to the point the building fell,that can't be said about WTC7.So how did it fall? The owner of the building Larry Silverstein,in a interview said "they made a decision to pull it,and I said go ahead then and pull it".The words pull it are used in building demolition,meaning to bring a building down in controlled manner.Now if they made a decision to pull it and it fell some eight hours after the other towers the time frame doesn't add up.To set a building up for controlled demo can't be done in a few hours it takes a few weeks of planning and structural weaking to pull a building.The simple fact that all three buildings fell at near free fall speed should arouse suspicion from everyone.
Wikipedia articles are more stable than you think
Yes, when an issue is relatively new, there is a lot of flux in Wikipedia surrounding that issue.
Over time, Wikipedia articles stablize. For example, the article on George Carlin had only 9 edits between June 5 and June 22, but hundreds the last two days.
The WTC7 article itself has had no edits since June 17, almost a week, and only a dozen or so in all of June. Most of the changes are relatively minor. If you click here you will see all the changes for about the last month are mostly minor rewordings. The impression that Wikipedia articles are constantly in flux is a myth.
If anyone has information with basis to add to the WTC7 article, it's open for business, for sure.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
So now we're wasting our time with wikipedia?
Look, Daily Paul is the best audience for most open minded people. If others don't know wikipedia is hounded by thousands of users that modify posts daily. Everyone needs to know whenever they try to change something to the correct statement, a hundred paid people will retract and change the statement.
I'm not trying to discourage people from posting to wikipedia, its just dailypaul seems like the best forum to alert the best people first. If people want to change the wikipedia post then I encourage them to take a snapshot of the submission and then track how fast their post changes, but most people don't have 24-7 to post to wikipedia.
If people want to know who changed their post they can use this site:
http://wikiscanner.virgil...
You're missing the point
If you have reasonable basis for your changes, then you will get support from the Wikipedia community.
Believe me, I know.
So yeah, if you're just going to add in unsupported speculation, it will probably be retracted by someone within a few minutes. That's why it's important to provide basis.
If it's important and you believe strongly in it, then Wikipedia is the place to do it. Here on dailypaul it's going to get lost. On Wikipedia, if it's solid stuff, it will get in AND STAY in the article for thousands and millions to see.
You just have to have the basis. If you don't have basis, then why do you believe strong in it?
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Yes, I actually do have a basis for my beliefs
Go to wikipedia type in 9/11 truth movement. There's a whole bunch of disinformation and false information that's close to the truth, and some of it is the truth, the point is its all mixed and not accurate.
NOW, go to the wikiscanner I put in the above post and type in 9/11_truth and see who modified that post-one poster "Hughes Network Systems" just outside of Washington, D.C.. Now I'm not saying its the government who puts out this disinfo, but it is odd how none of the people in the truth movement seem to want to spend the time to change this poster-I guess they have something better to do.
THEN, go to wikiscanner and type in 9/11 and you'll see 58 edits from all different people around the world.
Just because I'm trying to educate the Ron Paul movement doesn't mean I have to spend my time editing something constantly so that people who don't know or care about freedom will get to see the truth for half a second.
Larry Silverstein had "IT" pulled....NUFF SAID
.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
There is NO misunderstanding that statement.
End of story.
Get lost if you try to argue that "IT" meant the firefighters.
I mean, just the whole flow of the sentence with how it collapsed after they pulled it CANNOT MEAN ANYTHING ELSE.
We aren't little children.
Quit trying to talk down to us like we are stupid.
.
Patrick
Polk County, Florida
My Oh My.
OPEN YOUR EYES. 9/11 was an inside job, so inside THEY DIDN'T EVEN MENTION IT IN THE OFFICIAL 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. They didn't mention it, why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLAUSABLE ANSWER, EXECPT DEMOLITION. A gash on the side you say? Oh, did you forget about ALL the other buildings in the vicinity of the towers that were almost gutted AND STILL STOOD. Please. We had to have an EXCUSE to invade the middle east and secure oil interests for these elitist global bastards and make sure all these middleeastern countries use our fiat currency for thier oil. Our else the depression will look like a walk in the park compared to what will happen if other countries stop using our worthless paper dollar. We aint coming out of this one the same. 9/11 was also the catalyst to the coming shift into facism and the policestate. Soon they will have to quell 300 million pissed off people with no purchasing power to thier fiat currency. They realized they cant stop it. It's not going to be pretty. Also, the Patriot Act was written well before 9/11. This was pre-planned.
Gash in the side...
Means it wouldn't fall straight down.
Now, the "pull it" thing is taken out of context. He was not talking about the building, but the firefighters.
But...
It was still a controlled demolition. No other way to explain it.
another way to explain it
Time to get up to date, wpsmithjr.
For all the photos, go here:
http://debunking911.com/p...
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Who was he talking to?
He was talking to the FIRE COMMANDER, not a demolitions expert.
The ONLY THING he could have meant IN THAT CONTEXT was to pull the team of firemen out of the building. And nice editing on your part (or was it the nitwit, Alex Jones?). Here's the full quote.
http://debunking911.com/p...
You might not be little children, but you think like little children. You remind me of my 8 year old as a matter of fact.
That's why you can't get anything to stick in Wikipedia. Just like little children can't get their fantasy versions to stick in WIkipedia.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Sounds like a
Demolition term to me. We made the decision to pull it and then we watched the building go down? HMMM. Why, didnt he just say, we made the decision to evacuate all the fireman and police personal. There were many ways of saying that. But he said he made the decision to "PULL IT" now, go ahead and ask ANY demolition expert what that term means. A fruedian slip of the tongue by ole Larry? Why do you dismiss the reports of firefighters and police and bystanders and reporters, newscasters ALL saying they could hear EXPLOSIONS. Heck, there was even one report of police saying they found a secondary device in the building!!!! Good grief. All you have to do is watch the squibs on the buildings coming down. The truth will set you free.
I'm not taking sides in the
I'm not taking sides in the endless argument, but I do know a professional fireman, and they do use the term "pull it" or "pull them" to indicate abandonment of a firefighting effort, and/or evacuation from a burning building. This use of the phrase in this context does not seem overly conspiratorial to him, or to me.
Exactly
But it's so hard to convince someone who has achieved his convictions irrationally.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
I hate to do it...
But I have to agree with Minarchism on this one.
It's been a long time... 6 years maybe... since I first investigated 9/11 for myself. I remember seeing a copy of the WHOLE interview with Silverstein.
He was talking about the firefighters.
Seriously... I saw the whole interview, with the statement in context, and he was not talking about bringing the building down... but he was talking about pulling the firefighter teams out of the building. It was a strange way to put it, and the Truthers have used that line to make their point...
but they shouldn't.
Because it's not true. People keep pointing it out... over and over... so many people think he was talking about the building, but he wasn't. This is what originally turned me off to the "Truther" movement many years ago... too much stuff taken out of context. Especially way back then, right after it happened. Lots of speculation, and lots of stuff taken out of context.
The Truther movement has gotten much better at not doing this, but unfortunately the "pull it" lie still persists. We need to stop it. It does not help the cause, but rather puts it into a bad light. Let's stick to the facts and to the unexplainable phenomenon that occurred that day.
Besides, if Silverstein did demolish the building... why would he admit it on tape?
Thank you
A wisp of reason in a storm of nonsense.
I am open to real facts and reason that indicate 9/11 was an inside job. I just can't find any, and the truther websites and videos all seem like a bunch of nonsense hype to me. That my honest opinion.
Look, I don't believe in god because I don't know of any reason to believe in god.
Similarly, I believe in evolution because there is tons of evidence supporting it, and none supporting creationism.
That's how my mind works. Basic precepts + facts + reason/logic => opinion. That's why I'm a libertarian. That's why I support Ron Paul.
Most of the evidence regarding 9/11 supports the official theory.
As you note here, the truther movement seems hung up on bizarre details like this "pull it" statement that has a perfectly reasonable explanation. I really have no reason to believe the inside job theory. There is just no real evidence supporting it. Some conjecture, some speculation and plenty of questions, but as I tried to illustrate in my satire thread yesterday (the deaths of Russert and Carlin were too coincidental and so must have been an inside job), the fact that questions can be asked is not evidence of an inside job. It's just not.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track
Once again...
I will agree with you. Much as it hurts! JK
I too get so sick of seeing the "pull it" thing over and over. There is so much more evidence that's actually credible to waste time with something that makes no sense.
However, I do believe in the Truther movement. We need answers, and we've haven't been given them. The "investigations" have all been a whitewash.
The fact that WTC construction manager, Frank A. DeMartini, who was killed in the 9/11/01 attack, describes in January of 2001, how the towers could, "probably sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners"... now that's some real evidence...
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Why is that real evidence? It's just one man's opinion. But it's the opinion of the man who managed the construction of the very building in question.
Engineers don't just throw up statements like these... they actually took this stuff into account when they built the buildings.
This is just one of the many reasons why I question what happened that day.