9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Discussion in '9/11' started by phoenyx, Feb 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You didn't source that quote to a publication, but it's been a long time since I've been in this thread, so I decided I'd go looking for it myself. I found it here:
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

    Anyway, I went to take a look at a summary of the Con Ed vs WTC case. I found the following:
    **Although Con Ed proffered expert reports opining on how various design features of 7WTC could have been modified to withstand collapse, the court found them to be too speculative to avoid judgment against it. It also observed that none of the expert reports addressed the interaction between the identified building weaknesses and the severity of the cataclysm that happened on September 11, 2001. This failure to connect the alleged negligence to the events of that day rendered the expert reports too speculative and conjectural to create any issues of fact, the court concluded.**

    Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-4403/11-4403-2013-12-04.html

    Ultimately, even NIST discredited this theory. Popular mechanics summarized NIST's findings, along with its replacement of this theory with another implausible theory that it passed off as fact:
    **The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."**

    Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

    I decided to click on the link myself, and found that I too couldn't access the content this way. There is a workaround, however, namely the way I got access to the content in the first place. You basically have to google it first. Here's a link that should work, using this method:
    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...E5Dd_cpjC9orYcN_w&sig2=ABcF8zkDoYel3KgURq_yQw

    If not, just google "World Trade Center Disaster Initial Response" and click on the first link that comes up.
     
  2. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who are "they"?

    The article doesn't mention that they had a meeting, only that they both agreed, and makes no mention as to when that agreement occurred. I'll quote the relevant portion of the article:
    **Of all the adjacent buildings, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street, presented the greatest threat of collapse. It hovered over the debris field on which hundreds of firefighters searched. It was heavily damaged and involved in fire. It is believed these fires occurred in part because the Port Authority, against the recommendations of the fire department, had placed aboveground tanks of diesel fuel&#8212;a 42,000-gallon tank at ground level and three 275-gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh, and eight floors&#8212;inside the building, underneath transfer beams that allowed the high-rise to be constructed above an electrical substation. Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires, which were on the lower floors and burned for hours. In interviews, several FDNY officers on the scene said they were not aware of combustible liquid pool fires in the building.

    Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed.
    **

    As mentioned in my previous post here, you should now be able to access the article via the following link:
    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...E5Dd_cpjC9orYcN_w&sig2=ABcF8zkDoYel3KgURq_yQw
     
  3. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my search for a credible source for Blues' quote of Fire Commander Frank Cruthers, I found not only Blues' quote, but also some other things that firefighters and EMT workers have said concerning explosions, including Frank Cruthers. Here is a sampling:
    **Explosions

    Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories

    The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on this page describe perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where noted otherwise.


    Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
    We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
    Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times

    Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
    So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
    Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

    Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
    We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
    ...
    We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.
    Interview, , New York Times

    Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
    Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
    Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times

    Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
    It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
    Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times

    Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
    There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in time.
    Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times

    Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
    I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
    ...
    You did hear the explosions [when the North Tower came down]. Of course after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it.
    Interview, 01/25/02, New York Times

    Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
    I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
    Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
    ...
    North Tower:
    We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
    Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times

    Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
    And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
    Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times
    **

    Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Popular Mechanics ran with the diesel fuel fire myth and never changed that story despite the fact that NIST did.

    The second of these two contributing factors, according to the PM article, was a hypothetical seven-hour, diesel-fueled fire on the fifth floor.

    Sunder told Popular Mechanics that this fifth-floor fire lasted up to seven hours, but the whole story was wishful thinking on his part.

    Here's how Sunder apparently arrived at this fanciful conclusion: WTC 7's fifth floor had four emergency generators in a room on the northeast corner, in the vicinity of column 79. These generators were fueled by two large diesel tanks in the basement. Sunder speculated, unjustifiably, that the pressurized fuel line linking the tanks to the generators broke and that this break fed a long-lasting fire that somehow started in the generator room (as reviewed in PART 2). It would seem that Sunder was propagating this myth even though it contradicted the data in his own 2004 report. In fact, a previous AE911Truth article has demonstrated that certain information in NIST's 2004 report had ruled out the possibility that a diesel-fuel fire could have been a factor in WTC 7's demise. Moreover, at no time were there any eyewitness reports or photographs of fire on the fifth floor, so there never was any reason to think there may have been a fire there.

    NIST finally publicly conceded this fact in a December 2007 summary statement: "The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks." [Emphasis added.]

    This point cannot be made strongly enough: The 2005 article in Popular Mechanics helped NIST propagate obvious falsities that contradicted the data in NIST's own 2004 preliminary report.

    In short, NIST's fairy tales about these two contributing factors to the collapse — the trusses and a diesel fire — were clearly as ill-founded as the story about the non-existent 10-story gouge.


    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/206-news-media-events-4-of-6-nist-fraud-4.html
     
  5. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The article you quoted me quoting was from Popular Mechanics though- clearly they did eventually change their tune.

    Yeah, a bunch of rubbish, but lots of official story supporters still go for it.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've had many discussions where an OCT defender would quote PM as an authoritative source. In many ways NIST & PM collaborated in the propaganda. Example:

    Incredibly, when asked about the 2005 article, Popular Mechanics editor/researcher Davin Coburn could not have been telling the truth when he told Charles Goyette in a 2006 radio interview that he had seen photos of the 10-story gouge, even though they were never produced and "the gouge" claim was abandoned:

    Coburn: "When the North Tower collapsed... there was damage to Building 7.... What we found out was... about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it.... We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate...."

    Charles: "Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them."

    Davin: "Correct."


    http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...illed-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    no gouge and simple office fires? ... how old was the building? ... was it built exactly to code? ... no shortcuts? ...

    still no hard evidence of CD ... please explain Bob ... or Tony? ...

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

    I'm sure the New York City building department was not on the take at all when these buildings were going up ... developers cut corners ... I see it all the time as a 558 engineer here in Miami ...

    quit dancing and show me evidence (any kind of evidence) of CD ... other than "It looks like a classic CD" ...

    push/pull beam 79 whatever ... posit something else that support your CD theories ...

    and all of you "truthers" discount the damage to the foundations of the buildings that collapsed ... get real ...
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what NIST claims.

    What does that have to do with what PM claims and what NIST claims?

    What does that have to do with what PM claims and what NIST claims? But as an aside, where's the "hard evidence" of a total collapse by fire/planes or both?

    What does that have to do with what PM claims and what NIST claims?

    What does that have to do with what PM claims and what NIST claims? But as an aside, show me the evidence (any kind of evidence) of a total collapse by fire, other than "It looks like a classic total collapse by fire". Oh wait, there is no such thing. Can't say the same about a CD, it happens almost all the time.

    What does that have to do with what PM claims and what NIST claims? I don't need any theory to know the OCT is a fraud, it's so obvious.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    What does that have to do with what PM claims and what NIST claims?

    Come back when you understand what the discussion is about.
     
  9. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, this started with a statement of yours, not with a question. Look at the quotes above to see the entire progression. You stated "No-one knew that 1WTC would strike 7WTC". I asked you how you knew, and you said you didn't. So why did you state that no one knew it would happen? Another thing to consider is that buildings much closer to the Twin Towers didn't collapse, despite suffering a lot more damage from debris. Why do you suppose that is? We're not talking a little bit of damage to some of the closest buildings, but a lot. Here's a picture from wikipedia:
    [​IMG]

    Where are you getting this notion that the collapse of the South Tower was directed toward 7WTC?

    I agree it would have been difficult if not impossible for the charges to have been placed -during- the attack at WTC 7.

    I believe the charges were set off at remote control, not by debris. There would have been no way of hiding that WTC 7 was demolished without atleast -some- debris hitting it from the Twin Towers, but that was pretty much guaranteed so long as the Twin Towers collapsed. The thing is, it only works on people who don't think it through- the damage from debris was fairly minimal compared to damage to buildings closer to the Twin Towers, as shown in the picture above of buildings that were closer yet did not collapse.

    If the Twin Towers didn't collapse, they could have simply not detonated the charges via remote control.
     
  10. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Come on, no one makes the typo of typing in "engineer" instead of "demolition expert" :p. Not only that, but you were going on about Gage duping Jowenko with questions, even though the person interviewing him wasn't Gage but a dutch filmmaker, in Denmark.

    What evidence might that be?

    What gives you the idea that Jowenko's dismissal of a fire-induced collapse was "simplistic"? The guy was a demolition expert of 30 years. Are you even a demolition expert?

    He doesn't need to. That's already been done by many others, including Steven Jones in the following article:
    http://physics911.ca/stevenjones
     
  11. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,122
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Post limit thread closure

    Shangrila
    Moderator
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page