So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[FromWayDowntown]

What world do you live in? Poll after poll has shown that the world thinks the official govt. 911 story is a farce.

]

I understand that people believe that there are parts of the story they're not being told, but I don't think that polling data to that effect implies that the larger world view of 9/11 has strayed much from 19 guys hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

[mookie2001]

I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed -- because most of the world isn't looking around for some opportunity to scream conspiracy. Most of the world believes (and with good reason, I think) that a well-organized group of 19 Muslim young men decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, causing unprecedented and catostrophic damage to those buildings and others which were in close proximity.

1. whats the other part?

I want a story from the government regarding building 7, an official story, an official explanation
I want a story from the news networks


2. I completely agree with the last part

naturally

[FromWayDowntown]

Then why has Dubya classified so much info regarding the towers collapse? what's to hide? Doesn't that help feed conspiracy theories? Where's the NIST report, it's been 6 years.

Who knows? You assume that it implicates the government in some conspiracy -- though you still won't explain the elements of such a conspiracy. That the information is classified (for whatever reason) doesn't suggest to me (or to many others) that the classified information will reveal a conspiracy.

And curious still, to me, that you haven't fessed up to being wrong about the fires on the north face of WTC 7.

[FromWayDowntown]

1. whats the other part?

I want a story from the government regarding building 7, an official story, an official explanation
I want a story from the news networks

Sorry -- wrong choice of words. I should have said "the reason."

I'm not sure why the government would be terribly concerned with the failure of building 7. The government's concern with the failure of buildings 1 and 2 was largely to determine how people died and whether the efforts to save those who were in those buildings could have been conducted more efficiently. Beyond those questions, as far as I can see, there is really very little reason from a pragmatic standpoint to necessitate a governmentally-sponsored engineering investigation into how those buildings failed.

And since nobody died in building 7, the justifications for undertaking such an investigation with regard to that building are simply not there. The fate of Building 7 holds meaning mostly to those who choose to believe in conspiracies.

I'm not sure why the media needs to investigate Building 7, either. But, perhaps you can write to the ombudsmen at the various news outlets and suggest that you'd be interested in seeing an investigative report on that subject; maybe someone will find merit in that suggestion and sate your desire.

[mookie2001]

thanks for trying to answer the question though

[Nbadan]

Who knows? You assume that it implicates the government in some conspiracy -- though you still won't explain the elements of such a conspiracy. That the information is classified (for whatever reason) doesn't suggest to me (or to many others) that the classified information will reveal a conspiracy.

And curious still, to me, that you haven't fessed up to being wrong about the fires on the north face of WTC 7.

Doesn't matter if it does or not, much like the controversy surrounding Gonzo the longer he stays quiet about the attorney's firings the worst it's gonna look for him once his truth does come out. In this case, conspiracy theorists are having a field day because the Bush administration has never created any non-partisan Engineer and Scientific investigative en y to conclusive study and present with facts, the collapse of WTC7.

[Nbadan]

Mookie, everytime a 'credible' news outfit attempts to do a investigative report on 911 or WTC7 it gets killed by the news desk.

[mookie2001]

well it happened 5 years ago, and nobody cares about wtc7, except thousands and thousands of americans

[Nbadan]

best en book ever.

[ChumpDumper]

And curious still, to me, that you haven't fessed up to being wrong about the fires on the north face of WTC 7.

[mookie2001]

best en book ever.

Carroll Quigley Tragedy and Hope or the 911 Commission Report?

Can you imagine wtc 7 collapsing in a "cleaner", "quicker", more efficient way?


Would not the government give us an official story?, would not the liberal media give us a theory?, would not it get mentioned ONCE on cablenews, network news after september 12th 2001 until now?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, yeah. I can.

I would also have to wonder why WTC7 would have to be brought down in only a semi-controlled fashion. Why would anyone who doesn't mind killing two or three thousand people give a crap about sparing the Verizon building?

Unless you're saying Verizon did it....

http://www.debunking911.com/b7verizon2.jpg

[whottt]

Unless you're saying Verizon did it....

Well...he definitely wants us to hear him.

When you want to build the nations most complete cellular network...sacrifices have to be made.

[mookie2001]

Well, yeah. I can.

would it vanish or what?

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, it wouldn't have piled up against Verizon at all or fallen toward the south were it perfect.

Now answer my question:

I would also have to wonder why WTC7 would have to be brought down in only a semi-controlled fashion. Why would anyone who doesn't mind killing two or three thousand people give a crap about sparing the Verizon building?

[Phenomanul]

Look, even if you believe that fire brought down WTC7, the speed in which the structure collapsed was free-fall, that means that there was a total and complete and simultaneous collapse of all the support columns and all at the same time.

Not necessarily true... How much resistance would you expect failed floors to exert on the rest of the falling structure? The facade of the building could have fallen appreciably faster than the internal support columns and were that the case we wouldn't be able to confirm that theory from the available video takes of the collapse. After all, we can only see what occured to outside of the building. The flip side is that the support columns could have crumbled before the s of the building followed suit. Again, no existing video clips of the collapse can confirm or debunk either theory because internal footage of the collapse, the 'smoking gun' element in this argument, does not exist...

[mookie2001]

did they give a crap about it? I think wtc 7 was controlled demolition, I think 1 and 2 had explosives and thermite


I know you cant see the molten unaccounted for substance spilling out, or that wtc 7 was brought down, but hey I'll watch that discovery channel show, at least the part about where the arab men flew planes into the wtc will be correct

[ChumpDumper]

Not necessarily true... How much resistance would you expect failed floors to exert on the rest of the falling structure? The facade of the building could have fallen appreciably faster than the internal support columns and were that the case we wouldn't be able to confirm that theory from the available video takes of the collapse. After all, we can only see what occured to outside of the building. The flip side is that the support columns could have crumbled before the s of the building followed suit. Again, no existing video clips of the collapse can confirm or debunk either theory because internal footage of the collapse, the 'smoking gun' element in this argument, does not exist...

Even in the videos that are available, one can easily see the east mechanical penthouse falling into the building first. It's not simultaneous. Definitely not because the north wall ends up folding over the debris pile. How can it be simultaneous if one wall falls faster than another?

[ChumpDumper]

did they give a crap about it? I think wtc 7 was controlled demolition, I think 1 and 2 had explosives and thermite

Why would it be controlled? What is the purpose of controlling the collapse of three skyscrapers when all one would have to do is knock off a good chunk of each to declare a total loss?

I know you cant see the molten unaccounted for substance spilling out, or that wtc 7 was brought down, but hey I'll watch that discovery channel show, at least the part about where the arab men flew planes into the wtc will be correct

I have seen the substance spilling out. I've seen every link that has been thrown at me in these threads, so I don't know why you would assume I haven't. We've all been telling each other we're not mechanical engineers, so I looked around and found a guy who at least claims to be a mechanical engineer, and has appeared to have written more than a couple of items regarding metals. He had been asked "several times" to comment on a picture of the flowing molten material, and he took the time to weigh in on the matter a couple of years ago. After a brief but pretty detailed analysis he concludes:

"The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."

http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85

The board is still open to new members, and he does have a contact form as well -- so if you have any questions about it you can ask him. Let me know how it goes.

http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=register

http://stephenchastain.com/contact.htm

I await your next change of subject.

[sabar]

The sheer logistics and faith required to keep this conspiracy plausible are so far-fethched that the conspiracy should invalidate itself on the premise that a conspiracy is born when the accepted truth doesn't add up; the conspiracy itself is filled with more holes than the accepted explanation.

I'm still waiting on an explanation of keeping hundreds of conspirators silent. From the people on Interstate 395 and the Pentagon to the explosives experts that would have to lace the buildings with hundreds of pounds of demolitions, to the paper trails of the cruise missiles and demo parts.

Then there is the simple argument: what is the purpose of the controlled demolition? The guy uis going to collect insurance money anyways from massive fire damage regardless of collapse. A lop-sided collapse would actually be less su ious and cause more collateral damage -- aka support for the Iraq war (according to conspiracy). So why would you conspire to minimize casualties? Why would you conspire to leave behind even more evidence of your supposed conspiracy?

It just doesn't add up.

[Nbadan]

I would also have to wonder why WTC7 would have to be brought down in only a semi-controlled fashion. Why would anyone who doesn't mind killing two or three thousand people give a crap about sparing the Verizon building?

Think of it this way Chumper. Giuliani's emergency command and control center was in building WTC7. Reinforced concrete blast columns, reinforced blast-proof glass and probably a lot of secret modifications we don't even know about. Any plotters could have conceivable thought that WTC7 could be brought down after Towers 1 and 2, to use as a control center for the attacks and then demolish and purge any evidence of evil-doing.

[Nbadan]

Even in the videos that are available, one can easily see the east mechanical penthouse falling into the building first. It's not simultaneous. Definitely not because the north wall ends up folding over the debris pile. How can it be simultaneous if one wall falls faster than another?

it's the internal columns that fall first Chump, that's why in the videos the top penthouse appears to be collapsing into the rest of the building. Had the outer support failed first the collapse would not have been as catastrophic.

[Nbadan]

]

I understand that people believe that there are parts of the story they're not being told, but I don't think that polling data to that effect implies that the larger world view of 9/11 has strayed much from 19 guys hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

No, they do. The government story has so many holes, but the biggest is what happened to WTC7. We have also not been told everything about Muhammed Atta and the rest of the 18 hijackers, stuff the rest of the world knows, but is blacked out by the M$M here in the U.S... I have alluded to this possibility in many of my previous posts on this topic.

[Nbadan]

"The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."

Aluminun oxides aren't gonna cause steel beams to fail Chuck. There may have been some present from the planes, but it doesn't explain how thick steel girders appear to be cut in a angle caused by thermite in a controlled demolition.

[xrayzebra]

dan, you can rest easy my man. You have Rosie ODonald on your
side and she is an expert this area, I'm sure. Of course you like
her keep forgetting one thing. F I R E melts and weaken's steel.
That's how it is made you know.