• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132:1312]

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

ode to the titanic debunker movement.

exothermic cutter charges are nearly silent.

debunkers still trying to pound square pegs in round holes

You still have to demonstrate the usage of this tool (I know you don't understand the concept, but revise burden of proof). Oh, that's right, you can't.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

And it happens in reaction to the collapse of the EPH, so therefore could not be related to the cause of the collapse of the EPH.

Now please, stop muddying up this thread by responding to Koko's nonsense. We've got too much of that already. IF he ever decides to up his game to at least Grade 2 (and since he outed himself we know he can) then he deserves a response. Until then stop indulging him - he's just messing with you and doing it on purpose for the attention, like that kid in school who always acted out for the attention. Don't encourage such trollish behavior.


Ok, excuse me for that. I'll not respond to the trolling.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

You still have to demonstrate the usage of this tool (I know you don't understand the concept, but revise burden of proof). Oh, that's right, you can't.

I already did, but we accept that you are not able to recognize a booger when its hanging out of your nose
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

And it happens in reaction to the collapse of the EPH, so therefore could not be related to the cause of the collapse of the EPH.

Now please, stop muddying up this thread by responding to Koko's nonsense. We've got too much of that already. IF he ever decides to up his game to at least Grade 2 (and since he outed himself we know he can) then he deserves a response. Until then stop indulging him - he's just messing with you and doing it on purpose for the attention, like that kid in school who always acted out for the attention. Don't encourage such trollish behavior.
Ok, excuse me for that. I'll not respond to the trolling.
yeh shadap!

Mark is trying to raise the titanic LOL


 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

wow how peaceful without all the useless static, thanks.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

He has been there for me for quite a while.

so what its all for ****ing show, your pals quote me and you see it all, just another debunker pretense front LMAO

but the reduction in static is precious
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

He has been there for me for quite a while.

Yes, I placed him on ignore once before, but cleared my list in the hope that they may have become adults. I know, false hopes and all that. He has disrupted and ****ed up every thread he's participated in since he was released from cyber exile. I think one of us may have to report him before any action will be taken. That seems to be the case on this site.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Yes, I placed him on ignore once before, but cleared my list in the hope that they may have become adults. I know, false hopes and all that. He has disrupted and ****ed up every thread he's participated in since he was released from cyber exile. I think one of us may have to report him before any action will be taken. That seems to be the case on this site.

Tis peaceful seeing "This message is hidden because KokomoJojo is on your ignore list." rather than ignorant rambling and irrelevant GIFs/Videos.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Yes, I placed him on ignore once before, but cleared my list in the hope that they may have become adults. I know, false hopes and all that. He has disrupted and ****ed up every thread he's participated in since he was released from cyber exile. I think one of us may have to report him before any action will be taken. That seems to be the case on this site.

the usual debunker whine.

counter arguments are not a disruption to a debate, your ego I am sure.

You dont need to preach adult to me after coming out here time and time again misrepresenting the operation of a conjunction, that which is taught in 2nd grade.

That is a complete thread disruption when posting trash that even 2nd graders know then arguing about when you are corrected for several pages.

Claiming I was on cyber exile is a lie. How low can this go?

You want to report, you wont be the only one.
 
Last edited:
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Tis peaceful seeing "This message is hidden because KokomoJojo is on your ignore list." rather than ignorant rambling and irrelevant GIFs/Videos.

I dont put him on ignore because I find his posts amusing. even more amusing is when he gets likes from truthers who dont understand he is makign fun of them.
There is of course no reason to respond to any of his posts they arent meant for you.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

The Never Before in History fallacy

For years conspiracy theorists have been fond of insinuating that 7 World Trade Center could not have collapsed due to fire because never before in history has a steel-framed building ever collapsed from fire.

That is, they claimed this until it was pointed out to them that in fact many steel framed buildings and other steel framed structures have collapsed due to fire. After that they simply added the specious qualifier "high rise", as if that somehow makes a difference.

From an engineering point of view there is zero reason to place skyscrapers in any sort of special category, or to exclude the collapse of smaller buildings from consideration. Steel is inherently vulnerable to fire. There is no difference in the modern technique for calculating stresses for a low rise or for a high rise building. When mechanical or structural engineers calculate stresses these days, they use the exact same FEA program for everything from a tiny model, to a car-sized structure, to a skyscraper. There is no correction thrown into the analysis that depends on the size of the structure.

Or to put it simply, fire doesn't know or care how tall a building is. Fire just does what it does.

That qualifier "high-rise" is completely invalid, from a mechanical or structural engineering perspective.

Many steel structures have collapsed due to fire and each of those like the collapses on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions which is why each building failure on 9/11 differed from the others and there is no evidence for the use of explosives.

But the never before in history meme is silly on its face anyway. Just because something has not happened before does not mean it can not happen. Because an event is unprecedented does not make it impossible. This is a classic conspiracy theorist error. History books are full of things that had never happened before. After all, powered human flight was unprecedented until the Wright Brothers did it. Walking on the Moon was unprecedented until Neil Armstrong did it. Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11 so to draw any specific relationship between how many buildings were destroyed and how they were destroyed runs counter to logic and common sense.

Besides, if we follow this line of CT thinking we have to turn it around and say "no 47-story (let alone 110-story) building has ever been CD'd before, therefore there could not have been CD because what has never happened before can not happen."

And who wants that?
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Silverstein said Pull It. And he's a Joooooo.

Larry Silverstein, owner of 7 World Trade Center, as insurance fraudster is the classic example of why I claim Conspiracy Theorists can not reason properly. They do not follow their claims through to their logical conclusion. They claim that 9/11 was just an elaborate insurance scam which Silverstein confessed to without prompting on national TV. They claim that when Larry told the fire department to "pull it" he was not referring to the rescue operations around a seriously unstable building to save lives but was actually ordering the FNDY to blow up the building.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein's"pullit"quote

There are a few obvious problems with that which strangely never seem to occur to Conspiracy Theorists.

1. Since when does the FDNY take orders from a real estate developer?

2. Since when is the FDNY in the building demo business?

3. What does the FDNY get out of this besides murdering 343 of their brother firefighters?

4. If this was an insurance scam how much money did Silverstein Properties collect in claims? How much did it cost them to rebuild? How much revenue did he lose in the 12 years it took to rebuild? What is the difference between those numbers?

5. Why would Silverstein blab about the plot on national TV?

6. Why no follow-up by authorities or his insurers if he had actually admitted to the greatest crime in American history?

7. How does one tie the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 into this theory?

Let me put this another way, if you were a real-estate developer looking to make a quick buck on insurance payouts in an arson scam over an unknown, unimportant building, would you hire the Fire Department of the City of New York to do the job for you? Would you then casually admit to the whole thing on national TV? Would you attempt to cover the whole thing up with a convoluted scheme involving hijacking multiple airliners and flying them into buildings in New York and Washington DC?

Wouldn't you instead just hire a couple of skinheads/anarchists/religious fanatics to do a McViegh bomb and park it on the street in front of building 7? That way there are not thousands of co-conspirators to pay off or who might accidentally reveal the whole plot during a casual TV interview?
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

"Pull it"? Exactly What did Larry Silverstein Say and Why?

Larry Silverstein, whose company owned 7 World Trade Center tower, a non-descript, un-important and virtually unknown office building in the WTC complex and held the leases on most of the other 6 buildings of the WTC complex is alleged by some Conspiracy Theorists (9/11 Truthers) to be the real mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, not terrorists. They base this claim entirely on a public statement Mr. Silverstein made in which they claim he very casually admitted on national TV (on a government owned network no less) that he had 7 World Trade Center blown up, Mr. Silverstein conveniently fulfilling the "Evil Jew" requirement in the 'Great 9/11 False Flag operation'.

As I mentioned above, this is a classic example of how Conspiracy Theorists can not reason properly. Of how they tend to just accept a claim because it fits what they want to believe without taking even a moment to find out if it is true, let alone if it makes any sense.

Here is the alleged admission, made during an interview for the documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, broadcast on PBS in 2002, when discussing the loss 7 World Trade Center that collapsed at 5:21pm on 9/11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hRPpva1ujE (1:08:23)

Narrator (Kevin Spacey): World Trade Center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding. Located north of the slurry wall, 7 had been cleared faster than the rest of the site and there had been no bodies to recover. Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, 7 burned until late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.

Larry Silverstein: "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."

Conspiracy Theorists, who frequently edit the quote down to "I said,… the smartest thing to do is pull it…" claim, based on this one statement that Larry Silverstein is the mastermind of the greatest crime in American history and is admitting - with no prodding and under no duress on national TV - that he ordered the New York Fire Department to blow up his building with secretly pre-planted explosives.

We don't know the question Silverstein was asked so therefore the exact context in which the statement was made isn't present in the program. We know based on the recordings of FDNY radio communications as well as interviews and public statements made by fire officials and individual firefighters that at the time 7 was "fully involved" (as in, unsafe to enter) and showing signs of imminent collapse such as creaking and moaning sounds from the structure, a visible bulge in several floors (from thermal expansion) and even reports the building was starting to lean. To most of us it sounds then like the Fire Department commander called Larry Silverstein to inform him Building 7 could not be saved and they agreed that to avoid further loss of life it would be best to pull rescue operations from the area (which was done) and it was clearly the FDNY that made that call, not Larry Silverstein. We know this because we can read and we can hear and we can think.

In conspiracy theory mythology, "pull it" is erroneously believed to be the order used by people in the building demolition business to fire off the explosives (it isn't). To the FDNY "pull" means to pull their people out of harms way.

That "pull it" refers to the rescue efforts and not the building is corroborated by statements like the following from Chief Hayden in a 2002 interview with Firehouse magazine published long before Truthers decided pull = CD;

"But also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

"It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started PULLING the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to PULL guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Yeah, we had to PULL everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We PULLED everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then." (emphasis added)

Dissecting the Statement

So what to make of Silverstein's comment? Is it a casual admission of the greatest crime in history or grossly misinterpreted by a handful of idiots for ideological purposes? First off, the fire department commander called Larry Silverstein, he didn't call them. What did the FDNY commander call Mr. Silverstein about?

"…they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire"

This begs the question why does the building need to be blown up if the fire is going to take it down anyway? The fires would do the job with no outside assistance.

And what was Mr. Silverstein's reply?

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

So what does "we've had such a terrible loss of life" mean? And how does "we've had such a terrible loss of life..." part equate to "so lets blow up the building"? Since when does one blow up a building to save lives? Why blow up the building at all if the fires can not be contained and will take it down anyway?

"And they made that decision to pull,..."

Who is "they"? "They" certainly isn't Larry Silverstein. "They" is the fire department. And what did they do? They made the decision, not Larry Silverstein. So who is in command here? Who is giving the orders? Not Larry Silverstein. Larry Silverstein didn't order anyone to do anything.

What Larry Silverstein statement tells us is that after being informed by the fire department commander that building 7 could not be saved agreed they should, to avoid the further loss of life of first responders, pull the efforts to save the building. The FDNY then made the decision to pull the rescue efforts and create a safe zone around the building, which they did.. That this in fact was done is a matter of historical record. Sure enough, a few hours later building 7 quietly collapsed.

What he meant is obvious from the context. Too many people have already died, so let's minimize further casualties by pulling firefighters out of the area, not "Too many people have already died, so let's BLOW THIS PUPPY UP!!!"

But CT's can not think. All they see is "Larry said pull it" on some website and that's enough.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Tis peaceful seeing "This message is hidden because KokomoJojo is on your ignore list." rather than ignorant rambling and irrelevant GIFs/Videos.

Yes, I have to admit it does give the site a somewhat more 'adult' quality by not having his kiddy crap polluting the page.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

[There are a few obvious problems with that which strangely never seem to occur to Conspiracy Theorists.

1. Since when does the FDNY take orders from a real estate developer?

2. Since when is the FDNY in the building demo business?

3. What does the FDNY get out of this besides murdering 343 of their brother firefighters?

4. If this was an insurance scam how much money did Silverstein Properties collect in claims? How much did it cost them to rebuild? How much revenue did he lose in the 12 years it took to rebuild? What is the difference between those numbers?

5. Why would Silverstein blab about the plot on national TV?

6. Why no follow-up by authorities or his insurers if he had actually admitted to the greatest crime in American history?

7. How does one tie the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 into this theory?

Let me put this another way, if you were a real-estate developer looking to make a quick buck on insurance payouts in an arson scam over an unknown, unimportant building, would you hire the Fire Department of the City of New York to do the job for you? Would you then casually admit to the whole thing on national TV? Would you attempt to cover the whole thing up with a convoluted scheme involving hijacking multiple airliners and flying them into buildings in New York and Washington DC?

Wouldn't you instead just hire a couple of skinheads/anarchists/religious fanatics to do a McViegh bomb and park it on the street in front of building 7? That way there are not thousands of co-conspirators to pay off or who might accidentally reveal the whole plot during a casual TV interview?

Seriously, anyone who believes that the FDNY took orders from Silverstein is seriously ignorant of fire-fighting procedures. For reasons of insurance fraud, fire-fighters would never take orders from the property owner, as it would present a serious conflict of interest. The Senior officer on site is not answerable to any individual, except perhaps the district officer if he or she is on the scene. Not even the police or military have authority over the fire officer.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

The Never Before in History


doesnt change the fact its true mark.

no steel hirise completely collapsed due to fire, sorry, no amount of bs or debunker spin can change that
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Seriously, anyone who believes that the FDNY took orders from Silverstein is seriously ignorant of fire-fighting procedures. For reasons of insurance fraud, fire-fighters would never take orders from the property owner, as it would present a serious conflict of interest. The Senior officer on site is not answerable to any individual, except perhaps the district officer if he or she is on the scene. Not even the police or military have authority over the fire officer.

So mark things the fd took "orders" now?

got permission maybe. LOL
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Yes, I have to admit it does give the site a somewhat more 'adult' quality by not having his kiddy crap polluting the page.

well your constant defending errors that you made regarding the use of conjunctions which is taught in second grade really gives this a more adult quality, but now it looks like there is another post where someone needs instruction on the proper use of conjunctions.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

"Pull it"? [snipped all the blah blah blah]

But CT's can not think. All they see is "Larry said pull it" on some website and that's enough.


well mark here is an actual breakdown of the linguistics relationships and usage conveniently mapped out using standard grammar structural notation.

Since you and your debunker friends consider yourself qualified authorities to interpret what is being said by all means explain the notation to us.


topulll.png


above is the definition, the notation and structure is below.

pullit.jpg


Waiting.....
 
Last edited:
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

The Never Before in History fallacy


That is, they claimed this until it was pointed out to them that in fact many steel framed buildings and other steel framed structures have collapsed due to fire. After that they simply added the specious qualifier "high rise", as if that somehow makes a difference.


Or to put it simply, fire doesn't know or care how tall a building is. Fire just does what it does.

That qualifier "high-rise" is completely invalid, from a mechanical or structural engineering perspective.

Many steel structures have collapsed due to fire and each of those like the collapses on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions which is why each building failure on 9/11 differed from the others and there is no evidence for the use of explosives.
l

Examples?

Anything with video? I ask because we can use the collapse by fire in a steel structure and compare the significant traits of both to see if any valid comparisons can be made.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Examples?

Anything with video? I ask because we can use the collapse by fire in a steel structure and compare the significant traits of both to see if any valid comparisons can be made.

Why? Different structures constructed in different ways and subjected to different damage are going to behave differently. That steel is vulnerable to fire should not be a revelation to anyone.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Examples?

Anything with video? I ask because we can use the collapse by fire in a steel structure and compare the significant traits of both to see if any valid comparisons can be made.

Well, there's an example that shows steel structures just don't collapse by fire.

The Cardington Fire Tests were a series of large-scale fire tests conducted in real steel-framed structures at the BRE Cardington facility near Cardington, Bedfordshire, England.

Cardington test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires

The aim of structural fire engineering design is to ensure that structures do not collapse when subjected to high temperatures in fire.

Results?

lamont4-8.webp

lamont4-9.webp

Some bending and buckling but no collapse.

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Why? Different structures constructed in different ways and subjected to different damage are going to behave differently. That steel is vulnerable to fire should not be a revelation to anyone.

Recently, there was a fire at a building site in Sydney, Australia and it had spread to the area around the base of a large fixed crane. The primary concern was to stop the fire around the base of the crane in order to prevent collapse owing to the weakening of the steel.

Furthermore, all truther attempts to compare the 7WTC fires to other fires are illogical, in that fires by their very nature are unpredictable.
 
Back
Top Bottom