Comments:

Flat Nested Threaded Embedded

Oldest First Newest First

Author

Thread:

Tyler

Responding to 911 e-mails in Green Posted: Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:02 PM (EST) Anyway, while I was busy doing nothing, the though came to me that IF > YOU ASSUME THAT WTC 7 WAS INTENTIONALLY DEMOLISHED THEN, EVEN WITH A > LAYMAN'S KNOWLEDGE, YOU COULD LOGICALLY: > 1. reconstruct different scenarios of how it was done (setting aside considerations of plausibility as per the assumption) I would be speculating, which is not the point.  I, nor does anyone in the truth movement, have any investigative powers to check these possibilities.  That a small group of black ops professionals could have gotten access and set the charges is possible.     > 2. determine what eyewitness would have seen and heard in each scenario   Eyewitnesses heard explosions on the lower floors (recent discovery)   The video of the speed on the collapse is as good as an eyewitness account.  Also, eyewitnesses knew it was coming down before the collapse.  How is that?  The building was not engulfed in flames, so the fire was not that intense and hydrocarbons cannot weaken steel enough to cause a complete collapse throughout the building.  There was never a fire fighting operation, so who would have observed the structure to make the assessment.  So how would anyone know it was coming down.  Even the writer of the New Yorker Magazine article, who character-assassinated the truthees, admitted that he was sitting outside WTC 7 next to a fireman who told him it was coming down.  The fireman could not have expertise, nor the knowledge to assess an imminent collapse when fires have not caused steel buildings to ever collapse.  So it must have been word of mouth.  Many knew it was coming down and even CNN reported over an hour too early that it collapsed.  So who knew it would collapse and spread the word?    > 3. determine what physical evidence would have been left in each  scenario   Under a CD, each of the beams would be severed and the pile would be a small pyramid based on the footprint of the building.  This is exactly what was found.   Under a collapse, even if it were possible for the fire to cause localized failures, the rest of the building would have maintained most of its structural framework.  The whole building would not have collapsed as it did, falling at freefall, i.e. without any resistance from unaffected floors and resulted in a small pile of debris. > > I leave it as an exercise to those so inclined to get the particulars of > the thought experiment. Strangely, or perhaps not, I have found no WTC 7 > researcher that has hit upon what 2 and 3 actually imply. > >  > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:47 PM > Subject: RE: WTC 7 collapse > > Now don't say I don't research your side Tyler. > > From prinsonplanet on 9/13/2007 "9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 > Demolition Countdown" > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm The Prison Planet links substantiate what I wrote above – foreknowledge of the collapse.  The CNN video even has a policemen saying WTC 7 was going to be blown up.  So again, how did anyone know ahead of time and two, why the vernacular blown up.  You can speculate someone might have improvised language and that was passed on, but that presumption would have to be proven.  Obviously there was foreknowledge.   > Interesting but first they quote "an anonymous EMT named Mike" > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm > who says "He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of > the towers helping injured victims when he saw 'One of the huge steel > and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the > center of it.' Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were > in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask 'how could > someone have rigged all these explosives?'...'We stood outside listening > to the explosions,' states Mike, 'One after the other, every minute or > so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot > or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just > before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then > numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt > the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just > the planes.'" > > Interesting no? Direct evidence. Then prison planet claims "That account > was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the > record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh". That account is > given here > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm. > The eyewitness is quoted as saying "SINGH: 'After midday on 9/11 we had > to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you > had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere > and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought > Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down > because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't > know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that > by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage > site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was > going to come down or be brought down.'...SINGH: 'The fire department. > And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for > us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to > us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy > over it I don't know.'" > > THAT IS NOT AT ALL A CONFIRMATION of the first story. Singh simply > confirms what we know that emergency workers were withdrawn before wWTC > 7 collapsed. > > Then prisonplanet claims "In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer > described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse." > The report is here > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm. > It is an interview with a Craig Bartmer. Read his interview. He says HE > THINKS HE HEARS A SERIES OF BOMBS AS HE RUNS AWAY FROM THE COLLAPSING > BUILDING!!! He was not in the building so HE WAS NOT TOLD TO GET OUT. > And apparently, they TOLD PEOPLE TO GET OUT BEFORE 'PULLING' IT BUT DID > NOT TELL THEM TO GET CLEAR!!! THIS IS NOT A CONFIRMAITION OF THE > PREVIOUS TWO STORIES. > > Then prisonplanet interviews Former Air Force Special Operations for > Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden who says "'We started asking > questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you > know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front > of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it > was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it > was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.'...' > But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this > heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to > bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that > - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together,' said > McPadden...McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the > building began to collapse." > > So McPaddon describes WHAT HE THINKS IS A RED CROSS REP COUNTING DOWN > THE DEMOLITION WHILE THE REP HIMSELF AND OTHER RESCUE WORKERS ARE NEAR > ENOUGH TO WTC 7 THAT THEY HAVE TO RUN FOR THEIR LIVES!!! > > I don't mean by all this to show that a conspiracy did not happen but it > shows the state of "investigative" reporting by 9/11 conspiracists and > this is by no means the most egragious example but one of many. > > The prisonplanet article is simply a selective reading of the testominy > of various people Singh, Bartmer and McPaddon. It includes a dubious > source in "an anonymous EMT named Mike". Witnesses are asked for their > opinions as well as eyewitness testominy and those opinions are offered > as further evidence. > > The testimony of all three named witnesses shows the confusion > surrounding that day. Confusion they each shared in: McPadden can't hear > what the Red Cross rep is saying on the bullhorn near WTC 7. Singh an > EMT'er, is a group told to get away from the building earlier and thinks > himself that WTC 7 might come down before it comes down. Bartmer is in > and around WTC 7 but never thinks it's gonna come down. > > The consistent story that can be pieced from the eyewitness testimony of > Singh, Bartmer and McPaddon is that rescue workers are told at some > point to get out of the building for their own safety. There is > apparently some fear for the safety of thse people, perhaps a fear of > collapse or partial collapse. At the same time, the chiefs and > commanders are not aware of exactly when the entire building might > collapse putting those near the building at risk and/or they the chiefs > and commanders are not aware that a large group of first responders are > still near enough WTC 7 that they are still in danger should it > collapse. > > There is no direct evidence of demolition yet prisonplanet sells it as > such. > It is eyewitness testimony at the scene – is that indirect evidence?   You write “perhaps a fear of collapse or partial collapse,” but the collapse happened immediately.  That is not bad luck, that demonstrates foreknowledge.  Your “perhaps” is just a presumption to justify your point.  It is a highly improbable guess. > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:59 PM > Subject: RE: WTC 7 collapse > > FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:49 PM > Subject: RE: WTC 7 collapse > > wtc.nist.gov   FEMA used volunteers from the American Society of Civil Engineers to determine the cause of the collapse.  These volunteers were not allowed on site and only allowed to view certain samples at the dump site.  FEMA takes back the investigation and releases it report two years after the collapse.  By then, all of the debris has been destroyed except for a small portion.  Therefore, the evidence was hauled away without sufficient inspection.  This doesn’t sound like a cover up to you?   NIST still has not released their report on WTC 7.  The only official statements so far said their own presumption was improbable.  So what explanation are you basing the presumption of collapse on.   > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:48 PM > Subject: RE: WTC 7 collapse > > Where is your source for the NIST and FEMA explanation for why WTC 7 > fell > > >> >> To sum up. Tyler, you see things one way. S and I another -- and some > >> others -- see it a different way. >> >> There is no way to resolve these differences other than to agree that >> we don't agree. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:35 PM >> Subject: RE: WTC 7 collapse >> >> Tyler, I addressed the supposed BBC "leak" earlier, much earlier, in >> detail. You did not respond to that at all then. Now you repeat the >> claim. Repeating a false claim does not make it true. >> >> And don't switch back to 1 and 2. You have said that the argument must > >> stay with 7 because that is the one that you can prove. The problem is > >> your proof amounts to following statements. I put my reponse to each >> below. The details to my responses can be found in previous emails. >> >> Tyler argument #1: Look at the video of WTC 7. It is a controlled >> demolition. >> >> Response to #1: I see the same thing you do in the video, a building >> collapsing. You conclude that it must be a planned demolition. After >> much study, I don't. FEMA and the NIST also conclude it is not a >> planned demolition   See top.  A collapse would not be complete, so quick and end in its footprint.  It would fall towards its weakest point and maintain some structural integrity and resistance to collapse.  Explain to me how you see otherwise.   >> >> Tyler argument #2: The NIST investigation is a cover up. >> >> Response to #2: It is not. I have looked at them thoroughly and I see >> nothing suspect about the FEMA or NIST investigations. >> Refer to Debunking 9/11 Debunking shows the implausibility of NIST’s analysis and all of the evidence they ignored that does not support their conclusion.  >> Tyler argument #3: There is no evidence of hot, large scale fires at WTC > >> 7. >> >> Response to #3: There is plenty of evidence for the same from pictures and videos of the day, from firefighter testimony and from FEMA and NIST reports.   There were indeed fires, but they were oxygen starved.  Firefighter testimony of the heat reaching 2000 F to weaken steel (per UL) is not plausible for a human to endure and determine.  Firefighting testimony that the fire was manageable just before one of the collapses is enough to show the fires could not have been that large and hot. >> >> Tyler argument #4: Fire has never demolished a steel-girded high before 9/11. >> >> Response to #4: Fire had partially demolished many steel-girded high >> rises before and has since. Fire has completely collapses other >> non-high steel-reinforced structures. Building and fire safety >> engineers design, test and build steel-girded buildings in such a way >> to avoid collapse or partial collapse by fire implying that they feel >> such a collapse is not impossible. The vast majority of the >> engineering and architecture does not share your opinion that the WTC >> 7 collapse could not be caused by fire.   Refer to Debunking 9/11 Debunking for a thorough analysis of the implausibility of the sufficiency of the damage fires to weaken the structure into a total collapse at free fall speed.    >> Tyler argument #5: Silverstein, the BBC and fire chiefs admitted >> foreknowledge of the controlled demolition. >> >> Response to #5: I have heard the same quotes. You conclude it's the >> give away of a conspiracy. I conclude the same simply show concern >> over a possible collapse of a burning building.   The are only two explanations – “pulling the operation” as you assert of “pulling the building” as the truth movement does.  The former is not possible as we can now show there was no firefighting operation.  The fire department evacuated the occupants and all firefighters from the building.  There was nothing to pull.  Silverstein, after making an assertion through a press secretary several years after stating “pull it” in the PBS documentary, that he meant pull the operation, has refused to answer what operation he meant.  He reverts all questions to his lawyer. >> Tyler argument #6: PNAC and other info show that the administration had >> a motive for pulling off a "new Pearl Harbor". >> >> Response to #6: Agreed. There was a possible motive. The >> circumstantial motive looses credibility though when means and >> opportunity are not evident. >> >> This leads to following questions S and I have raised that remain >> unanswered by Tyler, at least in my mind. >> >> Unanswered question #1: This question asks how this administration had > >> the ability to pull off 9/11. How could the same people that pulled >> off this massive conspiracy fail to pull off other, simpler, >> conspiracies like Plamegate or Abu Ghraib?   A black op is what the military is good at.  Bush’s cousin was CEO of Securecom, in charge of WTC security.   >> Unanswered question #2: This question asks why/how anyone could pull >> off this incredibly large and complex plot. This includes question >> like how could the explosives in WTC 7 be kept safe from the damage >> from the WTC 1 and 2 collapses and from fire for 7 hours? Why would the already >> complex WTC 1 and 2 plot be further complicated by the planned >> demolition of WTC 7? Why would people like Silverstein and fire chiefs >> be included in the plot? How could all the hundreds of investigators >> at FEMA and the NIST be kept quiet about evidence that surely must > exist? >> (Notice that informants and investigators of Plamegate and Abu Ghraib >> were not kept quiet. And according to Tyler argument #2, the NIST and >> FEMA are, in one way or another, complicit in the cover up.)   I don’t know why exactly they would bring down WTC 7, but the evidence points to them doing so.  A thorough investigation, unlike the 9-11 commission, run by a friend of the administration, Phillip Zelikow, might provide the answer.  Remember, 9-11 Truthers do not have subpoena power and cannot compel testimony from anyone.    >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:14 PM >> Subject: Re: WTC 7 collapse >> >> All that is needed is a little dissemination to get unknowing >> participants repeat the lies.  Take a look at the BBC.  The New York >> reporter is saying WTC 7 has collapsed and the building is still >> standing in the backdrop.  How does that happen? >> >> I'm not aware of the sound records, so I can't comment.  Why not >> question eyewitness accounts of the sound of detonators prior to the >> collapse of WTC 1 and 2?   There are 118 first hand FDNY accounts of explosions in 1 & 2 (out of 503 FDNY accounts - See Debunking 9/11 Debunking, p. 175  ).  NIST ignores this and other evidence, and then claims there is not enough evidence to consider a controlled demolition.  NIST never investigates the possibilities, only operates to support the administration’s official conspiracy story. >> >> >> Quoting S: >> >>> Great job A >>> >>>> Nice moronic irony in the response.  I could write a novel equally >>>> as >> >>>> plausible and boy george would not be involved. >>> >>> Georges involvement is really beside the point. >>> >>> How about you right a vastly more plausible NON-moronic plot that >>> fits >> >>> the facts as you see them............ >>> >>> That's the point.  Its really not impressive that you could also >>> write >> >>> a plot so ridiculous that even Hollywood could not turn it into an >>> action movie.    I really want to see this, I can't imagine a >>> plausible story that contains the facts as you see them. >>> >>> >>>> He would still be >>>> sitting in the school room learning how to read.  More to the point, > >>>> not everyone has to be a knowing participant.  I believe Guy could >>>> talk to this subject better if he has the time. >>> >>> Well, not everyone in the planet, true.  But when you get to >>> individual firemen being told to lie, all major news outlets being >>> given scripts, families faking grief, all the witness's at the >>> pentagon  (ie my co-worker)..........and that's not all of them, and >>> that's just the ones who would clearly have been told to lie PRIOR to > >>> the event....thus proving to each and every one that there was a >>> conspiracy. >>> That's not even getting to all the experts who were forced to keep >>> quite after the event. >>> Somehow, even in a country that is anti bush, they all keep quiet? >>> >>> >>>> Maybe one of your earlier e-mails pointed to this already, but if >>>> the >> >>>> collapse looks like a controlled demolition (in speed and direct >>>> decent from bottom up) and the result is a rubbage pile like a >>>> controlled demolition, please show me the explanation that explains >>>> it was not. >>> >>> It does not sound like one.  Why have you never ever answered the >>> sound issue.   Why is the sound somehow less important that the look? >>> >>> My photo looks just like me, but it feels way less sexy to the touch. >>> Thus, the women know its not me by using an extra sense ;0