Fox News: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade

[Vette73]

Hairdo Riviera is on Fox?

All the trash seems to collect there.

 

[ElFenix]

ah yes, the news station switched to other footage. same camera, apparently different sounding mics. in both, the explosions are clear as day, unless one is using shitty speakers.

i turned it up. there is no sound of explosions. i turned it up so loud i could hear the conversation of the two guys clear as day. there i no other sounding mic. the noise in the news report is the guy saying 'second movie' which the studio engineer didn't eliminate as s/he switched the tapes from the field reporter to the footage from the hudson.

a lack of reaction doesn't deny the basic fact the explosions were caught on audio. as seen before, the crowd reacted "this is it" before any official collapse started, and they too heard the explosions


edit: someone used the "bumped the microphone" bullshit repeatedly. also "wind", LoL! if it wasn't you, i apologize. but the crowd in the "this is it" link didn't react to wind they reacted to several explosions, which were pointed out clearly. "That is the building that is gonna go down next"

because they couldn't possibly have reacted to the sound of the building collapsing

That really could be true, I think. I can't quite make that out but it does have some bits that sound like an utterance of some sort.... Somewhere there must be the capability to refine that or those sounds...

turn the volume up. way up. the conversation is fairly clear. use the original countdown video instead of the adulterated news broadcast.

 

[kylebisme]

It's possible to simulate anything you want.

Nah, while one can animate anything one might want, one can only rightly construct a physics simulation of what is physically possible. Hence the reason NIST had to stop their WTC 7 simulation just after it starts to come down, and couldn't show it free fall anything like WTC 7 actually did; because fire induced free fall of a steel frame high-rise is physically impossible.

"That is the building that is gonna go down next"

Yeah, this video shows a reporter earlier in the day saying he heard WTC 7 might come down too, a reporter just shortly after the towers came down saying there was "another explosion or collapse" and that a fire fighter had "estimated 50 stories came down," and Barry Jennings reported explosions in WTC 7 before the towers came down. Taken together; it seems the original plan was to bring WTC 7 down shortly after the towers came down, and before anyone could assess how much damage it took from that, but some hitch in the plan left them having to finish the job much later that day.

People just assume that if they see a model, it represents reality.

Rather, it seems you assume WTC 7 had to have been felled by fires, despite the fact that nobody can produce a model of any level of complexity to come anywhere close to proving such notions have any basis in reality.

one of the videos is recorded immediately after the first 2 towers fell, and doesn't corroborate anything at all with the WTC7. the other video has no indication of where or when it was shot. they don't corroborate anything with regard to WTC7.

The first video you mention dust clouds can be seen rising up around WTC 7 right after the explosions, as the cameraman mentions and even notes "maybe it was the Federal Building (a.k.a WTC 7)." As for the other video policemen can be heard referring to WTC 7 when they say "keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon" and "the building is about to blow up, pull it back."

 

[xj0hnx]

As for the other video policemen can be heard referring to WTC 7 when they say "keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon" and "the building is about to blow up, pull it back."

Yes they were, because it's well documented that you could see deformations in the building as it was giving way. You could see buckling from the outside, it was obvious it wasn't going to last.

 

[gingermeggs]

LOL, I still remember his "investigation" into Al Capone's "hidden vault," which ended up containing a few empty liquor bottles. :biggrin:

My grand uncle cooked whiskey for Al Capone. yugoslav migrant and ex-partizan soldier- the british have him down as "SAS" because at 14y.o he'd killed more german's then 99% of american soldiers in ww2!
He offered to give me a german helmet from a soldier he had killed with a knife at age 16. I refused, I told him to use it as flower pot because flowers are nicer then the german mindset.

Geraldo almost justifies nazi theology!

 

[kylebisme]

Yes they were, because it's well documented that you could see deformations in the building as it was giving way. You could see buckling from the outside, it was obvious it wasn't going to last.

When are you claiming WTC 7 started giving "giving way" specifically, and what documentation of deformations prior to its final moments are you suggesting justified the predictions that it could/would come down hours prior to it actually doing so? Plenty of other high-rises have been subjected to fires, and some did suffer buckling and/or localised failures, but they've all lasted, at least until they were intentionally demolished later.

 

[Anarchist420]

I really don't understand how it could not have been an inside job, considering the fact that Bin Laden maintained that he had nothing to do with it through the day he died.

 

[MotF Bane]

I really don't understand how it could not have been an inside job, considering the fact that Bin Laden maintained that he had nothing to do with it through the day he died.

We have another one!

 

[CycloWizard]

Nah, while one can animate anything one might want, one can only rightly construct a physics simulation of what is physically possible. Hence the reason NIST had to stop their WTC 7 simulation just after it starts to come down, and couldn't show it free fall anything like WTC 7 actually did; because fire induced free fall of a steel frame high-rise is physically impossible.

I can write a physics simulation to prove whatever the hell I want. If I decide that F=ma is all lies, I can simply plug in another equation which will show exactly what I want. Discretization errors, modeling errors, numerical errors, selection of incorrect constitutive laws, or incorrect constitutive parameter estimation are honest ways in which almost every simulation fails to mimic reality. But, simply because you have no idea what you're talking about won't stop you from arguing with me, will it? Seems to be a recurring theme here. Nothing is impossible when you don't know what you're talking about, huh?

 

[xj0hnx]

When are you claiming WTC 7 started giving "giving way" specifically, and what documentation of deformations prior to its final moments are you suggesting justified the predictions that it could/would come down hours prior to it actually doing so? Plenty of other high-rises have been subjected to fires, and some did suffer buckling and/or localised failures, but they've all lasted, at least until they were intentionally demolished later.

All the "research" you have done, and yet you never saw the videos, or read the statements of firefighters, and responders on the scene that called it falling long before it did due to the buckling you could plainly see from the outside? Maybe you should try to looking into it on something other than loony Truther sites.

 

[kylebisme]

I can write a physics simulation to prove whatever the hell I want. If I decide that F=ma is all lies, I can simply plug in another equation which will show exactly what I want.

Again, you wouldn't be doing a physics simulation if you throw out the laws of physics like that, but rather animation.

Discretization errors, modeling errors, numerical errors, selection of incorrect constitutive laws, or incorrect constitutive parameter estimation are honest ways in which almost every simulation fails to mimic reality.

Sure, and one would have to pile errors on top of errors to make a fire induced collapse simulation come down free fall anything like WTC 7 did, which again is why NIST couldn't show their simulation do anything of the sort, and neither can anyone else.

All the "research" you have done, and yet you never saw the videos, or read the statements of firefighters, and responders on the scene that called it falling long before it did due to the buckling you could plainly see from the outside?

I've seen some statements from firefighters and such saying they saw the building leaning and predicting it would come down throughout the day, but no videos or pictures of any such deformations in the building prior to its final moments to support those assessments. On the other hand I've also seen statements from responders such as Craig Bartmer:

...and the whole time your hearing thum, thum, thum, thum, thum... there's a lot of eywiness testamony down there, hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did, and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing.

So, what about your "well documented" evidence of visible buckling earlier in the day? Best I can tell, you're just pretending to have done some research when all you've reality got is hand-waving.

 

[CycloWizard]

Again, you wouldn't be doing a physics simulation if you throw out the laws of physics like that, but rather animation.

Let me just stop you there. The problem is that you don't understand what a simulation is. Since you lack even this basic understanding, there is no point in pursuing this with you further, at least without a bit of education on your part. A simulation is simply solving a system of equations which describe a working model of some system. Such models always involve approximations - always - so it's nonsense to say that a simulation which is not 100% physically accurate is simply an animation. Indeed, I've published papers with "simulations" invoking exactly zero physical laws which nearly perfectly reproduce all available experimental data. So, perhaps you should take my advice and educate yourself the fundamentals before second-guessing people who actually know what they're talking about: “The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about,” after all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe they think they've found a way to Blame Obama!

Faux News claims everything else is his fault, so why not this?

 

[CycloWizard]

Maybe they think they've found a way to Blame Obama!

Faux News claims everything else is his fault, so why not this?

You do know that they make pills for people with your condition, right?

 

[kylebisme]

Such models always involve approximations - always - so it's nonsense to say that a simulation which is not 100% physically accurate is simply an animation.

It's nonsense to suggest I said that. Rather, I said if you throw the laws of physics such as F=ma, then you aren't producing a physics simulation but rather a procedural animation based on something other than the laws of physics. And again, that's pretty much what you'd have to do to make a fire induced collapse simulation come down free fall anything like WTC 7 did; because such a feat isn't even close to physically possible.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's nonsense to suggest I said that. Rather, I said if you throw the laws of physics such as F=ma, then you aren't producing a physics simulation but rather a procedural animation based on something other than the laws of physics. And again, that's pretty much what you'd have to do to make a fire induced collapse simulation come down free fall anything like WTC 7 did; because such a feat isn't even close to physically possible.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Based on your vast expertise and analysis of the detailed report by a bunch of NIST engineers with PhDs in structural engineering, or some talking points you read on a website? Face it: you are obviously in way over your head on this one unless you do what I recommended and at least educate yourself to some baseline level, thereby allowing yourself to make some coherent argument to support your position.

 

[Jhhnn]

You do know that they make pills for people with your condition, right?

Unfortunately, there's no known treatment for your own.

 

[kylebisme]

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Basicly the same way the lead on the NIST report did back when they were denying WTC 7's free fall.

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that the quantity of Empirical Evidence regarding WTC 7 is limited in the sense that all of it cannot sustain any hypothesis of collapse.
So we are left to speculate on or try to assign some truth to the vague bits that some other folks seem to hold as truth.

We know the building collapsed... We can see it! We know that regardless of what went on inside the building structure the exterior visible to us all made a transition from stable to be in free fall - if you look at only the corner of the building - and remained in uniform acceleration for some 2.3 seconds and after that we can't tell.

We CAN create a Sim to reflect the structure assuming we've the As built drawings... We CAN apply all the logic needed to reproduce what we see in the video of the collapse...

However insane it may be to conclude that Fire could cause the initial 'thermally induced walking' of a beam from column 44 to 79 it is possible!

I cannot find any evidence of fires in WTC 7 until near noon of that day... How that started is speculation.
I can't reconcile testimony of the two guys bouncing about inside WTC 7 with what they could have seen or been subjected to. They were on the North Side and the view to the towers was to the South.

The 'bulge(s)' in the building are supported by testimony that I find credible. Bulges indicate structural defect and imminent collapse of some of the structure.

Folks, FDNY, NYPD among others KNEW that building was going to fail an hour or so earlier than it did... It was obvious to ALL of the 'powers to be'.
That don't mean devices were planted to facilitate collapse but, rather, whatever the causation, it was going to fail due to structural conditions incompatible with the initial design.

It seems every 'explosion' heard, felt or seen are attributed to in-building explosive devices by some... They were NOT! Some folks assume a collapsing floor does so silently and wouldn't sound like an explosion and it can and does. Or that a fully loaded fire truck fuel tank lighting off does so with no explosive sound.

Some attribute evidence found in the dust of alleged Thermate/Thermite reaction or un-reacted bits must also have come from WTC 7 and that can't be determined, reasonably.

Surface temps a few days after the event indicate around 1300 degrees F... implying that the source below had to be much hotter... NOT SO... Hold a spoon to your open flame and soon you'll have the same temp at the end as is in the fire... Steel conducts heat pretty good...

End of the day: I'm not convinced that WTC 7 was a demolition event... I am convinced that something caused fires on floors 12 and a few others that did not result from a know natural cause... even from WTC 1 bits hitting the south edge... Too much time lapse from the two events...
WTC 7 fell from a sequence of events sans an effort by demo folks and their devices.. IMO

 

[hal2kilo]

One of the search tags for this thread is nutters, imagine that.

 

[LunarRay]

One of the search tags for this thread is nutters, imagine that.

In this 'Debate' and I loosely call it a debate, IF one were to take every bit of ummmmmm 'information' and contort it to fit their model they could generate a model that supports explosive devices as the cause of the collapse.
The only problem with that notion is that in doing so some very supportive bits are not found among the information...

They are not 'Nutters' in my opinion but rather, agendized (if that is a word) folks on a mission. They accept the premise that Government folks with power to affect world events are evil... always were and always will be and that extrapolation from this event resulted in the Iraqi and Afghani invasions among others...

There is evidence in support of that condition found elsewhere BUT in this event and looking at the evidence as a finder of fact I can't convict them... Not with good conscience, anyhow...

 

[kylebisme]

The 'bulge(s)' in the building are supported by testimony that I find credible.

What testimony, specifically?

It seems every 'explosion' heard, felt or seen are attributed to in-building explosive devices by some... They were NOT!

Which ones weren't, specifically?

Some folks assume a collapsing floor does so silently and wouldn't sound like an explosion and it can and does. Or that a fully loaded fire truck fuel tank lighting off does so with no explosive sound.

On what do you base you claim that collapsing floors do sound like an explosion? Also, which evidence of such sounds are you attributing to collapsing floors, and which to a fuel tank lighting off, specifically?

Some attribute evidence found in the dust of alleged Thermate/Thermite reaction... must also have come from WTC 7 and that can't be determined, reasonably.

What would you suggest is a reasonable explanation for the intergranular melting of and formation of a liquid eutectic on this steel, specifically?

Hold a spoon to your open flame and soon you'll have the same temp at the end as is in the fire...

Rather than comparing apples to oranges, you should try that buried under a bunch of concrete dust and rubble and check the surface temps.

...IF one were to take every bit of ummmmmm 'information' and contort it to fit their model they could generate a model that supports explosive devices as the cause of the collapse.

Those of you who insist on believing WTC 7 was felled by fires are the ones who have to "ummmmm" over a lot of evidence, and still can't produce any model to support that notion that fires can cause a building to come down so quickly and completely; while a model of explosives doing as much would be superfluous as there's already plenty of real world examples which prove that.

They are not 'Nutters' in my opinion but rather, agendized (if that is a word) folks on a mission. They accept the premise that Government folks with power to affect world events are evil...

That's most certainly not my position here, as I highly doubt the notion that our government leaders were behind the attacks, and rather figure it was corporate leaders with power to affect world events and who our government folks are subservient to. That said, your arguments give me the impression that you simply refuse to accept any possibility that anyone with power to affect world events could be so evil other than a cavedweller and his cohorts, which puts you on a mission to wave your hands at all evidence which suggests otherwise. Best I can tell, that is the basis which all of you defenders of the cavedweller conspiracy theory argue from.

To test my theory, I'm curious to see how you all react to the Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11. Can anyone do anything more than wave their hands at that?

 

[LunarRay]

What testimony, specifically?

Re: Building WTC 7 'bulges'...

Deputy Chief Hayden comes to mind as well as the Engineer on site but there are others along with the statements made by the Firefighters... Not that you don't already know this or that you'd find it credible...

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=peter_hayden

That building WAS known to be coming down by all sorts of media folks and some even stated it came down whilst still standing... They got that information from the sources they found credible too. You know this. You've linked a few times the BBC and CNN bits about it. You bet folks knew it was coming down because it was no secret to anyone.. You choose to believe with the eyes of the world on WTC 7 some bad guys detonated explosives to enable its collapse... I don't find that remotely credible.

 

[SP33Demon]

Who the hell knows what brought down #7 but it's still shady as hell that thermate was found in the debris. As well when the FBI said the black boxes from the planes were never found when there were direct witness volunteers who saw the black boxes being carted off by the FBI. It's just about statistically impossible that none of the black boxes were found when black boxes from explosions just as violent (if not more) have been found.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by LunarRay
They are not 'Nutters' in my opinion but rather, agendized (if that is a word) folks on a mission. They accept the premise that Government folks with power to affect world events are evil...

That's most certainly not my position here, as I highly doubt the notion that our government leaders were behind the attacks, and rather figure it was corporate leaders with power to affect world events and who our government folks are subservient to. That said, your arguments give me the impression that you simply refuse to accept any possibility that anyone with power to affect world events could be so evil other than a cavedweller and his cohorts, which puts you on a mission to wave your hands at all evidence which suggests otherwise. Best I can tell, that is the basis which all of you defenders of the cavedweller conspiracy theory argue from.

In the Post you quote I indicate that as a finder of fact I can't convict them in good conscience... ME... I CAN'T! What you can do is for you and what you conclude if also for you...
Does any of the evidence beyond some threshold (Reasonable Doubt) convince me that anyone (other than as collateral damage from WTC Tower events) caused WTC 7 to collapse, NOPE!