Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence...

[camlok]

I thought you said that we couldn't compare buildings in different countries because of different codes, yet here you are doing it in the quote above.

How hypocritical of you.

I didn't compare any buildings.

 

[gamolon]

No, I can't even understand what you are talking about because your references aren't at all clear. Why on earth would I be badgering you for proof of heat weakened steel and then YOU finding/describing that "there was none", when your entire contention, your groups raison d'etre is that the fires/heat DID weaken the steel?

It makes no sense at all. Now perhaps if you would make yourself clear I can address it.

Simple.

Show me where the firefighters (or anyone else for that matter) said that the EXPLOSIONS were due to EXPLOSIVES they uncovered. Show me the evidence you have that correlates the EXPLOSIONS heard being caused by EXPLOSIVES.

EXPLOSIONS do not equal EXPLOSIVES. Stundie and I are in agreement on this. Therefore you cannot use EXPLOSIONS heard as proof of EXPLOSIVES to support your demolition claim.

 

[gamolon]

That is exactly what I did. I addressed your first point directly, in blue,

Wrong.

You do not insert your reply into MY QUOTED POST. Proper etiquette is to use the quote button and put your response BELOW.

 

[gamolon]

I'll use your posting habits as an example. Please quote my inserted response in red using the quote feature when replying.

No, I can't even understand what you are talking about because your references aren't at all clear. Why on earth would I be badgering you for proof of heat weakened steel and then YOU finding/describing that "there was none", when your entire contention, your groups raison d'etre is that the fires/heat DID weaken the steel?

Quote this response please

It makes no sense at all. Now perhaps if you would make yourself clear I can address it.

Now make sure people can click the little blue "double arrow button" circled in red in your quoted response so people can click it and get taken tomy actual post where I said the words in red.


See the problem yet?

 

[camlok]

Where did the firefighters in the second vid say it was a bomb. For some the logic is "explosion" = "bomb". Not true in a fire environment.

What explosions could there be "in the staging area" as the firemen were waiting to go up, mike? Right at the end of the video, the blond firemen remarks that there could be 'bombs in any of these buildings around here'.

First vid. Planes and bombs, a working theory at this time of the report, but unconfirmed. 1:58 mark.
Again the use of explosions heard. Yet no one said they saw the bomb.

Also how much editing was done in the making of this compilation of news clips? Are we getting the whole story of what the people interviewed said or just the sound bite the vid makers wanted us to hear?

Good point, mike. Why don't you ever raise these same points for all the supporters of the OCT, are we getting the whole story from, say, NIST? No, NIST has chosen to hide their "science". Do you folks try to give the whole story or just sound bites?

So do you have some evidence that these were not bombs?

 

[mike2810]

Good point, mike. Why don't you ever raise these same points for all the supporters of the OCT, are we getting the whole story from, say, NIST? No, NIST has chosen to hide their "science". Do you folks try to give the whole story or just sound bites?

So do you have some evidence that these were not bombs?

You want me to prove a negative. nice try.

you should also head advice from gamolon on your posting style.

Even in your own post. "remarks that there could be 'bombs in any of these buildings around here'. "
Could is a far cry from there is bombs.

Still waiting for your concise CD explanation.

 

[mike2810]

You want me to prove a negative. nice try.

you should also xxxx heed advice from gamolon on your posting style.

Even in your own post. "remarks that there could be 'bombs in any of these buildings around here'. "
Could is a far cry from there is bombs.

Still waiting for your concise CD explanation.

Typo in original post. head should have been heed.
I am sure cam will call me on it.:lamo

 

[stundie]

No, but it could have been a contributing factor. Remember you said that the structure is all INTERCONNECTED. what you take out some piece of the structure as a whole, it becomes less than 100% for what it was designed for? Agree or no?

Of course I agree, for every piece you remove or cut, you are weakening the structure.

And I agree it could have been a contributing factor as well.

However, the overall problem I have, and we have to be theoretical here cause there is no physical way we could demonstrate this. Lets say we cut a column/beam one at a time, every few seconds or so, gradually weakening the structure.

I couldn't see how the entire structure would come tumbling down. I can imagine parts of the structure falling gradually as it becomes weaker because it's still interconnected and providing resistance where it hasn't been cut yet.

We see something like this happening in the Windsor Tower fires, as part of the structure is weakened, it gradually starts falling apart. In the case of the WTC 7, all of the structure gives up in an instance and I can't see how fires, which would be burning at different temperatures over the area of a floor, could cause this almost instantanious weakening of the entire structure.

But this is not an apples to apples comparison Stundie. You have to look at comparisons that are relatively similar right? Did those buildings have the same design as WTC7? They are totally different. That's like saying that getting hit with a baseball and hit with a "sponge" ball will hurt just as much because they are both balls.

Each of the buildings were probably designed differently and you would be hard pressed to find any two buildings which have the same designs, so despite all of their differences, they didn't collapse.

We also have a pretty close comparison to WTC 7, WTC 5 is a cantilever structure very similar to the WTC 7, obviously smaller and a different shape.

So the question is, what was unique about the design of the WTC 7 which made it susceptible to fires than the many other building which survived?

Until that question is answered, then I can't see any valid or logical reason to support the notion that it was fires.

Is it possible?? Of course, maybe there was something different to the design which made it more susceptible to fires but I can't see it myself.

Each case is individual and must be treated as such.

There are lots of differences between all the buildings, the types of fires, the length, the temperatures etc etc.

However, despite all of these differences, the outcomes were all the same, they all survived.

So it's back to that question, what was unique or different about the WTC7?

I can't see anything obvious or that stands out which would answer this question.

 

[stundie]

No, what I am saying is that is part of the equation that supports the idea that fire was the reason for the collapse. The reason above all the other theories/reasons.

Yes, I totally agree that it supports the possibility it was fires.

But they still made those observations no matter how many people saw it or if it was documented.

As I said, I have no other evidence to counter these claims.

However, what I genuinely find is that when one person makes an observation which supports the OCT, it is taken as fact, almost gospel but if they make an observation which supports the CT, they are usually mistaken, wrong or other evidence is demanded to support the eyewitness account.

Now I'm not claiming that these people were mistaken, they could be but I have no evidence of it, I could argue that there was no photographic or supporting evidence, but any true skeptic as to accept it.

But there is no evidence of explosives.

Agreed, but there is overwhelming evidence of explosions.

If explosives were used, they would be placed in places where they wouldn't be detected which could explain why none were detected.

Seeing as we do not know the source of these explosions, I have to accept the possibility that there could have been explosives.

There were fires. What's the logical conclusion?

I wouldn't call it a logical conclusion, I would call it an assumption that there were fires, ergo the building collapsed because of fires.

Remember that no other buildings have collapsed to the ground because of fire, so therefore we have no historical reference. If there we had other examples of buildings collapsing from fires, then I agree it would be a logical conclusion.

Again, I am trying to see which theory has the most supported evidence and look at everything as a whole. In this instance we had fires. We had firefighters saying that a section of wall was bulging and was creaking DURING those fires.

We also have multiple reports of it collapsing before it actually collapsed, reports of multiple explosions throughout the day, that the firefighters couldn't near the building cause of the explosions, and they the sound of explosions captured on camera.

Could fire have caused these explosions? Yes, but I don't see what caught on fire to create these conditions, that is not to say there isn't anything out there could be attributed to it.

The fact that there were explosions and the fact that buildings generally speaking, buildings don't collapse entirely from fires, the fact it looks exactly like a demolition and other facts which we haven't gotten on to yet are the reason why I think the demolition theory is more likely.

I agree, which is what I am trying to figure out in this thread. Not to prove anything, but which theory has the most supporting evidence to make it more believable than the others.

There is another problem here though Gamolon, which is as humans we have filters and the evidence we find convincing can be subjective.

But you CAN'T treat it the same way. You have proof of fire because... well... there was fire. You DON'T have proof of explosives at this particular time.

I agree but we have proof of explosions, explosions which were happening throughout the day and that were heard before the building starts collapsing.

I agree with you, but again, I am not ignoring it because I don't like it. I am giving it less credibility because that what logic dictates based on the observable.

Again, there was fire. The firefighters observed a bulge and creaking/groaning during those fires.

There were explosions, but no evidence of explosives.

Just like we agreed, there is no evidence that fires was the cause, or that explosives were the cause.

This is wherein lies the problem, there wasn't enough data collected and why I support a new investigation.

What about the Plasco building in Iran? It totally collapsed. Or are you of the belief that was demolition as put forth by AE9/11/Szamboti?

I am of the belief that it looks like a demolition again, not because what was put forth by AE911. I have no idea why it collapsed and the only report I have seen is an interim report which says there was no explosives.

However, the reason as to why I think there was possibly explosions is because of the similarities to the WTC towards the build-up of the collapse, the collapse itself and the aftermath.

The Plasco building is an entirely different structure to the WTC 7, in other words, not a apple to apple comparison as you would put it.

So what was different about the WTC 7 and the Plasco buildings which made them more susceptible to fires than all of the other buildings before it?

 

[gamolon]

I didn't compare any buildings.

Uh yes, you did. I'll highlite the words in red for you.

That is a reasonable assumption to make. That, in and of itself is not proof but it is a reasonable assumption, one followed by firefighters the world over since steel framed high rises were first built. Out of hundreds of fires, none ever caused a steel framed building to collapse.


See your words in red camlok? See where you first say "THE WORLD OVER" and then in the next sentence you talk about fire never caused a steel framed building to collapse. Are you telling me that when you made that claim, you were only talking about those fires and buildings in the United States? You meant exactly what you said alluded to which is "Nowhere in the world has a fire ever caused a steel framed building to collapse."

You're comparing "all those buildings that didn't collapse from fire" with WTC1, 2, and 7 and are trying to make a point.

Then when I try and do the same thing, you say we can't make a comparison with buildings around the world because the codes are different.

Nice try.

 

[gamolon]

In the case of the WTC 7, all of the structure gives up in an instance and I can't see how fires, which would be burning at different temperatures over the area of a floor, could cause this almost instantanious weakening of the entire structure.

The above statements are wrong Stundie. The entire structure DID NOT "give up in an instant". There entire structure WAS NOT 'almost instantaneously weakened". The collapse happened in stages. There were signs of structural stree and failure throughout the day

1. Firefighters heard creaking and groaning within the building during the day. These noises are a sign of structural instability.
2. A bulge was witnessed in one of the walls around the 13th floor. That is a sign of structural instability/weakening.
3. A transit was placed on the building which showed some signs of leaning. That is a sigh on structural instability/weakening.
4. The east penthouse collapsed into the building first. That happened some 6 seconds prior to the roofline starting to descend.
5. Then the rest of the penthouse fell into the building right before the roofline descended
6. The the REST of what was left of the structure came down.

This whole mantra of the entire structure of WTC7 coming down/weakening in an instant/at the same time is nowhere near the truth. This is something I have argued for years, but every time I bring it up, people ignore it. If you have any disagreements with the bullet points above, please say so.

Each of the buildings were probably designed differently and you would be hard pressed to find any two buildings which have the same designs, so despite all of their differences, they didn't collapse.

So what? All I am saying is that you can't compare each building and expect that they should all react the same. They shouldn't. It's the same logic that's applied to buildings that partially collapse and those that don't collapse at all.

We also have a pretty close comparison to WTC 7, WTC 5 is a cantilever structure very similar to the WTC 7, obviously smaller and a different shape.

Similar, but not the same! Like I said before, did those buildings have the type of long floor spans connecting to core columnslike WTC7? Did those buildings have a mechanical penthouse being supported by some core columns? Did those buildings have transfer trusses like WTC7 did? Where those buildings built on top of an existing structure and did they incorporate some of those existing structural components into it's design? And I am not saying that these contributed to the collapse. All I am saying is that you cannot compare how buildings react to certain scenarios and expect them to all react the same. They are all different.

So the question is, what was unique about the design of the WTC 7 which made it susceptible to fires than the many other building which survived?

Great question! That's why analysis is needed for each building. But that still doesn;t take a way from the point that you can't assume all buildings should react the same. That's all I'm trying to say here.

 

[gamolon]

Until that question is answered, then I can't see any valid or logical reason to support the notion that it was fires.

Stundie, at this point in the discussion (and I know other points are going to be brought up going forward) we have established that fire is the MOST LIKELY cause. Not proven, but most likely.

Why?

Because we have established the following:

Due to fire
1. Fire can weaken/fail steel
2. There is proof of fire within WTC7

Due to demolition by explosives
1. Explosives can weaken/fail steel
2. There is NO proof of explosives

Now based on that alone, fire is the more likely cause. That conclusion can be drawn AT THIS TIME as that is what we have come up with so far. Now, I am in no way saying that future evidence will not sway this conclusion as it very well may change. That is why I am involved in this discussion. To see what evidence has credence based on agreed criteria. For example, I agree that there is no physical proof of heat weakened steel around column 79. That's just a fact. So that statement cannot be used as support of fire OR that column 79 failed. In the same vein, explosives cannot be used as a reason for the collapse because there is not proof. Those two pieces of evidence should be "stricken from the record" and not used.

Is it possible?? Of course, maybe there was something different to the design which made it more susceptible to fires but I can't see it myself.

Ok, but it is still POSSIBLE. Just like I agree explosives are possible but there is no proof of that.

There are lots of differences between all the buildings, the types of fires, the length, the temperatures etc etc.

Agreed.

However, despite all of these differences, the outcomes were all the same, they all survived.

Again, we cannot draw a comparison because they are all different as you have agreed. That's why it needs to be studied.

So it's back to that question, what was unique or different about the WTC7?

See my thoughts above. Again, I am not saying these are reasons for complete collapse, but reason for the buildings being different.

I can't see anything obvious or that stands out which would answer this question.

See above.

 

[gamolon]

Yes, I totally agree that it supports the possibility it was fires.

Ok. So at this point in the discussion what do we have?

I agree that both fire and explosives can be possible and both can weaken/fail steel. The problem is that there is NO proof of explosives yet there IS proof of fire. So as of right no, fire is "winning" in the "most probable cause". Again, this may change as the discussion moves forward and verifiable proof is added. I am willing to change my view if this happens.

However, what I genuinely find is that when one person makes an observation which supports the OCT, it is taken as fact, almost gospel but if they make an observation which supports the CT, they are usually mistaken, wrong or other evidence is demanded to support the eyewitness account.

I have seen this also, but please cite a specific instance so we have reference and are on the same page.

Now I'm not claiming that these people were mistaken, they could be but I have no evidence of it, I could argue that there was no photographic or supporting evidence, but any true skeptic as to accept it.

Ok.

Agreed, but there is overwhelming evidence of explosions.

I agree, nut as we have concluded EXPLOSIONS does not equal EXPLOSIVES. We have also thus far determined that there is no proof of explosives.

If explosives were used, they would be placed in places where they wouldn't be detected which could explain why none were detected.

I agree. One poroblem I have is that nobody has ever come forth with a detailed drawing or drawings placing supposed explosives in places that could replicate what is seen during the collapse.

Seeing as we do not know the source of these explosions, I have to accept the possibility that there could have been explosives.

Agreed, but again, there is PROOF of fire, not explosives. Fire so far wins out on that fact alone at this time.

I wouldn't call it a logical conclusion, I would call it an assumption that there were fires, ergo the building collapsed because of fires.

Ok.

 

[gamolon]

Remember that no other buildings have collapsed to the ground because of fire, so therefore we have no historical reference. If there we had other examples of buildings collapsing from fires, then I agree it would be a logical conclusion.

Ok. But we still cannot make that comparison because buildings are designed differently and must be studied on a case by case basis. We can't just blindly say "These didn't collapse so those shouldn't have". Just like some buildings partially collapse an some don't collapse at all.

We also have multiple reports of it collapsing before it actually collapsed,

And these mistakes were explained. We have to except that at face value. Just because it's considered weird on some people's opinion, doesn't make it true. This also has nothing to do with fire vs. explosives.

reports of multiple explosions throughout the day, that the firefighters couldn't near the building cause of the explosions, and they the sound of explosions captured on camera.

Ok.

Could fire have caused these explosions? Yes, but I don't see what caught on fire to create these conditions, that is not to say there isn't anything out there could be attributed to it.

Ok.

The fact that there were explosions and the fact that buildings generally speaking, buildings don't collapse entirely from fires, the fact it looks exactly like a demolition and other facts which we haven't gotten on to yet are the reason why I think the demolition theory is more likely.

What about the Plasco building?

There is another problem here though Gamolon, which is as humans we have filters and the evidence we find convincing can be subjective.

Agreed

I agree but we have proof of explosions, explosions which were happening throughout the day and that were heard before the building starts collapsing.
Just like we agreed, there is no evidence that fires was the cause, or that explosives were the cause.

I agree, but we have proof of fire and no proof of explosives. Like I have said before, this makes fire the more probable cause at this particular time in the discussion.

This is wherein lies the problem, there wasn't enough data collected and why I support a new investigation.

I am not opposed to this.

I am of the belief that it looks like a demolition again, not because what was put forth by AE911.

Stundie, you are one of the folks who would like people to provide proof for EITHER scenario. You and I both know that "looking like" is not proof of anything. That is why I am in this discussion. To see what PROOF people have and to make sure that all the rules applied to each piece of proof is applied for each person. You have said that people are contradictory when accepting certain claims and don;t apply the same level of criticism. I agree with you there.

So what was different about the WTC 7 and the Plasco buildings which made them more susceptible to fires than all of the other buildings before it?

I am not sure. That's why we need studies done. I can only tell you what I think the differences are.

 

[stundie]

The above statements are wrong Stundie. The entire structure DID NOT "give up in an instant". There entire structure WAS NOT 'almost instantaneously weakened". The collapse happened in stages. There were signs of structural stree and failure throughout the day

Semantics aside, it did give up almost in an instant.
There was very little resistance and when the building falls, all of the structure is failing at that moment in time.

1. Firefighters heard creaking and groaning within the building during the day. These noises are a sign of structural instability.
2. A bulge was witnessed in one of the walls around the 13th floor. That is a sign of structural instability/weakening.
3. A transit was placed on the building which showed some signs of leaning. That is a sigh on structural instability/weakening.

It may have shown some signs of leaning, but this isn't documented anywhere and a leaning building doesn't equate to instability/weakening. Otherwise The Leaning Tower of Pisa wouldn't be standing.

4. The east penthouse collapsed into the building first. That happened some 6 seconds prior to the roofline starting to descend.

How far did this fall? Did the Penthouse collapse onto the floor below?

5. Then the rest of the penthouse fell into the building right before the roofline descended

The highest floor on fire (from what I can remember!) was on floor 28, which is 19 floors below the top storey. So can you explain how and why the penthouse fell first and how far did it fall into the building?

6. The the REST of what was left of the structure came down.

So what was left after the penthouse collapsed?

You see, even after the Penthouse has collapsed, the building is still intact and it's only a few moments afterwards that it loses its integrity in the matter of seconds.

I don't see how that is possible, there are literally thousands of connections and they are providing no resistance.

This whole mantra of the entire structure of WTC7 coming down/weakening in an instant/at the same time is nowhere near the truth.

But the video footage shows otherwise.

This is something I have argued for years, but every time I bring it up, people ignore it. If you have any disagreements with the bullet points above, please say so.

I don't know how you can argue otherwise, it's clearly there and we can see that the facade of the building just loses it's structual integrity.

So what?

So what? You are suggesting that the WTC 7 was designed differently from these other buildings, so I am pointing out that these other buildings are all designed differently from each other.
So using the argument that the WTC 7 was designed differently, isn't an argument or a valid reason as to why it collapsed from fires. All of the other buildings were designed differently.
Until it shown that the design of WTC 7 was actually a factor which made the difference, considering we have a very similar building design which didn't collapse on that day.
Pointing out it was designed differently is just stating a fact of it's design, not whether this was a contributing factor for the fires to make it collapse.

 

[stundie]

All I am saying is that you can't compare each building and expect that they should all react the same. They shouldn't.

That is now what I am saying at all. All the buildings were designed differently and all had varying degrees of fires. There are many variables which make the differences but the conclusion has always been the same.
WTC 7 reacted differently, so the question is, what was it about WTC 7 that made it react differently.
You believe it was the design...I believe it was explosives.

It's the same logic that's applied to buildings that partially collapse and those that don't collapse at all.

I'm only applying previous examples because that is all we have.

Similar, but not the same! Like I said before, did those buildings have the type of long floor spans connecting to core columnslike WTC7? Did those buildings have a mechanical penthouse being supported by some core columns? Did those buildings have transfer trusses like WTC7 did? Where those buildings built on top of an existing structure and did they incorporate some of those existing structural components into it's design? And I am not saying that these contributed to the collapse. All I am saying is that you cannot compare how buildings react to certain scenarios and expect them to all react the same. They are all different.

So do you believe that it was these factors that made the difference then?

Great question! That's why analysis is needed for each building. But that still doesn;t take a way from the point that you can't assume all buildings should react the same. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I'm not assuming that all buildings behave the same. I get it, there are differences, we know this already. So....it might be a great question and until there is a great answer, I don't see how telling people there is a difference proves or even demonstrates how fires did this.

 

[gamolon]

Semantics aside, it did give up almost in an instant.

It's not semantics Studie, it's simply not true. Some people think the entire WTC7 structure was intact, pristine, and connected and then at the same instance the whole building came down at once.

This is simply not the case as I laid out with bullet points in my previous post.

There was very little resistance and when the building falls, all of the structure is failing at that moment in time.

No, I disagree.

ALL of the structure is NOT falling at that moment. What was LEFT of that structure after the initial collapse stages is what fell at the same time.

It may have shown some signs of leaning, but this isn't documented anywhere and a leaning building doesn't equate to instability/weakening. Otherwise The Leaning Tower of Pisa wouldn't be standing.

This is incorrect.

The tower's tilt began during construction in the 12th century, caused by an inadequate foundation on ground too soft on one side to properly support the structure's weight. The tilt increased in the decades before the structure was completed in the 14th century. It gradually increased until the structure was stabilized (and the tilt partially corrected) by efforts in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa

When a building starts out straight and ends up leaning, yes it does mean something structurally is structurally unstable. Are you going to argue that that Tower of Pisa was stable the entire time?

 

[gamolon]

I don't know how you can argue otherwise, it's clearly there and we can see that the facade of the building just loses it's structural integrity.

The facade does not equal the entire building falling at once. I don't know how far down the the failure occurred or how far down the debris fell. The bottom line is that SOME columns failed SOMEWHERE below the east penthouse for it to fall inward.

All I am trying to point out here is that anyone saying that WTC7 was structurally sound and all connected together at the time the roofline started to descend is wrong. It was NOT the ENTIRE structure. That is a fact.

 

[gamolon]

TI'm not assuming that all buildings behave the same. I get it, there are differences, we know this already. So....it might be a great question and until there is a great answer, I don't see how telling people there is a difference proves or even demonstrates how fires did this.

I'm not saying it proves anything Stundie.

All I am saying is that all things considered, we cannot use the "these buildings stood so why did those buildings collapse" as supporting proof of anything because we don't know how buildings react as they are designed differently. It needs to be studied.

That is the point I am trying to make.

I am trying to apply "evidence rules" to claims people come up with so that we are all applying to se rules equally to each piece of evidence no matter which side of the fence you are on. Like you said, people provide evidence to support their claims (claims of their being heat weakened steel from the column 79 area), but there is no actual physical evidence of this. Yet those same people say there is no evidence explosives so they brush the claim of explosives off the table. They don't apply that same reasoning to their own claim.

Hence, we cannot use heat weakened steel as support for a fire induced collapse as there is no proof just as we cannot use explosives as the cause because there is no proof of explosives.

 

[stundie]

Stundie, at this point in the discussion (and I know other points are going to be brought up going forward) we have established that fire is the MOST LIKELY cause. Not proven, but most likely.

I disagree because I don't think it's the most likely cause, I totally agree it's possible still.

Why?

Because we have established the following:

Due to fire
1. Fire can weaken/fail steel
2. There is proof of fire within WTC7

Due to demolition by explosives
1. Explosives can weaken/fail steel
2. There is NO proof of explosives

Now based on that alone, fire is the more likely cause.

There is no correlation, your argument thus far, is that fires can weaken/steel and there was fires, therefore the likely cause because there is no solid proof of explosives. You are ignoring that there is proof of explosions though, which suggest the possibility that there was explosives.

If there is no proof of heat weakened steel, and there is no proof of explosives, but there is proof of fires and proof of explosions. Then I do not think it either theory at this times is more likely to be one or the other.

That conclusion can be drawn AT THIS TIME as that is what we have come up with so far. Now, I am in no way saying that future evidence will not sway this conclusion as it very well may change. That is why I am involved in this discussion. To see what evidence has credence based on agreed criteria. For example, I agree that there is no physical proof of heat weakened steel around column 79. That's just a fact. So that statement cannot be used as support of fire OR that column 79 failed. In the same vein, explosives cannot be used as a reason for the collapse because there is not proof. Those two pieces of evidence should be "stricken from the record" and not used.

You see this is where I would disagree with you slightly, I don't think they should be stricken from the record as such. Because there could be other evidence supporting either theory.

Ok, but it is still POSSIBLE. Just like I agree explosives are possible but there is no proof of that.


Agreed.


Again, we cannot draw a comparison because they are all different as you have agreed. That's why it needs to be studied.


See my thoughts above. Again, I am not saying these are reasons for complete collapse, but reason for the buildings being different.


See above.

So if you agree that it needs to be studied further, then by that token, do you support a new investigation??

 

[gamolon]

So what? You are suggesting that the WTC 7 was designed differently from these other buildings, so I am pointing out that these other buildings are all designed differently from each other.
So using the argument that the WTC 7 was designed differently, isn't an argument or a valid reason as to why it collapsed from fires.

Again, I am not saying it is a reason for why they collapsed from fire. I am saying it is a reason to dismiss the claim that "because other buildings stood after a fire, those that stood SHOULD have also remained standing so therefore explosives is the reason they completely collapsed."

That's it. We don't have the data to use that claim as proof of anything. That's all I am saying.

 

[stundie]

Ok. So at this point in the discussion what do we have?

I agree that both fire and explosives can be possible and both can weaken/fail steel. The problem is that there is NO proof of explosives yet there IS proof of fire. So as of right no, fire is "winning" in the "most probable cause".

I don't think so because there is proof of fires and proof of explosions.

There is no proof of heat/weakened steel and no proof of explosives or damaged steel.

I know the explosions could have been anything but until we have a source for what they were, then I have to agree with the possibility that they might have been explosives.

Again, this may change as the discussion moves forward and verifiable proof is added. I am willing to change my view if this happens.

I'm glad to hear it.

I have seen this also, but please cite a specific instance so we have reference and are on the same page.[/quote}I could point it out but it's not that pertinant to our conversation.

Ok.


I agree, nut as we have concluded EXPLOSIONS does not equal EXPLOSIVES. We have also thus far determined that there is no proof of explosives.

There is no proof of explosives, it wasn't looked for while the towers before the WTC came down or in the rubble afterwards.

However, there is evidence to suggest it was possibly there as I will explain in more detail later.

I agree. One poroblem I have is that nobody has ever come forth with a detailed drawing or drawings placing supposed explosives in places that could replicate what is seen during the collapse.

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who could figure out exactly where they were placed due to the random variables at play.

In the same respect, I have not see any detailed drawings of how the building came apart from heat weakening the steel, that would replicate the collapse either.

Agreed, but again, there is PROOF of fire, not explosives. Fire so far wins out on that fact alone at this time.


Ok.

Fires existed, explosions existed. Just because something exists, that is not in itself a fact that it was done by either method.

 

[stundie]

Ok. But we still cannot make that comparison because buildings are designed differently and must be studied on a case by case basis. We can't just blindly say "These didn't collapse so those shouldn't have". Just like some buildings partially collapse an some don't collapse at all.

But that is not what I am blindly saying.

I'm saying that if these other buildings didn't collapse and the WTC 7 (and 1 and 2 for that matter!) did, then what was the contributing factor? What made the difference?

Saying they were designed differently isn't a valid argument because all the buildings which collapsed, were designed differently as well.

So therefore, there must have been something different about WTC 7.

And these mistakes were explained. We have to except that at face value. Just because it's considered weird on some people's opinion, doesn't make it true. This also has nothing to do with fire vs. explosives.

That's the thing, they haven't been explained to any satisfactory degree. Clearly there was reports of WTC 7 demise moments after WTC 1 & 2 collapsed. This didn't come from nowehere.

However, I am not interested in that at the moment, it's another discussion for another day.

What about the Plasco building?

Yes, I feel the Plasco building was demolished. Not because of anything AE911 have said but due to the similarities of the WTC.

I agree, but we have proof of fire and no proof of explosives. Like I have said before, this makes fire the more probable cause at this particular time in the discussion.

I will disagree as I have pointed out above.

I am not opposed to this.

Its the reason why we are still talking/debating this after so long.

The investigations were inadequate.

Stundie, you are one of the folks who would like people to provide proof for EITHER scenario. You and I both know that "looking like" is not proof of anything. That is why I am in this discussion. To see what PROOF people have and to make sure that all the rules applied to each piece of proof is applied for each person. You have said that people are contradictory when accepting certain claims and don;t apply the same level of criticism. I agree with you there.

In regards to the Plasco, I can't argue over the evidence or facts of how to collapsed because I don't know and I'm not sure if any makor report/study as been done.

Al I can do is pass on my beliefs in this case.

I am not sure. That's why we need studies done. I can only tell you what I think the differences are.

So if you are not sure what the differences in design that made the WTC 7 more susceptible to collapsing from fires, then it's hardly an argument to say that it is different.

As I said, there are differences between all of the buildings which didn't collapse from fires. Therefore saying it was designed differently as an argument, can only be put forward if you can show that it was this difference was the reason it collapsed over others.

 

[stundie]

It's not semantics Studie, it's simply not true. Some people think the entire WTC7 structure was intact, pristine, and connected and then at the same instance the whole building came down at once.

I wouldn't say it was either pristine but it was clearly intact and connected until the point of failure.

This is simply not the case as I laid out with bullet points in my previous post.

I agree that the Penthouse goes first but the rest of the building is still intact.

Did the penthouse floor crash through the rest of the structure, weakening it? I don't know, I doubt it. Evidence or calculations would be able to demonstrate it.

As I said, I don't see how the penthouse collapses when highest fires were spotted on floor 28, which is 19 floors below where the first signs of the collapse happen in the penthouse.

No, I disagree.

ALL of the structure is NOT falling at that moment. What was LEFT of that structure after the initial collapse stages is what fell at the same time.

So what was left then?

This is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa

When a building starts out straight and ends up leaning, yes it does mean something structurally is structurally unstable. Are you going to argue that that Tower of Pisa was stable the entire time?

What I am saying is that there are no documents supporting the notion that the building was leaning, it's not noticable on any of the video/photos.

I know a transit was placed on it according to a firefighter but we do not know how much lean/tilt because there is no records kept.

That doesn't mean there wasn't but we do not know the degrees of by how much.

 

[stundie]

Again, I am not saying it is a reason for why they collapsed from fire. I am saying it is a reason to dismiss the claim that "because other buildings stood after a fire, those that stood SHOULD have also remained standing so therefore explosives is the reason they completely collapsed."

That's it. We don't have the data to use that claim as proof of anything. That's all I am saying.

Fair enough, but if we do not know what differences those designs made, then we cannot say that it was the design if we do not know the answer as to whether design played a part or not.

Of course, this is a subject way beyond my expertise but any study done would help us answer this question.