Loose Change

[Ziggy Stardust]

How do I prove it did happen? I bloody watched it on the TV, along with half the planet. Are you in the habit of seeing things and wondering if they happened?

WTC7 was seriously damaged in the collapse of the towers, see the end of my post 116. Firecrews reported a gaping hole in the front of the building 20 storeys high.

BTW conspiracy theorists like to say that WTC7 collapsed into a 'convenient' little pile. Spot the biased use of language. It actually toppled slightly to one side and the 'little pile' was 12 storeys high. Not a great demolition job.

What's your problem?

If you read my post without a preconcieved, 'I'm gonna disagree with this one right here' mentality you might find I agree with everything you said from "WTC7" on. The early part I will make a slight adjustment, and hopefully you will see what I am trying to say/post.

How do I prove it did happen? I bloody watched it on the TV, along with half the planet. Are you in the habit of seeing things and wondering how they happened?

Then my answer will be, well, yeah, in fact I do. It looked like controlled domolition to my untrained eye the first few times I saw it. And it does look like it. So, I'm glad I was curious enough to try to find how this was possible and found out that it only looked like one. But in fact engineers explained on various docu's it most likely was an effect of the fire. But proof requires something more than "most likely" or "it looks like".

 

[brennan]

Then my answer will be, well, yeah, in fact I do. It looked like controlled domolition to my untrained eye the first few times I saw it. And it does look like it. So, I'm glad I was curious enough to try to find how this was possible and found out that it only looked like one. But in fact engineers explained on various docu's it most likely was an effect of the fire. But proof requires something more than "most likely" or "it looks like".

It doesn't really look like a demolition job: if you watch a CD they blow the whole building and the entire thing goes into free fall - it looks as though the building is just falling into a hole in the ground. The WTC looks like the top set of floors just smashes the rest thing down from the top.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It doesn't really look like a demolition job: if you watch a CD they blow the whole building and the entire thing goes into free fall - it looks as though the building is just falling into a hole in the ground. The WTC looks like the top set of floors just smashes the rest thing down from the top.

Funny. A demolition expert, shown the video of WTC7 said he was convinced it was a CD. He analysed the vid (without knowing it was WTC7) and thought they had blown the inner supports and the building seemed to 'jump' after it. It does look like a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q

Look at his surprise when he finds out it's from 9/11

Controlled demolition doesn't mean blowing the whole building. It differs each situation. Sometimes they just have to rig a few bottomfloors, sometimes more. You can't state, 'if you watch a CD they blow the whole building and the entire thing goes into free fall', because there is no default way to blow up a building.

edit: His last words: "I have no explenation" is telling. He is a demolition expert, not an engineer. In the other clip I posted, the engineers did have an explenation.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I shouldn’t have let you get away with ignoring my excellent audio link

I didn't ignore it. I had listened to it. What do think if I said this:
"I turned on my TV and then watched the building come down". Does that mean that turning on my TV caused the building to come down?!

If Silverstein was using 'pull' to mean any kind of demolition, that proves that the official report is a lie.

Simple, Silverstein did not mean a demolition in any way. He did not tell them to destroy the building, just to give up trying to save it. (So I guess you could say that he let the fire destroy the building). But if you look at all the pictures it is safe to say that the firefighters would not have had much luck stopping the fire when there was smoke coming out of every floor, fires reported on several floors, and they lost many firefighters from the collapse of the towers and there was people elsewhere to attend to (nobody to save in #7). And the structure was unstable due to it being hit by debris.

not in real life but on TV.

In conspiracy documentaries after 9/11 I believe you.

I would just like to include some more statements from implosionworld's report:

A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be 'pulled' or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene.

Not to mention what I said before about firefighters not having the expertise to blow up a building and if the explosives were placed before the fire then surely, somebody would have seen them.

A tall office building can not be made to tip over like a tree.

This is apparently what the theorists want you to think of when you think of a building going down by itself.

Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties.However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point.

Then it goes on and says a few more things (I have to type all these quotes because I don't know how to copy and paste off of a .pdf file).

These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down into the towers' footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.

http://www.reopen911.org/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf#search="implosionworld 9/11"

And for the firefighters saying they heard 'explosions' you can take a look at this page and see their full quotes:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

 

[woody60707]

Funny. A demolition expert, shown the video of WTC7 said he was convinced it was a CD. He analysed the vid (without knowing it was WTC7) and thought they had blown the inner supports and the building seemed to 'jump' after it. It does look like a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q

Look at his surprise when he finds out it's from 9/11

Controlled demolition doesn't mean blowing the whole building. It differs each situation. Sometimes they just have to rig a few bottomfloors, sometimes more. You can't state, 'if you watch a CD they blow the whole building and the entire thing goes into free fall', because there is no default way to blow up a building.

edit: His last words: "I have no explenation" is telling. He is a demolition expert, not an engineer. In the other clip I posted, the engineers did have an explenation.

ahhh ok, now we are getting somewhere. Now all you need to do is cite what makes him a expert. What frim he works for, what school he went to, ect ect. Just because someguy on youtube says it, doesn't make him a expert.

Here is a video of perpetual motion or Over-unity or what ever they call it. It clams to have over 100% efficiency. They clam to have experts also.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044

edit: wouldn't this over unity(thing?) if left on long enough destroy the universe?

 

[tomsnowman123]

Hey, look, another video that debunks loose change!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

ahhh ok, now we are getting somewhere. Now all you need to do is cite what makes him a expert. What frim he works for, what school he went to, ect ect. Just because someguy on youtube says it, doesn't make him a expert.

Ok.

It's from YouTube. But the clip is straight from a documentary program on the dutch telivision Zembla. It's a well respected program which doesn't just name anyone expert.

edit: Heh, seems that Mr. Jowenko has a company called Jowenko BV. http://www.jowenko.nl/
Happy now?

At least I had a point, what's yours? Do you even have any idea what mine was? Because your reply seems a little knee-jerk.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Hey, look, another video that debunks loose change!

Actually, some people think the other way and think that the loose change folks won that debate. I think whichever side you were leaning towards before that video would likely be the side you thought won.

The loose change people were too quick to cry foul. The pop mechanics guys were right about the tactics of the theorists, and rightfully pointed out how misleading the footage and information from loose change was (most of their 'testimony' was from while the event was happening or very shortly afterwards when there was so much confusion that people were mostly speculating on what was going on).

 

[Xenocrates]

"I turned on the TV and watched Teletubbies" means:

that I watched because I had turned on the TV, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to watch (not 'it wouln't have been broadcast if I hadn't turned on the TV'!). This isn't consistent with what happened to WTC7, where the removal of the firemen didn't directly enable the collape to happen. When a crime suspect is being in interviewed by police; you can bet that they would latch on to a slip like that.

It IS perfectly possible that Silverstein had $ in front of his eyes and wanted to encourage the demolition of WTC 7 (or encourage the withdrawal of the firemen to increase the damage to it) because he could make more money from his insurance and from the redevelopment. It doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy and that he was part of it. It just means he was more interested in currency than anything else.

I still think that, on balance of probability, Silverstein was referring to a demolition. I can't close that case though.

I haven't got any numbers for the physics of the WTC collapses. It's too complex for me and I don't know how much of the central supports were damaged and how much etc. I can't say what the duration of collapse would have been in the explosive case and in the gravity case - you have air resistance, the deceleration by the mass underneath and the bending of the vertical supports etc. What I can say is that, no one has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that fire + weakening of the steel around the impact point was responsible. There were two almost identical collapses remember. OK, so the builings were twins, but the planes hit at different angles. I think this fact is what raised the red flag for many people.

My feeling is that the explosives theory is plausible, whether any other theory is also plausible isn't the point. Every possibility should be investigated. Can we agree on that?

Facts in support of the explosives theory:

1) eyewitness reports
2) basement explosion
3) horizontal plumes of smoke
4) the dust clouds
5) police reports of possible unexploded bombs (from here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/051205foundbombs.htm
6) the absense of any other known explanation fror the collapse of WTC 7
7) the absense of similar previous collapses that weren't due to explosives
8) the molten steel found in the rubble http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
9) Silverstein

I need to remind you that just because a theory is consistent with the facts, it doesn't mean that it's true. I know that - I used the phrase 'consistent with the facts' several pages ago. I also know that some of the 'evidence' that I listed above may be total nonsense. I don't have an 'all-seeing eye'. Without being there I can say no more than: "this needs checking out properly".

I don't give a monkey's bum whether the explosives were placed by Bush himself or by Al Qaeda. This is the next stage after we verify whether or not explosives were used.

At the moment it's still primarily a physics question, but it will become a question of competing conspiracy theories once good models of the collapse have been produced. But that's never going to happen.

PS. Brennan or Bamspeedy (whoever said it) I haven't had a TV since way before 2001. Any recollections of demolitions being referred to with 'pull it down' are from documentaries of chimneys and blocks of flats etc. being demolished from before 9/11 and not from media that you could characterise as subversive.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

At the moment it's still primarily a physics question, but it will become a question of competing conspiracy theories once good models of the collapse have been produced. But that's never going to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVSxeJH_RCY&NR

Do you agree that a fire raged for 7 hours at WTC7?

Do you agree that a controlled demolition is a thing of great accuracy and needs impeccable timing to do right?

Do you agree that if a controlled demolition is not performed accurately the building won't collapse in a neat little pile?

The fire is key here.
- It was impossible for firefighters to combat the fire sufficiently, so it's also impossible for demolition workers to rig the building in 7 hours. So the explosives would have to have been there allready. However,

- No firefighters, who were fighting for hours, ever noticed any explosives or the wiring.

- If the explosives had been there, but were missed by the firefighters, the heat of the fire would have screwed up the delicate process of controlled demolition and most likely would have set off charges early, or prevented charged going of when they 'pushed the button'

This is why the explosives theory isn't plausible. So, we don't agree.

[edit]

5) police reports of possible unexploded bombs (from here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...foundbombs.htm

"The twin towers were wired to the brim with highly powerful explosives, some of which exploded before the collapse of the buildings and some during."

This would be disastrous for a controlled demo. The charges have to go of in a set sequence with a set timing.[/edit]

6) the absense of any other known explanation fror the collapse of WTC 7

See video clip. There are other, more plausible explenations.

 

[Xenocrates]

That's a good vid and I hadn't seen it before. thanks Ziggy.

There are some negatives though:

It somewhat glosses over the cause of the fire. I can accept that WTC 7 was hit by debris, but that doesn't explain the fire. If there was a damaged diesel pipe, why didn't a cut-off system work? Surely there was one? They admit that the diesel scenario is speculation and admit that a thorough investigation wasn't done.

They also guess that the sprinkler system wasn't working. Do sprinkler systems have only one pipe, or multiple pipes in proximity to each other? Wouldn't it make more sense to put several pipes in different places so that if one pipe fails the system will still work? .

Most of the time in planning a demo is in safety. They can work out how to bring the building down in no time, it's making it happen safely that's the issue. What if the perpetrator didn't care about safety?

The positives are that the narrator has an English accent! And that it explains the constuction fairly thoroughly and it appears to be balanced. They also explain why the building may have collapsed so completely by talking about the unique design (but they didn't nail this down). This answers the question aboout the unique collapse - because the building was unique (i.e. had a design flaw).

The truth is still out there! I'm a touch less suspicious about WTC 7 than I was, but there's no closure as yet. If there was a major diesel spill and if there was a sprinkler failure and if there was a design flaw then it's not suspicious. They haven't given an authoritative explanation yet and they can't now because of the absence of investigation.

There's another good site about WTC 7 here: http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/archive/nist_ncstar1-8.html part 5.9

The Con Edison personnel also indicated that fuel tanks were located in the lower level of WTC 7. However, they could not determine if the fuel tanks were involved with the fires burning in the building. FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed

There's no evidence for the diesel theory as far as I can see.

The evacuation of WTC 7 (immediately after the second plane hit) can be explained if they were aware of the design flaw and that the debris from the twin towers could damage the building. Would they have expected that? Since they had already considered the possibility of aircraft strikes on WTC, maybe they had a plan for it and thought through what the effects would be on WTC 7. This means that they would have expected the collapse of the twin towers if they were hit. Wouldn't they have placed the OEM (office of emergency management futher away from the twin towers in that case? I don't know.

There's always more questions than answers. Answers that I need to accept will never be found. It's like watching a film with the ending edited out - very disconcerting.

Sorry for the long post, but there are two possible precedents for the subject of a criminal enquiry attacking the building housing the investigation data. One is from the Stephen's enquiry in Northern Ireland. A STRONG possibility is that British intelligence torched the building to de-rail the investigation into 'collusion' with terrorists. The other is Oklahoma city.

There's a good summary of Oklahoma here: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/okc_bombshell.html

 

[brennan]

Funny. A demolition expert, shown the video of WTC7 said he was convinced it was a CD. He analysed the vid (without knowing it was WTC7) and thought they had blown the inner supports and the building seemed to 'jump' after it. It does look like a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q

Look at his surprise when he finds out it's from 9/11

Controlled demolition doesn't mean blowing the whole building. It differs each situation. Sometimes they just have to rig a few bottomfloors, sometimes more. You can't state, 'if you watch a CD they blow the whole building and the entire thing goes into free fall', because there is no default way to blow up a building.

edit: His last words: "I have no explenation" is telling. He is a demolition expert, not an engineer. In the other clip I posted, the engineers did have an explenation.

I was talking specifically about the towers there. The video shows only the top half of WTC7. If what happened there mirrored what happened at the towers, I would expect the top half of the building (ie; the section above the severely damaged levels) to collapse onto the bottom half - which would appear like a CD, so long as you don't get to see what happens to the bottom.

 

[Bamspeedy]

When a crime suspect is being in interviewed by police; you can bet that they would latch on to a slip like that.

Ok, let's try this another way. People sometimes leave a few words out of their sentences and then get misinterpreted because of that. Let's say what I put in parentheses ( ) are words that he should have said, but in the course of conversation sometimes people don't include it:

"I told them to pull it (the fire brigade) and then (forty five minutes later) watched the building come down."

I do realize that people can quiz a suspect about those missed words and there would be suspicion, but you are trying to act like it is 'proof'.

It IS perfectly possible that Silverstein had $ in front of his eyes and wanted to encourage the demolition of WTC 7 (or encourage the withdrawal of the firemen to increase the damage to it) because he could make more money from his insurance and from the redevelopment. It doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy and that he was part of it. It just means he was more interested in currency than anything else.

9) Silverstein

Yes, it is possible he was greedy (if he let them be destroyed), and the destruction of his building did not cost any lives that I know of (although with the chaos, who knows if there was anybody hit by some of the smaller debris from #7's collapse). But for him to be part of this conspiracy he would have known about the lives that would be lost from the towers and that makes it harder for me to believe he would kill thousands of fellow americans just for a few more dollars than if he had kept running his business as usual. If Silverstein wasn't part of the conspiracy but did give the orders to destroy the building, then you can give up on the 'CIA wanted the building destroyed' theory. Because then Silverstein would not have been given the chance to decide if the building was destroyed or not.

Oh, wasn't there a Silverstein on the victim list? I wonder if he was any relation to the Silverstein who owned the building. I doubt it, but I've always wondered about that.

OK, so the builings were twins, but the planes hit at different angles. I think this fact is what raised the red flag for many people.

Different angles, yes, but the more important question is where it hits.

The first tower was hit higher up than the where the second tower was. The second tower was the first to collapse. Makes sense since when the intent is to bring down a building, the lower all the damage is, the better (more weight above the weakened part of the building, forcing more stress on it).

My feeling is that the explosives theory is plausible
7) the absense of similar previous collapses that weren't due to explosives

The only evidence for explosives is some people 'think it looks like' by looking at a few select videos. Really, how many other buildings (of this size) that have been destroyed from non-explosives do we have to compare this to? Buildings like this cannot fall over on it's side like a tree. For comments like "no building has fallen before...blah blah". Well alot of things happened that day that were a first. No other building (the towers) had a plane this size with this much jet fuel hit it. The bomber that hit the Sears tower in the 40's was a smaller plane, flying at much slower speed and almost out of fuel. As for #7, no other building had been hit by lots of debris before the fire started and the fire got out of control to the point where there was smoke coming out of all 40+ floors and the fire continued for 7+ hours. Like I posted before, skyscrapers are built to withstand a fire for 3 hours, so anything after that and you are taking your chances.

The other evidence is that supposedly thermite was found on two steel beams (when a metallurgic test was done), but doesn't say in what quantity (does it have any other uses that could have caused it to show up in very trace amounts)? Remember it would have taken hundreds of pounds of this stuff to bring down that building. Nobody in the clean up crews report seeing the tell-tale 'fingerprints' that an explosion from thermite leaves behind on the steel. Mr. Jones, himself has said his investigation is still in the research stage (at least in Aug of '06 when implosionworld printed their report) and said that the questions of the viability of his theory remains unanswered. Several websites have drawn their own conclusions before the 'scientist' is done with his research!

1) eyewitness reports
2) basement explosion
5) police reports of possible unexploded bombs

Already explained before. Mass confusion, jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts, diesel fuel tanks in the basement that were used to run back up generators (bldg. #7), elevators falling down the shafts and crashing at the bottom, gas lines breaking, etc.

Loose Change used tons of footage from interviews people did when they were frankly 'dazed and confused' and footage before the smoke cleared, telling you what you are seeing behind that smoke, but depriving you the chance to see it yourself after the smoke cleared.

8) the molten steel found in the rubble http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ltensteel.html

That site goes to great lengths to discredit Mr. Tulley (who says there was molten steel-according to another conspiracy source), but yet on the implosionworld report it says none of the clean up crew (which include Tulley construction) reported seeing molten steel. At least the site you posted isn't being hypocritical by having Mr. Tulley on his side when it's convenient for him then turn against him when it is convenient, like most of the other conspiracy sites.

The site you posted then lists other people who claim to have seen 'molten steel', but these people are sanitation workers, salesmen, PhDs, and chaplains claiming to see 'molten steel'. These people wouldn't know the difference between molten steel and molten other metals. Not to mention the problem equipment would have if it dug into molten steel that I mentioned earlier.

3) horizontal plumes of smoke
4) the dust clouds

When one floor collapses onto itself it sends all the air that was on that floor outwards away from the building (like popping a bag of chips). The force of the air of course will bring some of the smaller debris with it. Seriously, I see this phenomenon happening all the way down as each floor is collapsing onto the next one. Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3OaALcbAg
Wait until about the 2:30 mark then use the pause function to watch it frame to frame. I start seeing the top of the building drop at the same time/just before I see the debris flying out where some people could mistake it for an explosion. You'd expect to see the explosion before the top drops down.

What if the perpetrator didn't care about safety?

You have a point there, but the average CIA agent isn't as suicidal as an Al-Queda operative. I do believe he would take some risks but still be somewhat cautious. So if he was trained in where to put the explosives he could do it faster than the professional demolition teams (because they are very careful). How much of a time difference this is, I do not know. But it would take considerable time to drill holes into the support columns.

They also guess that the sprinkler system wasn't working.

The water could have been cut off (by accident, intentionally, or by a broken water line). Are these things run by any electrical sensors? If so power failure could be another cause. The sprinkler systems are limited in the amount of area they can cover at one time and the duration that they run.

The evacuation of WTC 7 (immediately after the second plane hit) can be explained if they were aware of the design flaw and that the debris from the twin towers could damage the building. Would they have expected that? Since they had already considered the possibility of aircraft strikes on WTC, maybe they had a plan for it and thought through what the effects would be on WTC 7. This means that they would have expected the collapse of the twin towers if they were hit. Wouldn't they have placed the OEM (office of emergency management futher away from the twin towers in that case? I don't know.

Nobody was expecting the collapse. Everybody was evacuating all the buildings in the area because they didn't know if more planes were coming. When they built the towers they thought they would withstand the impact of a plane, but didn't fully consider the effects of the jumbo jet having a full fuel tank and flying at maximum speed.

There's no evidence for the diesel theory as far as I can see.

There's as much evidence for the diesel theory as the bomb theory, but we have proof there actually was diesel run generators in the building (but no proof that they exploded).

 

[brennan]

"I turned on the TV and watched Teletubbies" means:

that I watched because I had turned on the TV, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to watch (not 'it wouln't have been broadcast if I hadn't turned on the TV'!). This isn't consistent with what happened to WTC7, where the removal of the firemen didn't directly enable the collape to happen. When a crime suspect is being in interviewed by police; you can bet that they would latch on to a slip like that.

The English language does not require that two statements made sequencially are causally related:
I sat down and a bee stung my ear.
I turned around and heard a noise.
...

My feeling is that the explosives theory is plausible, whether any other theory is also plausible isn't the point. Every possibility should be investigated. Can we agree on that?

No, quite simply you don't have a case.

Facts in support of the explosives theory:

1) eyewitness reports
2) basement explosion
3) horizontal plumes of smoke
4) the dust clouds
5) police reports of possible unexploded bombs (from here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/051205foundbombs.htm
6) the absense of any other known explanation fror the collapse of WTC 7
7) the absense of similar previous collapses that weren't due to explosives
8) the molten steel found in the rubble http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
9) Silverstein

1) 'Eyewitness reports'?!?! Holy cow, people SAW explosives? Why did no-one mention this before?
2) basement explosion - what, an hour before the collapse? How would this be related to a CD?
3) The plumes occur as the building is already collapsing, there are not enough of them to be part of a CD.
4) Dust clouds? What the hell do you expect, if anything a CD would be neater.
5) That's a funny site. 'Ah ha an unconfirmed report of more bombs - just like the Oklahoma bombings, where there were more bombs.' The evidence? Documents proving an alleged cover-up that state there were 2 more devices at Oklahoma. That's right, official DoD and FEMA reports state that there were 2 more bombs at Oklahoma. Sorry did you say there was a cover up? And what has this got to do with 9/11?
6) Other than the official line. And, correct me if i'm wrong, but the official report into WTC7 hasn't actually taken place yet has it? Why don't you wait for that before jumping to outlandish conclusions?
7) Show me another building damaged anything like as severely as WTC7 or the towers were and this might be a point.
8) What molten steel? This has never been proven.
9) Silverstein what? Said to pull the fire crews out? Oh, yeah, I remember: according to you he was a demolitions expert on the side.

Facts in support of the WTC7 was seriously damaged and burned for 7 hours case:

1) Firecrews reported a 20 storey high hole in the front of the building. That's a lot of damage.
2) Firecrews fought a losing battle against a massive blaze inside the building for hours. That's a big fire.
3) Firecrews were pulled out of the building (there's that word again, fits doesn't it?) because of concerns the building may collapse.
4) The building visibly slumped some time before the actual collapse - indicating severe structural problems.
5) After the crews were pulled out, the building collapsed.
6) Assuming a conspiracy, such a severely damaged buiding could easily have been declared unsafe and demolished at a later date. Why the rush? And why destroy the building anyway?

 

[Xenocrates]

but you are trying to act like it is 'proof'.

I said it wasn't proof, just suggestive..

But for him to be part of this conspiracy

What conspiracy? I only said that the collapses weren't properly explained by the reports and complained that they didn't investigate the possibility of explosives. I didn't say there was a conspiracy. It's the US Government that said there was a conspiracy!

Because then Silverstein would not have been given the chance to decide if the building was destroyed or not.

He wasn't the decision maker here, he was offering an opinion. It just so happens that his opinion was in his favour, but the decision wasn't his. I would say that any influence on the fire dept. would have been greater from the CIA/FBI, but that's a guess.

the lower all the damage is, the better (more weight above the weakened part of the building, forcing more stress on it).

That makes sense in a way, but the bottom part of the building is proportionally stronger. I'm not sure about this, but my instinct is that is doesn't matter. I keep saying that the jet fuel is an irrelevence. I've never seen anyone say that it was the cause of the collapses.

Agreed on the Thermite/ate work. Waiting until the work is complete before coming to a conclusion is good.

Already explained before. Mass confusion, jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts, diesel fuel tanks in the basement that were used to run back up generators (bldg. #7), elevators falling down the shafts and crashing at the bottom, gas lines breaking, etc.

The big point here is that most of the elevator shafts were staggered in WTC; there was only one, possibly three (depending who you believe) elevator shafts running continuously down from the damaged part of the building to the basment. It means that the jet fuel must have made a 'lucky guess' about which shaft to descend. Also the lifts in WTC were extremely fast. This means that any movement of the lift would create a huge pressure imbalance and risk damaging the building. They had a system to allow air in and out of the shafts to prevent this damage. So why did the fireball do so much damage? I don't know enough to debate that point. This is one of the contentious issues though.

The site you posted then lists other people who claim to have seen 'molten steel', but these people are sanitation workers, salesmen, PhDs, and chaplains claiming to see 'molten steel'. These people wouldn't know the difference between molten steel and molten other metals. Not to mention the problem equipment would have if it dug into molten steel that I mentioned earlier.

Would you know the difference between molten steel and glowing steel? Would you know the difference between moten steel and molten copper? I think the first question is a yes, but the proponents of the official 'no molten steel' story claimed that the witnesses were confused between 'glowing' and molten. The second question is more interesting. Rough melting points are 1083 degrees C for Copper and 1400 - 1500 degrees for Steel. The point is that both melt at a higher temperature than that caused by the office fire so it doesn't really matter if the witnesses can tell the difference. The presence of either is suspicious.

OK I'll watch the vid when I've got time before answering any more. But before I do that, I want you to promise to read/listen to my Oklahoma and PM reseacrher interviews. Deal?

 

[Xenocrates]

The English language does not require that two statements made sequencially are causally related:
I sat down and a bee stung my ear.
I turned around and heard a noise.

The word 'then' is more usual is in sequences! Do you hear people talking as in your examples, I don't!

1) eyewitness - OK earwitness reports if it pleases you.
2) basement - How could it be related to the other theory (there's MUCH debate about the fireball)? Rodriguez's account is here: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762
3) plumes - what else caused the kind of pressure necessary for these huge diectional plumes? I don't think that falling floors were enough. Many proponents of the official theory say there was a non-explosive implosion and also that the air pressure in the building solely caused the plumes. Implosion implies lower pressure than outside, so I think this needs to be looked at carefully.
4) The dust starts early in the buildings' collapses, not when they hit the ground. How can the official theory explain this? All you have to do is drop a piece of concrete onto another piece of concrete at various heights and watch if you get this kind of dust. My feeling is that the concrete would have to be falling much faster than it was in the Twin Towers to produce this huge volcano-like dust. I see workmen on jackhammers all the time and the concrete crumbles, not produce a pyroclastic flow. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an explanation - it's just that I don't know it.
5) Police reports - You said " what's Oklahoma got to do with 9/11?". That's my question too. The police reports of bombs on 9/11 are still a mystery; were they simply wrong?
6) Wait for report - OK.
7) WT7's damage. I was referring to the symmetry and speed of the collapse here.
8) Molten steel - See my reply to Bam
9) Silverstein - we've discussed him. He either let the cat out of the bag, was trying to take advantage of the situation or has a wierd way of speaking. Who knows?

Facts in support of the WTC7 was seriously damaged and burned for 7 hours case:

1) Firecrews reported a 20 storey high hole in the front of the building. That's a lot of damage.
2) Firecrews fought a losing battle against a massive blaze inside the building for hours. That's a big fire.
3) Firecrews were pulled out of the building (there's that word again, fits doesn't it?) because of concerns the building may collapse.
4) The building visibly slumped some time before the actual collapse - indicating severe structural problems.
5) After the crews were pulled out, the building collapsed.
6) Assuming a conspiracy, such a severely damaged buiding could easily have been declared unsafe and demolished at a later date. Why the rush? And why destroy the building anyway?

It is the cause of that big fire that I questioned. As I understand it, the firemen neglected building 7, as it was known to be empty, in favour of the other buildings where people could be rescued. No one wanted to destroy the building. It was the evidence that was inside the building that was the target, if the explosives theory is correct. That was the rush, if the explosives theory is correct.

I'm getting 9/11 fatigue here and probably you are too so let's call it a day and have some fun with something else! Nice debate though, the venom of other 9/11 threads on other forums is absent here.

 

[woody60707]

Ok.

It's from YouTube. But the clip is straight from a documentary program on the dutch telivision Zembla. It's a well respected program which doesn't just name anyone expert.

edit: Heh, seems that Mr. Jowenko has a company called Jowenko BV. http://www.jowenko.nl/
Happy now?

At least I had a point, what's yours? Do you even have any idea what mine was? Because your reply seems a little knee-jerk.

No, really, i meant what i said, we are now getting someone where. This is the first expert cited (in this field, for this and other reason Dr. jones and like do not count) that says this looks like a CD.

 

[Bamspeedy]

2) basement - How could it be related to the other theory (there's MUCH debate about the fireball)? Rodriguez's account is here: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...e.html?id=7762

That site refers to Phil Jayhen as a 'knowledgeable and well qualified individual'. Phil Jayhen is the guy who set up the letsroll911.com site that believes missiles were on the planes. I think the passengers and pilot would notice missiles on the plane when they boarded.

So now this one witness is saying there was a bomb going off before the impact of the first plane? Just plain silly. So there was bombs going off in the basement before the impact of the plane, then there was more bombs that went off in the basement that initiated the collapse? Not to mention there was bombs placed in other places throughout the building that went off at various times?

The dust starts early in the buildings' collapses, not when they hit the ground. How can the official theory explain this? All you have to do is drop a piece of concrete onto another piece of concrete at various heights and watch if you get this kind of dust

When dropping concrete onto another piece of concrete in your example it doesn't consider the walls being crushed/pulverized (and the walls being crushed at a considerably faster pace than what jackhammers produce).

The police reports of bombs on 9/11 are still a mystery; were they simply wrong?

When I first heard about the pentagon, there was a brief mention on the TV that a helicopter was flying over it and maybe dropping bombs. People were confused that day and SPECULATING.

plumes - what else caused the kind of pressure necessary for these huge diectional plumes?

I saw the plumes all the way down as the the building was going down. So there were bombs on every floor?

The big point here is that most of the elevator shafts were staggered in WTC; there was only one, possibly three (depending who you believe) elevator shafts running continuously down from the damaged part of the building to the basment.

If anyone is saying there is only one or 3 elevators, they are talking about the ones that go from the ground to the the very top. Each tower had about 10 that went from the ground to the 78th floor, and I think we both agree that the 78th floor would have been in the impact zone (at least for one building and not too far away from the impact of the other tower).

Each tower had only two passenger elevators that went non-stop from bottom to top — to the Windows on the World restaurant in the north tower and the observation deck in the south tower.

Sixty-four of the twin towers' 198 elevators had cables that ran through the floors devastated by the hijacked hijacked planes, and the cables were likely destroyed.

"She was stepping off the elevator when the plane hit," Wertz recalls. "There was an explosion on top of the elevator as if someone had thrown a hand grenade. I jumped out, fell to the floor and looked behind me. I saw the elevator disintegrate in a ball of flames and fall down (the shaft). There was a big hole in the ceiling above the elevator. I saw the cables fold up as if they'd become detached. It took no more than two seconds."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

 

[Xenocrates]

That site refers to Phil Jayhen as a 'knowledgeable and well qualified individual'. Phil Jayhen is the guy who set up the letsroll911.com site that believes missiles were on the planes. I think the passengers and pilot would notice missiles on the plane when they boarded.

Yeah OK, it may be a wacky site but Rodrigez has said the same thing all over the place. The argument about his statement is that he said the basement explosion preceded the crash. OK I'm not willing to assume that he's wrong. The debate about this centres on whether the vibration from the explosion far above could have made the basement shake before the sound from the plane reached him. Something like that anyway.

I didn't see any comment about http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3

Or comment about the precedents in Oklahoma and Belfast:

In its issue of Oct. 11, 19, as well as other issues, the now defunct weekly Spotlight newspaper fully covered the Oklahoma City incident and conclusively proved the accuracy of reporter Shannan’s above story. The bombing was definitely a federal government operation; just why Nichols and McVeigh confessed is a mystery that forbids the closure of the case.

From http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/okc_bombshell.html


More comment from me about WTC will follow your post on my links. I'm damned if I'm going to check your links while you haven't checked mine! Play fair mate

 

[Bamspeedy]

I just got down watching a three hour video that debunks Loose Change (it plays Loose Change and then flashes their comments on the screen that challenges Loose Change and sometimes stops the Loose Change when going into more detail). http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276&q=loose+change

I have to leave right now (yes, I do leave for work at 3AM on the weekend!), so I won't have time to look at your information you just posted until later. If you want to get into OK City that will require another thread. If you watch the video I posted (I hope you don't have a dial-up connection!) it explains most of my arguments anyways.