Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » WTC 7
| WTC 7 [message #55839] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 10:56  |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
were to meet somewhere, with no discussion of
>>>our personal politics, we would get along famously. Don't get me wrong,
>>>this
>>>kind of discourse is good. It helps us understand each other better, if
>>>even
>>>just a little. My wish is that we can all have these discussions, and even
>>>when they've been heated, at the end still be the great international
>>>community of PARIS people. That's it, the ICPP! Well, er...maybe a
>>>different
>>>acronym would be better. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I
>>>respect you all, weather we share the same view or not.
>>>
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 7/14/05 10:05 PM, in article 42d7280a$1@linux, "justcron"
>>><justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Usually I just feel like I'm banging my head against the wall trying to
>>>> make
>>>> a point... I still do to a certain extent, but I think we might have
>>>> made
>>>> progress. I kinda understand more where people are coming from. Its
>>>> admirable to think the best about humans and believe the government is
>>>> acting in our best interest. I know people are ultimately concerned
>>>> with
>>>> their own security and survival.
>>>>
>>>> The politicalcompass thing was helpful to show that political beliefs
>>>> are
>>>> really a complex combination of issues, at the very least needing 2
>>>> axes...
>>>> liberal/conservative context is hardly useful to categorize people.
>>>>
>>>> Some people say you shouldn't catch feelings over a message board, but I
>>>> can't help it when we're talking about life and death. If anyone is
>>>> still
>>>> heated... I know I've been disrespectful probably a hundred times over
>>>> the
>>>> years... I'm sorry.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I thought it was a good discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>Anyway, I appreciate you following
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55841 is a reply to message #55839] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:13  |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
have seen this but it's pretty humourous so
>here ya go....
>
>jef
>
>
>
>Last Updated: April 5, 1994
>
>
> The Book of Creation
>
>
> Chapter 1
>
>1
> In the beginning God created Dates.
>2
> And the date was Monday, July 4, 4004 BC.
>3
> And God said, let there be light; and there was light. And when
> there was Light, God saw the Date, that it was Monday, and he got
> down to work; for verily, he had a Big Job to do.
>4
> And God made pottery shards and Silurian mollusks and pre-Cambrian
> limestone strata; and flints and Jurassic Mastodon tusks and
> Picanthopus erectus skulls and Cretaceous placentals made he; and
> those cave paintings at Lasceaux. And that was that, for the first
> Work Day.
>5
> And God saw that he had made many wondrous things, but that he had
> not wherein to put it all. And God said, Let the heavens be divided
> from the earth; and let us bury all of these Things which we have
> made in the earth; but not too deep.
>6
> And God buried all the Things which he had made, and that was that.
>7
> And the morning and the evening and the overtime were Tuesday.
>8
> And God said, Let there be water; and let the dry land appear; and
> that was that.
>9
> And God called the dry land Real Estate; and the water called he the
> Sea. And in the land and beneath it put he crude oil, grades one
> through six; and natural gas put he thereunder, and prehistoric
> carboniferous forests yielding anthracite and other ligneous matter;
> and all these called he Resources; and he made them Abundant.
>10
> And likewise all that was in the sea, even unto two hundred miles
> from the dry land, called he resources; all that was therein, like
> manganese nodules, for instance.
>11
> And the morning unto the evening had been a long day; which he
> called Wednesday.
>12
> And God said, Let the earth bring forth abundantly every moving
> creature I can think of, with or without backbones, with or without
> wings or feet, or fins or claws, vestigial limbs and all, right now;
> and let each one be of a separate species. For lo, I can make
> whatsoever I like, whensoever I like.
>13
> And the earth brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and
> small, with and without backbones, with and without wings and feet
> and fins and claws, vestigial limbs and all, from bugs to
> brontosauruses.
>14
> But God blessed them all, saying, Be fruitful and multiply and
> Evolve Not.
>15
> And God looked upon the species he hath made, and saw that the earth
> was exceedingly crowded, and he said unto them, Let each species
> compete for what it needed; for Healthy Competition is My Law. And
> the species competeth amongst themselves, the cattle and the
> creeping things; and some madeth it and some didn't; and the dogs
> ate the dinosaurs and God was pleased.
>16
> And God took the bones from the dinosaurs, and caused them to appear
> mighty old; and cast he them about the land and the sea. And he took
> every tiny creature that had not madeth it, and caused them to
> become fossils; and cast he them about likewise.
>17
> And just to put matters beyond the valley of the shadow of a doubt
> God created carbon dating. And this is the origin of species.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55846 is a reply to message #55843] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:27 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>-------
>The plane was sent into the Pentagon around the same time, to
>what, distract people from noticing the bombs going off in the
>WTC? So why have the planes fly into them, if the US Govt. was
>going to bring them down with bombs? The first WTC bombing was
>from bombs, so it wouldn't have been suspicious to have bombs...so
>why use the planes?
>
>I recall talking to my brother later that day and he said he wasn't a
>bit surprised. Another brother, XXXX, builds electronic safety
>equipment & has strong ties to the FDNY, their Rescue squads and
>knew several men lost on 9-11. There was a FDNY building collapse
>expert who'd investigated the Murrah building collapse in OK working
>the #7 site and was the one who warned the chiefs not to send
>anyone into #7 because it looked so bad.
>
>Apparently my info regarding a single 40,000 gal tank up high may
>have been incorrect, but it is absolutely true that a lot of fuel was
>stored up high and the FDNY opposed it to no avail. XXXXX's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55851 is a reply to message #55839] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:42 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>referring to the gratuitous partisan comments...
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d80477@linux...
> I'm assuming you are referring to my post as being typical of something.
> Perhaps you consider the reason for it as being a typical reaction to a
> typical spin.
>
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42d803a0$1@linux...
>>
>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> news:42d80363@linux...
>> > I've witnessed building demolitions. That does look familiar, but
>> > you're
>> > just seeing one side of the very top floors. It's a pretty big stretch
> to
>> > think that what this is showing is caused by any particular means of
>> > structural failure. It's obviously a fialure. I didn't see this thing
> and
>> > hadn't heard of Dan Rather postulating this as a theory, but knowing
>> > the
>> > *Rather agenda*, it would not surprise me. I'm surprised CBS didn't
>> > have
>> > Michael Moore as co-anchor.
>>
>> heh heh... so typical.
>>
>> > "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
>> > news:42d7fe1e$1@linux...
>> >> Anyway, I appreciate you following up on the conversation.
>> >>
>> >> I dont think there was pods on the planes, or bombs or remote control
> or
>> > any
>> >> of that crap. I just think theres some type of coverup and the only
>> >> smoking gun is WTC7, and the insider trading.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a better video of it:
>> >> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_col lapse2.mpg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but I dont really see too much structural
>> > damage
>> >> to the facade.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>I know you guys kinda shoot the messenger regarding PBS... but seriously my
dad is as hardcore conservative as it gets, and he's never once disagreed
with any reporting done by PBS.
"Pulling" Bu
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55852 is a reply to message #55843] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:43 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ilding 7
A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an
interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry
Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:
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." And they made that decision to pull and we watched
the building collapse.
This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the
building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull
it" in this context apparently means to demolish the building. This
interpretation is supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the
same documentary:
... we're getting ready to pull the building six.
Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC
complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it"
refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to
FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55854 is a reply to message #55852] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:42 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
in a
terrorist incident. FEMA's report states that the cause of building's
collapse was fires. Presumably FEMA and the insurance company would be
interested in knowing if the building was instead demolished by the FDNY.
Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space
of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that
demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke.
A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in
the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to
confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting
that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an
alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for
demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan
to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people,
who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled
demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the
collapse, nor the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea
that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a
distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was
planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to
destroy the entire WTC complex.do i know you??? what cd's??? wait...i remember now...cd's...are
certificates of deposits...HELL YES I STILL WANT EM'. this is sooooo
cool, in fact, i'm leaving for the post office right now and wait for
them...will it be a long wait??? really i need to know cuz sometimes
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55856 is a reply to message #55854] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:48 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
n@hydrorecords.compound" target="_blank">justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>
>> >heh heh... sorry fo the namecalling rick....
>> >
>> >"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fuved1hkcn0qakq3m4gddnf05dlj7f1io3@4ax.com...
>> >> hey, i found out i'm probably a drunk and definitely a jackass...so i
>> >> guess i'm deeper than i thought.
>> >>
>> >> ;o)
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:12:05 -0500, Tony <tonyx@standingxhampton.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Justin,
>> >>>
>> >>>I think the problem with these topics is that everyone seems pretty
>hell
>> >>>bent on changing somebody else's politics in the course of a few news
>> >>>group
>> >>>posts. That isn't ever going to happen. It takes years for each of us
>to
>> >>>develop our various points of view. The best we can do is try to
>> >>>understand
>> >>>each other and live with the fact that everyone doesn't share the same
>> >>>view.
>> >>>I'm confident that if we all were to meet somewhere, with no discussion
>of
>> >>>our personal politics, we would get along famously. Don't get me wrong,
>> >>>this
>> >>>kind of discourse is good. It helps us understand each other better, if
>> >>>even
>> >>>just a little. My wish is that we can all have these discussions, and
>even
>> >>>when they've been heated, at the end still be the great international
>> >>>community of PARIS people. That's it, the ICPP! Well, er...maybe a
>> >>>different
>> >>>acronym would be better. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that
>I
>> >>>respect you all, weather we share the same view or
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55857 is a reply to message #55856] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:46 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
not.
>> >>>
>> >>>Tony
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>On 7/14/05 10:05 PM, in article 42d7280a$1@linux, "justcron"
>> >>><justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Usually I just feel like I'm banging my head against the wall trying
>to
>> >>>> make
>> >>>> a point... I still do to a certain extent, but I think we might have
>> >>>> made
>> >>>> progress. I kinda understand more where people are coming from.
>Its
>> >>>> admirable to think the best about humans and believe the government
>is
>> >>>> acting in our best interest. I know people are ultimately concerned
>> >>>> with
>> >>>> their own security and survival.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The politicalcompass thing was helpful to show that political beliefs
>> >>>> are
>> >>>> really a complex combination of issues, at the very least needing 2
>> >>>> axes...
>> >>>> liberal/conservative context is hardly useful to categorize people.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Some people say you shouldn't catch feelings over a message board,
>but I
>> >>>> can't help it when we're talking about life and death. If anyone is
>> >>>> still
>> >>>> heated... I know I've been disrespectful probably a hundred times
>over
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> years... I'm sorry.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyway, I thought it was a good discussion.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>posting messed up the quote. This is Silverstein's entire quote:
> 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." And they made that decision to pull and
> we watched the building collapse.oops, wrong building.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:45:09 -0400, "justcron"
<justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
>"rick" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55858 is a reply to message #55856] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 11:51 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
l68@hotmail.com" target="_blank">parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vj0gd114bargo268d2v7g7r6dcktr9mk57@4ax.com...
>> the buildings simply failed due to their structural design. being
>> exoskeletal in nature they did not have the internal strength of the
>> old school (empire state) construction. with no center support to
>> speak of the floors joists fatigued from the heat and collapsed inward
>> on the stairwells.
>
>I think that could be possible.. That is how the big towers collapsed.
>Regarding WTC7, I dont really see anything that would be generating heat.
>No glow.. no smoke, etc. Heres another vid.
>
> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_col lapse.mpg
>
>
>I really appreciate everyone talking about this...
>First, let me say that, you acting superior while posting a
pack of lies is bad enough, but, your calling people names is
unacceptable.
"Jef Knight" <"Jef Knight"> wrote:
>The idea that you should keep killing "them" before they kill you is is
>pretty sociopathic I think.
Thanks for the analysis. Sure it isn't bipolar, or perhaps paranoid
schizophrenic, or maybe just ADD?
Them is the enemy, not the shopkeepers. The suicide bombers,
the foreign terrorists, the state sponsors of terrorism. They are
knowable, and they are killable.
>Please remember a few important things about
>the "war".
Oh, this will be good. I know it will be real informed with "so"
"many" "ironic" "quotes"....
>Let's start with "them". The dehumanizing of others is an important
>diagnostic point in the evalutation of pathological personality
>disorders. Underlying this is the idea that one is not harming a
>"person" but a "thing" or "non-person". It allows the ego to remain
>intact while performing otherwise unthinkable actions.
You obviously do not know any soldiers. Despite understanding
that the ghouls must be killed, and understanding that they are
indeed, ghouls, our soldiers pay a terrible price for doing the
unthinkable, precisely because they are not able to completely
depersonalize them. Only to have you call them pathological...
Pathetic. And of course, the actions of the ghouls are not
pathogical in Jef-land at all, They are understandable, maybe even
noble! Maybe they are even like the minutmen!
>But who are "them"?. For the most part they are normal, everyday
>famillies like yours and mine. Shop keepers, TV reparimen, gas station
>attendants, secretaries....who only want to live freely, in peace,
BWAA HAHH AHHA HHHHAAAA!
Oh that's good. Do you screenwrite for Michael Moore?
They are foreigners who come into places like Fallujah and kill
anyone who looks like they may desire freedom, take over the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55863 is a reply to message #55857] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:06 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
r the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea
> that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a
> distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was
> planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job
to
> destroy the entire WTC complex.
>
>All of this is addressed in the PM article. Read it.
DC
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>I know you guys kinda shoot the messenger regarding PBS... but seriously
my
>dad is as hardcore conservative as it gets, and he's never once disagreed
>with any reporting done by PBS.
>
>"Pulling" Building 7
>A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an
>interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry
>Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:
>
> 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." And they made that decision to pull and we watched
>the building collapse.
>
>This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the
>building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull
>it" in this context apparently means to demolish the building. This
>interpretation is supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the
>same documentary:
>
> ... we're getting ready to pull the building six.
>
>Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC
>complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.
>
>An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it"
>refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according
to
>FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7,
so
>there would not have been any firefighters to "pull".
>
>That Silverstein would admit that officials intentionally demolished
>Building 7 is bizarre for a number of reasons. Silverstein Properties Inc.
>had already won an $861 million claim for the loss of the building in a
>terrorist incident. FEMA's report states that the cause of building's
>collapse was fires. Presumably FEMA and the insurance company would be
>interested in knowing if the building was instead demolished by the FDNY.
>Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space
>of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that
>demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke.
>
>A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs
in
>the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to
>confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting
>that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an
>alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for
>demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan
>to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people,
>who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled
>demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of
the
>collapse, nor the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea
>that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a
>distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was
>planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job
to
>destroy the entire WTC complex.
>
>"jus
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55865 is a reply to message #55858] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:11 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
k">animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42d808c6@linux...
> > .........not partisan at all. This would imply something totally
different
> > to my dislike of Dan Rather and Michael Moore......because they
represent
> > themselves to be unbiased documentarians and they aren't. Plain and
> > simple.
>
> Fair enough if thats what you believe. I mean personally I watched
Bowling
> for Columbine and I thought it was incredibly balanced.
>
> > As much of a whacko as I think he is, if some edtorial commentator
(which
> > is
> > what Rather became before leaving in disgrace) came out with a photo op
of
> > Ted Kennedy taking a roadside sobriety test, I'd doubt that too because
> > I'd
> > have to consider the source before all else.
>
> I honestly never followed Dan Rather enough to notice his bias. It's
> annoying as hell that all 'journalists' spin the story their own way.
>
> > This is ample reason for me to dismiss the credibility of Rather/CBS. I
> > will, however, backtrack a bit here and admit that my first assumption
was
> > that this story *originated* with CBS/Rather. If so, then I'll not
remove
> > the plate of crow from the oven. If not, then I'll might put it on the
> > table
> > and take a bite. Where did this story originate?
>
> thats a difficult question to answer. Rather's only involvement was doing
> the news that day and commenting "That looks like what we've all seen when
a
> building is destroyed by well placed dynamite" a simple observation,
one
> which I have shared, and one which you are willing to dismiss due to the
> source.
>
> It's typical to shoot the messenger when they dont agree with you.
>
>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d80a04$1@linux...
>
> All of this is addressed in the PM article. Read it.
PM: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said
there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the
benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working
hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the
FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there
was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's
Sunder tells PM. "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." NIST also discovered previously undocumented
damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Response: Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out?
The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not
show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.
Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper,
traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to
his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He
took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he
ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?
-----------
PM: NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact
proportion requires more research.
Response: Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7?
The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because a
few investi
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55866 is a reply to message #55858] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:09 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gators believe something, that does not make it true. They need
evidence to support their beliefs.
-----------
PM: Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed
by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators.
Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the
fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized
line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized
line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
Response: How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other
offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a supply
pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel frame
with concrete floors, the fire could not travel to other offices. So how
could such an insignificant fire bring down an entire skyscraper?none of these are my words... just a published 'debunking' of the popular
mechanics article:
> PM: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which
> said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse.
> With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support
> the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling
> debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found
> was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building
> 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "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." NIST also discovered previously
> undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
>
> Response: Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped
> out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet
> do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken
> windows.
>
> Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper,
> traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According
> to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m..
> He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would
> he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?
> -----------
> PM: NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
> structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact
> proportion requires more research.
>
> Response: Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7?
> The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because
> a few investigators believe something, that does not make it true. They
> need evidence to support their beliefs.
> -----------
> PM: Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
> firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was
> fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency
> generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a
> generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement
> via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is
> that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long
> period of time."
>
> Response: How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other
> offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a
> supply pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55869 is a reply to message #55864] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:21 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
s now support the
working
> hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the
> FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there
> was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's
> Sunder tells PM. "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." NIST also discovered previously undocumented
> damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
>
> Response: Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped
out?
> The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not
> show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.
>
> Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper,
> traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According
to
> his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He
> took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he
> ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?
> -----------
> PM: NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
> structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact
> proportion requires more research.
>
> Response: Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7?
> The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because
a
> few investigators believe something, that does not make it true. They need
> evidence to support their beliefs.
> -----------
> PM: Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
> firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was
fed
> by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency
generators.
> Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on
the
> fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a
pressurized
> line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this
pressurized
> line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
>
> Response: How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other
> offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a
supply
> pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel frame
> with concrete floors, the fire could not travel to other offices. So how
> could such an insignificant fire bring down an entire skyscraper?
>
>&quo
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55870 is a reply to message #55866] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:20 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>heres a decent pic of the facade of WTC7. It looks like about 1% of the
>face is damaged.
Are you sure that pic isn't the conspiracy? If that's showing a
damaged WTC-7, and was taken on that day, then why are the
streets so empty? Where are all the people & rescue vehcles, etc?
You sure that pic doesn't haepen to be one taken earlier time &
then Photoshopped??
Seriosuly - I was hoping to see something interesting there, but
the complete absence of any activity on the streets makes me
think it can't be 9/11.
Neilits a reasonable question, but something tells me you're just being a
comedian again.
Everyone ran away and everything is covered in that nasty dust.
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d81296$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>heres a decent pic of the facade of WTC7. It looks like about 1% of the
>
>>face is damaged.
>
> Are you sure that pic isn't the conspiracy? If that's showing a
> damaged WTC-7, and was taken on that day, then why are the
> streets so empty? Where are all the people & rescue vehcles, etc?
>
> You sure that pic doesn't haepen to be one taken earlier time &
> then Photoshopped??
>
> Seriosuly - I was hoping to see something interesting there, but
> the complete absence of any activity on the streets makes me
> think it can't be 9/11.
>
> Neil
>Closest I've ever come to being able to control what a woman does.
;o)
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cuvfd154m65nmboued0lrhk181gvqprrle@4ax.com...
> damn, if she just doesn't remind me of a girl i never knew. i do
> remember bouncing like that during a couple of mult-story falls as a
> carpenter...but eventually i hit the ground and stopped bouncing.
>
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:45:11 -0600, "Mr Simplicity"
> <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.izpitera.ru/lj/tetka.swf
> >
> >
> >"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >news:Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55871 is a reply to message #55870] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:24 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
lank">42d7f51c@linux...
> >> Thank Aaron for this.
> >>
> >> ;o)
> >>
> >>
> >
>nice I found a close up and another one that corroborates the earlier pic.
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>Fair enough if thats what you believe. I mean personally I watched Bowling
>for Columbine and I thought it was incredibly balanced.
It wasn't. For whatever reason, that guy cannot tell the truth.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
DC"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d81631$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
>
>>Fair enough if thats what you believe. I mean personally I watched
>>Bowling
>
>>for Columbine and I thought it was incredibly balanced.
>
>
> It wasn't. For whatever reason, that guy cannot tell the truth.
>
> http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
>
> http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
I dunno... I dont have any animosity to MM personally, or anyone for that
matter. Theres literally no journalist or whatever that I would call out
by name and say they're 100% full of shite."justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>none of these are my words... just a published 'debunking' of the popular
>mechanics article:
Unfortunately, this material diputes the PM article, but does not
debunk it because it contains no evidence, only speculation.
I believe the structural guys. The bottom line with conspiracies
is that there is no way to ever convince the believers that there was
no conspiracy. This goes for Kennedy, Lincoln, WTC7 and the
Illuminati, and you name it. You have to believe someone.
I believe the structural engineers.
have a great weekend.
DCI noticed you stopped responding substansially a few posts ago...
I believe the structural engineers too.
Still waiting for those photos amigo.
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d81dde$1@linux...<
|
|
|
|
| Re: WTC 7 [message #55872 is a reply to message #55870] |
Fri, 15 July 2005 12:27 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>none of these are my words... just a published 'debunking' of the popular
>
>>mechanics article:
>
> Unfortunately, this material diputes the PM article, but does not
> debunk it because it contains no evidence, only speculation.
>
> I believe the structural guys. The bottom line with conspiracies
> is that there is no way to ever convince the believers that there was
> no conspiracy. This goes for Kennedy, Lincoln, WTC7 and the
> Illuminati, and you name it. You have to believe someone.
>
> I believe the structural engineers.
>
> have a great weekend.
>
> DC
>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d81dde$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>none of these are my words... just a published 'debunking' of the popular
>
>>mechanics article:
>
> Unfortunately, this material diputes the PM article, but does not
> debunk it because it contains no evidence, only speculation.
BTW, you'll note I put 'debunk' in quotes.
Regarding evidence, it is an alternate view OF the evidence."justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>I noticed you stopped responding substansially a few posts ago...
Well heck, I need to do SOME work...
>
>I believe the structural engineers too.
>
>Still waiting for those photos amigo.
As soon as i get 'em.
DC"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>Regarding evidence, it is an alternate view OF the evidence.
Actually it's mostly speculation about the size of tanks and
the rate of leaks and what a fire could do. The facts are available
unless they believe that everyone is covering up.
DC"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d822c4$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Regarding evidence, it is an alternate view OF the evidence.
>
> Actually it's mostly speculation about the size of tanks and
> the rate of leaks and what a fire could do. The facts are available
> unless they believe that everyone is covering up.
The PM article and the response article share the same evidence."justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>The PM article and the response article share the same evidence.
then why didn't the reposnse article get the details about the fuel oil?
Where it was, how much, where the impacts were, the size of the fire, the
way the design of the building affected the collapse etc.
I realize I have an advantage here, knowing someone who was
there and knows the details, but I don't they they did their
homework before postulating a cove
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 09 20:48:57 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03955 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
