WTC7 again.

**MadPict** · 01-Mar-07, 11:10

There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?

HOW do you know that is steel? There is ±124,500lbs of 737 in that building. That could be the aircraft metal components/fuselage melting. It could be aluminium in the building melting (ventilation ducts, fixtures and fittings).

Have you tested the molten 'metal' which poured out? HOW do you know for certain that is steel? Are you able to deduce purely from a shaky video shot from 100's of yards away from your countless years experience as a metal worker that there is molten steel in that flow?

No, didn't think so.......

BTW J4bberw0ck, your Clique membership certificate is in the post....

**j4bberw0ck** · 01-Mar-07, 13:03

Thanks, MadPict - the aluminium alloy from the plane is exactly what I'm getting at. The video was taken not long after the plane impacted, by the look of it, since there's only one area of damage to the building. As to "white hot" - maybe, maybe not; but isn't oxidation (a heat releasing reaction, if I remember right) as hot / molten metal hits a high speed stream of air outside the building a credible explanation?

As for my Clique certificate, I'll enjoy it; thank you. I mistrust politicians and the people behind them who influence and cajole as much as the next man, and more than most, but I'm forced time and time again to looking at this whole thing on a "balance of probabilities" basis - what evidence is there that insurance money or being able to declare war on <insert Arab or Muslim country of choice> led a clique of the US power structure to kill 3000 people?

Haven't these people ever heard of doing something simply? Like inventing WMD, which I concede with some sadness as evidence of the stupidity of government?

Hansen's Razor: don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Darkman, apologies if I caused offence but your point, in isolation, made no sense at all. Context, however, makes it look as though you did indeed mean exactly what you said. All governments have a track record of some sort when it comes to abusing their members of their populations, even those models of cosy "liberalism" and good will, the Swedes and the Canadians.

Since I'm not privy to your thought processes, context is all there is to make a judgement, which I did. And if you're NOT saying it was a deliberate act, what are you saying?

You appear to be accusing me of naivete when you're happy to conclude that:

- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that insurance money wasn't the motive for 9/11.

Hmmmmm....... following the logic, we could equally say:

- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that a secret clique of hygienists, wanting to use the heat from the fires to kill all the nasty bugs and bacteria in the WTC, wasn't the motive for 9/11.

Wow. Must Google that one!

**darkman** · 01-Mar-07, 13:30

Originally Posted by j4bberw0ck

You appear to be accusing me of naivete when you're happy to conclude that:

- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that insurance money wasn't the motive for 9/11.

I believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat, I did not say that insurance money was the reason for 911.

Originally Posted by j4bberw0ck

Hmmmmm....... following the logic, we could equally say:

- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that a secret clique of hygienists, wanting to use the heat from the fires to kill all the nasty bugs and bacteria in the WTC, wasn't the motive for 9/11.

Fools logic and sarcasm seem to sit very well with you.

**MadPict** · 01-Mar-07, 14:14

Originally Posted by roy

...we do not have enough information about the fire and/or explosions to make an educated assumption about what melted at what temperature and so on. There is no way for you to know the insulation was burned off except for an hour long Discovery channel documentary based on one sided hypotheses that said it did. All we really have is eyewitness accounts & a few samples of the molten steel as remember, they dragged away all the evidence before anyone could investigate it properly. Precisely why we do not even see an entire paragraph devoted to what happened to WTC7 in the Commission Report.

So structural engineers explanations that if the insulation is dislodged it severely impacts on the ability of the steel girders to resist fire is all hogwash?

The scenario of a fully laden jet airliner actually crashing into a skyscraper had never happened before. The last time a plane flew into a building in NY it was 1945 and that was a B25 bomber returning from the UK.
Since then it has always been a worse case scenario for designers and engineers.

Maybe WTC7 did not feature in the 9/11 Commision because no-one died in that collapse and it was not actually hit by the two aircraft?

The term "pull" seems to have caught on amongst the CT brigade - it was explained that the word "pull" was used to mean withdraw the Firefighters from WTC7 - not to pull the building down.

Pull them out?

And why would Silverstein, who as far as I am aware is not in the demolition business, use a term which is alleged to be used only in the demolition business? Perhaps this billionaire moonlights as a powder monkey for a demolition company?

All grist to the CT mill I expect.....

**j4bberw0ck** · 01-Mar-07, 14:50

Tell you what, darkman; since

Originally Posted by darkman

Fools logic and sarcasm seem to sit very well with you.

can you explain why you

Originally Posted by darkman

... believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat

as opposed to the view that it fell down because of consequential damage?

Seems to me to be an almost perfect example of sophism, but I'm always happy to be shown how I've got it wrong.

Sarcasm, by the way, is a recognised tool of debate, especially useful in highlighting the ludicrous; but if you're upset by it, I'll bear that in mind. As for fool's logic, it's not me who said the building was pulled down for the insurance. I thought it fell down because the other two towers fell down and caused damage. But as I said, I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways.

(I have this picture in my mind of Fred Dibnah sitting on the pile of rubble that was the WTC, flask of coffee in hand, watching with satisfaction as the fire he built in a big hole in the wall of Tower 7 eats inexorably into that big 10"x10" timber he cunningly propped up the front of the building with.....). It's at least as likely as people running round setting fires and bombs while the whole area was crawling with emergency services.

**Rheghead** · 01-Mar-07, 15:27

I have just been reading an eyewitness account from the Fire Chief and he said that WTC7 was on fire for quite sometime before it collapsed around 5pm. They could not fight the fire because of the lack of water so they decided to let it burn to the ground so they 'pulled' their firemen away from WTC7 to deal with other situations that they could deal with.

If it was blown up then why was it on fire?

Oh, I know, it must have been incendiary devices eh?

**darkman** · 01-Mar-07, 15:32

[j4bberw0ck can you explain why you believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat as opposed to the view that it fell down because of consequential damage?

Seems to me to be an almost perfect example of sophism, but I'm always happy to be shown how I've got it wrong.

Sarcasm, by the way, is a recognised tool of debate, especially useful in highlighting the ludicrous; but if you're upset by it, I'll bear that in mind. As for fool's logic, it's not me who said the building was pulled down for the insurance. I thought it fell down because the other two towers fell down and caused damage. But as I said, I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways.

(I have this picture in my mind of Fred Dibnah sitting on the pile of rubble that was the WTC, flask of coffee in hand, watching with satisfaction as the fire he built in a big hole in the wall of Tower 7 eats inexorably into that big 10"x10" timber he cunningly propped up the front of the building with.....). It's at least as likely as people running round setting fires and bombs while the whole area was crawling with emergency services.

Sarcasm is hardly an apt tool for debate, if you disagree with something someone has said then debate with your own reasoning why my argument is implausible or ludicrous, 'they wouldn't do that' just doesn't cut it.
You second scenario had a very tenuous link with sophism to say the least but let's not get into your use of rhetoric.
Have you ever heard of a fire before 911 that has ever caused a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse.
There were obviously extreme circumstances involving wtc1 & 2 but wtc7 is a different case altogether, it was not hit by an aircraft and there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:

Silverstein 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."

Doesn't seem like an order to pull firefighters out, does it?

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Didn't collapse.

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Didn't collapse.

Originally Posted by roy

Well, considering it would've been the first steel framed building to ever collapse from fire alone I would've thought every structural engineer in the world would've wanted a thorough investigation?

Exactly.

**Rheghead** · 01-Mar-07, 15:43

Originally Posted by darkman

there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:

Didn't collapse.

Didn't collapse.

As I said, the Chief of Fire on the ground said WTC7 was engulfed in flames and was on fire for quite some time before it collapsed. They let it burn to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

**MadPict** · 01-Mar-07, 15:45

What buildings in Glasgow rise to the same heights as WTC or were constructed in EXACTLY the same way?
What was the height of this building in Glasgow?
Did they use 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel?
Did they fly a 737 into the core of this building?
Did they weaken the building in a way to simulate impact by a jet aircraft travelling at 300mph and weighing 125,000lbs?
Was the grade of steel used the same as in the WTC?

If the answer to just one of those is "no" then you cannot use the professor's research to try and add to your argument.

Ahh, another You Tube entry.....

A voice off screen, answering a phone, says "Hello, we're getting ready to pull building 6" - so that could not have been edited into the clip? If someone wants to help these conspiracy theories by editing existing footage whats to stop them?.........

Those desperate to expose the US government as mass murderers will twist the media to make the story fit their warped theories.

**darkman** · 01-Mar-07, 15:50

Originally Posted by Rheghead

As I said, the Chief of Fire on the ground said WTC7 was engulfed in flames and was on fire for quite some time before it collapsed. They let it burn to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

There were lots of photographs taken over the period of time between the damage to wtc7 and it's collapse and none show evidence of fires severe enough to cause this worlds first.

**MadPict** · 01-Mar-07, 15:53

it was not hit by an aircraft and there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:

No, but it was hit by debris from the collapsing WTC which caused a huge hole to appear in the side of the building facing the WTC...

"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.

Most of the footage shown on YouTube or elsewhere is of the north side of the building...

...probably because no-one could film or photograph the side which had been hit.

Unless the demolition teams were creeping in that way....

Just noticed my Join Date - Sep 2001 - perhaps I am part of the conspiracy? Muahahahahaaa

**Rheghead** · 01-Mar-07, 15:55

Originally Posted by darkman

There were lots of photographs taken over the period of time between the damage to wtc7 and it's collapse and none show evidence of fires severe enough to cause this worlds first.

I am sure that I could find angle shots of the WTC1 and WTC2 during the time that they were on fire which would show to my eyes that both didn't have enough fire damage to cause a collapse. It is the difference between layman knowledge and expert knowledge, that is not a trolling sentence before anyone has a go btw.

Do you think that during the time that the fire chief saw the scene and made his assessments that he was delluded into thinking it was going to collapse even though it bore out his professional opinion in the end?

Or do you think he was in some form of conspiracy as well?

btw the more complicated a conspiracy gets to cover the facts the simpler it is to see that it is false.

**darkman** · 01-Mar-07, 15:57