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

[LunarRay]

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.

Maybe it is Thermate or Thermite and Maybe the FBI did find the airliner boxes... This is about the cause of WTC 7's collapse and not the entire events of that day...

While it is interesting and would be supportive of one aspect of WTC 7's collapse if you can't associate the dust findings directly to WTC 7's collapse by some forensic means you simply have dust stuff and no where to apply it. It could have been housed in WTC 6 for all I know... or WTC 5 or where ever IF it is what Harritt et. al. published. Find some Nexus between WTC 7 and the Dust Stuff and that would be enough for me to vote that in the trial of the US v bad guys Dust Stuff probably was the method they used.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by LunarRay
...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.

You comment as if there exist video evidence of explosive events or clear and unambigious recordings that can be heard... (WTC 7 now.. not the Towers etc..) and that I'm ignoring them or folks are.
There is simply only the building collapse video indicating a uniform acceleration for 2.x seconds that is without question evdience of the Emperical kind... That and the FACT that credible folks on site opined that the building was in danger of collapse..... AND a lot of 'stuff' that HAS to be interpreted as being attributable to WTC 7's events... I simply can't do that..

YES... I find the Dust Stuff to be problematic but I can't link it to WTC 7... or anywhere with sufficient confidence that it becomes evidence of what some purport it to be.

Well after the collapse of the towers is when the FDNY went into 7 to put some fires out... I can't fix that time exactly but find after 11:30 ish to be reasonable... HOW it started is speculation but I wouldn't be surprised to find it was not related to the bits of Towers hitting the South face at the edge... Not many photo or video evidence of fires at all actually... I wonder how fire got to the area it did and not be seen traversing the distance from the South edge to where they were seen..

Kyle, I have to approach this as I would sitting as a Juror under oath in a Murder trial... not as prosecutor or defense... they are advocates... I'm trying to avoid that and simply sit as a Finder of Fact... Both sides have presented evidence and some I can agree with and some falls short... That is how it is...

 

[SP33Demon]

You comment as if there exist video evidence of explosive events or clear and unambigious recordings that can be heard... (WTC 7 now.. not the Towers etc..) and that I'm ignoring them or folks are.
There is simply only the building collapse video indicating a uniform acceleration for 2.x seconds that is without question evdience of the Emperical kind... That and the FACT that credible folks on site opined that the building was in danger of collapse..... AND a lot of 'stuff' that HAS to be interpreted as being attributable to WTC 7's events... I simply can't do that..

YES... I find the Dust Stuff to be problematic but I can't link it to WTC 7... or anywhere with sufficient confidence that it becomes evidence of what some purport it to be.

Well after the collapse of the towers is when the FDNY went into 7 to put some fires out... I can't fix that time exactly but find after 11:30 ish to be reasonable... HOW it started is speculation but I wouldn't be surprised to find it was not related to the bits of Towers hitting the South face at the edge... Not many photo or video evidence of fires at all actually... I wonder how fire got to the area it did and not be seen traversing the distance from the South edge to where they were seen..

Kyle, I have to approach this as I would sitting as a Juror under oath in a Murder trial... not as prosecutor or defense... they are advocates... I'm trying to avoid that and simply sit as a Finder of Fact... Both sides have presented evidence and some I can agree with and some falls short... That is how it is...

All you had to say was that #7's windows didn't blow out like a normal demo and you could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by LunarRay
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?

According to some credible chemical engineers it is the result of a substance that not only is an eutectic but that also contains sulphur... and other credible chemical engineers opine that it could be anything from caustic cat nip to acid.

The first thing I looked at was from where the steel came.... WTC 7 or Towers or another building altogether... I can't pin that down but since the Towers had labeled bits I'd think it was likely not from the Towers. The WTC site was denied its criminal status and therefore while forensic analysis is doable on Staten Island it is not as convincing as could have been had the site remained pristine.. Couldn't do that in any case cuz of the Search and Rescue aspects...

What might the agent in this case...? Lots of stuff have been touted... but none have been stated as being the only one possible... or probable.

 

[LunarRay]

All you had to say was that #7's windows didn't blow out like a normal demo and you could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

Thank you for your admonition... I like typing, however. As I said elsewhere there is stuff that if included don't support the explosive device theory...()

 

[SphinxnihpS]

While Geraldo is far from the sharpest tool in the shed, Napolitano is a reasonably bright guy, and both are correct in doubting the notion that WTC 7 was felled by fires. For those who've yet to come to terms with that fact, I recently made this video.

Added to list of idiots that has not grown in a long time.

 

[kylebisme]

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...

I know Hayden was one of few who claimed to see some bulging, and the video and photo record doesn't back such claims. Hence, I'm left to figure that those few who reportedseeing such building imagined it, having been told by the mysterious engineer that WTC 7 would come down, and attempting to rationalise that prediction. Note that NIST also rejected those few reports of bulging throughout the day, instead suggesting that the first notable deformation was that of column 79 just moments before the building came down.

You choose to believe with the eyes of the world on WTC 7 some bad guys detonated explosives to enable its collapse...

No, I figure much of the explosives were set off in the chaos of the towers being hit and coming down, thermite incendiaries were used to compromise without making noise, and some final explosives were set off to finish the job after police had backed people blocks away.

In the Post you quote I indicate that as a finder of fact I can't convict them in good conscience...

Rather, you're ignoring the facts of what happened by distracting yourself with "who". It's much as if you'd been shown the corpse of someone who died from a dozen stab wounds in the back and arguing that since you don't have enough evidence to determine who committed the murder then it must have been a suicide.

You comment as if there exist video evidence of explosive events or clear and unambigious recordings that can be heard... (WTC 7 now.. not the Towers etc..) and that I'm ignoring them or folks are.

Rather, I take the evidence for what it is, while you resort to the call to perfection fallacy to ignore it.

According to some credible chemical engineers it is the result of a substance that not only is an eutectic but that also contains sulphur...

Rather, it's a eutectic because it contains sulfur, like the sulfur which is added to thermite to create thermate, and which can be used to compromise steel colums as demonstrated by this engineer.

The first thing I looked at was from where the steel came.... WTC 7 or Towers or...

It seems you didn't give an honest look at the FEMA report I linked previously, as right in the second sentence it explains, "The first [of the two pieces of steel analyzed] appeared to be from WTC 7."

All you had to say was that #7's windows didn't blow out...

You can say it all you want, but unless some video of the lower section of WTC 7 in its final moments turns up, you're just misrepresenting speculation as if it were fact.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by LunarRay
According to some credible chemical engineers it is the result of a substance that not only is an eutectic but that also contains sulphur...

Rather, it's a eutectic because it contains sulfur, like the sulfur which is added to thermite to create thermate, and which can be used to compromise steel colums as demonstrated by this engineer.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean here but lots of stuff are eutectic ummm Sodium Cloride and Water form an eutectic like when they toss that crap on the icy roads to 'melt' the ice.
In Thermate you could use Barium Nitrate instead of Sulfur... I said sulfur cuz that seemed to be what they said they found..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by LunarRay
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...

I know Hayden was one of few who claimed to see some bulging, and the video and photo record doesn't back such claims. Hence, I'm left to figure that those few who reportedseeing such building imagined it, having been told by the mysterious engineer that WTC 7 would come down, and attempting to rationalise that prediction. Note that NIST also rejected those few reports of bulging throughout the day, instead suggesting that the first notable deformation was that of column 79 just moments before the building came down.

There are quite a few others, Kyle.. they (the FDNY) had a transit and found the bulge on floors 3 through 6 very early on... but that is not the main point...
The issue is there exist many folks who are credible including the Port Authority folks who said similar things about 7.
One Fire Chief said they'd either take it down or let it fall on its own.. they had to get about the folks in the rubble and there was no life at risk in 7's fall...
Further, I really don't much care what NIST or FEMA report in their ummmm effort... and I can't seem to find a thing in the Commission Report... NIST/FEMA have their own band of PhDs and other Scientists some of whom are not impressive but by and large they provide some very important facts... Interpretations of those facts in terms of using them to extrapolate from fact to theory is interesting but not fact..

One fellow, Gross - I think his name is, amazes me when he said that he'd not seen nor heard of one single bit of evidence regarding 'molten metal'... He should have looked, I guess.

Folks also seem to think that 7 was not ablaze near 5 ish that day. There are video that depict almost a complete face issuing smoke and fire...

I can but have not tried to put my expertise in Math to this project because there are not many things to apply it to.

I accept the notion that Thermite/Thermate of the Nano kind... built up from the atomic or near atomic level... may have been found in the dust... It does seem odd to find that but not one bit of anything that can remotely be called an activator of that substance to 'demo' anything...

 

[kylebisme]

There are quite a few others, Kyle..

No really, there aren't but a few who said they saw building, and apparently only after having been told by some unnamed engineer that WTC 7 would come down, despite it not showing any notable signs of such in the many videos of it prior to it's final moments.

One fellow, Gross - I think his name is, amazes me when he said that he'd not seen nor heard of one single bit of evidence regarding 'molten metal'...

Gross is simply smart enough to know that the molten steel can't be rightly explained without admitting to the fact that the buildings were intentionally demolished, so instead he dodges the issue by denying the molten steel.

Folks also seem to think that 7 was not ablaze near 5 ish that day. There are video that depict almost a complete face issuing smoke and fire...

There were still fires in WTC 7 when it came down, but there was never fires in WTC 7 as wide spread and long lasting as there have been in many high-rises in other high-rise fires.

It does seem odd to find that but not one bit of anything that can remotely be called an activator of that substance to 'demo' anything...

Hardly weird at all when according the official story the black boxes were supposedly not found either, nor the evidence on these harddrives of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks. Put simply, people can't rightly be expected to find what they choose not to look for, and the people running the investigation into the 9/11 attacks weren't looking for anything which pointed to anybody but al Queda, hence the reason the official investigations didn't even bother to test the dust for explosive material or residues, despite the many witness reports and videos of explosions.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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

First...
"I'm certainly much more open-minded about it than I was," Rivera said of the alternate possibility for the building's fall.

Now you would think that is just one nut at fox right... wrong.

then...
Days later Napolitano – a legal analyst for Fox – said of the theory:
"It's hard for me to believe that [7 World Trade Center] came down by itself. I was gratified to see Geraldo Rivera investigating it. I'm gratified to see the people across the border interested."

You can't make this up its that crazy.

Only on FOX!!!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...from-left-and-right-over-analyst/#more-137689

Not unexpected from a truther who also "have read the original police reports" on Assange but cannot link to them and they are classified and no trace exists of them on the internet...

Hear ye hear ye, conspiracies for everyting, hear ye hear ye, i'll make it up to make it more interesting.

 

[Vette73]

Not unexpected from a truther who also "have read the original police reports" on Assange but cannot link to them and they are classified and no trace exists of them on the internet...

Hear ye hear ye, conspiracies for everyting, hear ye hear ye, i'll make it up to make it more interesting.

WTF are you talking about? I am making fun of Fox and THEIR truthers.
I’m guessing reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.

 

[airdata]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsJjYwYOAA

John Kerry saying that tower 7 was bought down in a controlled fashion so as to avoid damaging other buildings.

And then you can look up larry silverstein's quotes about their decision to " Pull " the building.

Of course in 20-30 years all of this will be common knowledge and nobody will care...

Or sooner like the lack of WMD in Iraq. Under 10 years and nobody cares that the government blatantly lied to goto war w\ another country and then simply changed the operation name several times, etc.

 

[kylebisme]

Under 10 years and nobody cares that the government blatantly lied to goto war w\ another country and then simply changed the operation name several times, etc.

Your mention of blatant lies reminds me of the claims bin Laden had cave fortresses like Rumsfeld was pimping with Russert's help back in the early days of the wars:

"Oh, you bet, this is serious business" Rumsfeld claimed, "and there's not one of those, there are many of those." I wonder how many people still believe that nonsense.

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsJjYwYOAA

John Kerry saying that tower 7 was bought down in a controlled fashion so as to avoid damaging other buildings.

And then you can look up larry silverstein's quotes about their decision to " Pull " the building.

Of course in 20-30 years all of this will be common knowledge and nobody will care...

A babbling idiot answering a question from a Truther, on a subject he knows nothing about.

Pull is NOT a term used in detonation of explosives, it is used in demolition referring to physically pulling a wall or structure down with a crane/dozer using cables. Modern demo doesn't use the older M-60 detonators which you turn and pull, and when they are used we never said "pull". Silverstein was referring to pulling the operation to stop the fires.

 

[LunarRay]

Kyle, regarding simply the aspect of WTC 7 that relates to foreknowledge of the 'collapse' there are a plethora of video, tape recordings from FDNY transmission, transcripts of statements and various News Media statements to that effect... Almost everyone at the site knew that building failure was imminent.
It is my opinion that "Pull it" relates to "bring it down", "demo it" or such like...

I am unable to bring evidence to the table regarding the dynamics that occurred to enable its uniform acceleration over how many feet that occurred nor do I see what I'd expect regarding the top bit meeting the lower bit (WTC 7) and cease that 'free fall'... But I can speculate like all the rest...

To my thinking the only mechanism that could provide for reasonably symmetrical collapse of the building in the manner we can see is that the cantilever structure over ConEd's sub station gave out in 'one fell swoop'. That would entail a constant fire source possibly from the fuel oil tanks heating up that structure for hours beyond the resistance feature of the 2hr fire resistance coating. The distance the floors above would fall in uniform acceleration is about what we witness. That or indeed some other help was employed. No matter what I do using my limited horse sense to column 79 etc I can't see that to be the cause. NOT for what is depicted in the video, that is... That bit is simply too progressive to enable a reasonably symmetrical collapse AND nothing being depicted in the exterior 'fascia' of bits pulling in or what not... The 'brittle' bits DO or SHOULD reflect the goings on of the interior...

I suppose it is possible that igniters used to demolish a building could be burned up in the resulting 4500 F heat produced by Thermate/Thermite IF they were electronic and not have wiring strewn all over the place... Your proffer about "black boxes" is not quite the same thing... The fire fighters in NYC are not your average Gung Ho Government helpers... I know these people and to a man I'd wager if they found one single bit of evidence while they sifted for their 'brothers' they'd be about vengeance... I'd not want being between them and their objective...

Edit: I should add; they are not stupid (the firefighters) and they are trained to sniff for (visually) the stuff that causes what we witnessed that day. They do this kind of thing at every fire.

 

[LunarRay]

A babbling idiot answering a question from a Truther, on a subject he knows nothing about.

Pull is NOT a term used in detonation of explosives, it is used in demolition referring to physically pulling a wall or structure down with a crane/dozer using cables. Modern demo doesn't use the older M-60 detonators which you turn and pull, and when they are used we never said "pull". Silverstein was referring to pulling the operation to stop the fires.

I am no expert on the language of demolition so I'll defer to those who are... BUT, I did hear comments from video/audio at the site regarding other buildings there and they did use the term 'Pull'... Perhaps they did mean Pull it down.. I don't know..
Silverstein is way too sharp a cookie to utter what would come back to bite him... So maybe his comment IS to do with PULL the fire folks out... who were not in there in any event... Three Chiefs ordered no one to go in... I think it was Ladder 12 and Engine 35 (from memory) were poised to enter...
I think it was near noon when they set up or started to set up a "fall perimeter"... How they knew it would not topple is interesting cuz the perimeter did not extend all that way out... IOW, IF 7 toppled to the South it would have hit the Search and Rescue folks at the Site of the Towers.

 

[alkemyst]

what if wikileaks was created in order to hide the fact that WTC was an inside job?

cue in dramatic music.

 

[LunarRay]

Kyle, I think a very prudent activity is to adopt the other side of the equation and pursue that to its extreme. IOW, become a debunk-er of the alternate Conspiracy Theory if only within the confines of your computer room... (WTC 7) Leave the anomalies to sit unanswered until the end... then try to answer them from the other perspective... IF you can't find a nexus to WTC 7 and those anomalies they may not be linked...

I think it is the best way to avoid one's bias being applied to the events and 'evidence' thus insuring one does not constantly take the alternate as reality and develop a thesis that falls when one bit don't stand up to the analysis.

 

[LunarRay]

what if wikileaks was created in order to hide the fact that WTC was an inside job?

cue in dramatic music.

Well... How about this:

IF there is undeniable proof (enough for fair minded jurors to convict) of an "Inside Job" of ANY aspect of the 9/11 events then we'd have proof that the entire bit was an "Inside Job"... No?

As what I'd term a Fair Minded Person I'd not be able to say beyond a reasonable doubt that any aspect goes beyond even a lower threshold of proof. At least not when you start with the predicate that it was as the Official Theory proclaims...

 

[kylebisme]

Kyle, regarding simply the aspect of WTC 7 that relates to foreknowledge of the 'collapse' there are a plethora of video, tape recordings from FDNY transmission, transcripts of statements and various News Media statements to that effect...

Of course there was widespread foreknowlage of WTC 7 comming down, I've never suggested otherwise.

Almost everyone at the site knew that building failure was imminent.

Such as who, specifically? Hayden says he was that the WTC 7 would come down by some engineer he refuses to name, and plenty of other people were told the same; but who actually knew, and how could anyone rightly know when no high-rise building in history had ever been felled by fires?

To my thinking the only mechanism that could provide for reasonably symmetrical collapse of the building in the manner we can see is that the cantilever structure over ConEd's sub station gave out in 'one fell swoop'.

Beside, the fact that the fires were about the substation, and that even much larger and longer lasting high-rises fires have only ever led to partial collapses at most; when one side of a building goes out it falls to that side, like this.

I suppose it is possible that igniters used to demolish a building could be burned up in the resulting 4500 F heat produced by Thermate/Thermite IF they were electronic and not have wiring strewn all over the place...

Buildings already have and a sundry of electronic devices all over the place, and wire strewn all over too, though I'd bet wireless demolition devices were used for ease of instillation.

Your proffer about "black boxes" is not quite the same thing... The fire fighters in NYC are not your average Gung Ho Government helpers...

Sure, but those fighters were working under the direction of the same gun ho government helpers who supposedly didn't recover the black boxes or the evidence of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks. Destruction of evidence was rampant at the WTC 7 complex, which is why the editor in chief of Fire Engineering at the time called it "a half-baked farce."

 

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by LunarRay
To my thinking the only mechanism that could provide for reasonably symmetrical collapse of the building in the manner we can see is that the cantilever structure over ConEd's sub station gave out in 'one fell swoop'

Beside, the fact that the fires were about the substation, and that even much larger and longer lasting high-rises fires have only ever let to partial collapses at most; when one side of a building goes out it falls to that side, like this.

Well, if you look at the structure over the Sub-Station and consider that it could give way and if it did what the result might be, you'd have to agree that the entire structure above which depended on that cantilever bit would come down sans any resistance after the exterior columns buckled due to the failure of them to be able to carry the load. That accounts for the description of the lower part issuing not only the sound of collapse but also the visual of 'smoke'.
IF you can agree that a partial collapse of something due to fire is possible then consider the cantilever bit as a partial collapse and the bits above refused to sit there and defy logic...

Originally Posted by LunarRay
Your proffer about "black boxes" is not quite the same thing... The fire fighters in NYC are not your average Gung Ho Government helpers...

Sure, but they were working under the direction of the same gun ho government helpers who supposedly didn't recover the black boxes or the evidence of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks. Destruction of evidence was rampant at the WTC 7 complex, which is why when the the editor of Fire Engineering at the time called it "a half-baked farce."

The 'black box' issue is supportive of something if true but there is no link to the events of WTC 7's collapse. It is not related! It is not quite 'Post hoc, ergo, Propter hoc'... but I like that phrase so I'll use it anyhow...
We do have that guy who drove FBI (presumably) about looking for the boxes who said they found three and the FBI denies this. I'm not sure the consequence of that but there are black boxes from other flights found and they were produced albeit with issues too according to some. So it sorta sits like this with me.... IF any airliner flight data was fudgeicated they all were. I don't see that yet notwithstanding efforts to invoke fabrication of the data.

Don't for a moment presume that anyone in the lower echelons of the FDNY would conspire to cover up because their overlords commanded them to... They ain't got that failure in them... Not got it in them to my personal knowledge. The NYPD are somewhat a different kinda cat but they too to my personal knowledge would not have universal agreement on that kind of act... Knapp Commission comes to mind. I know my cousin wouldn't cotton to it... not for a moment.

I'll not revisit the multitude of specifically who knew the WTC 7 was coming down... It is beyond obvious to me that it was to fall and most everyone knew. Especially the folks being herded outside the fall perimeter and the folks who ordered that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They are going to use wireless detonators?

To easy for an accidental trigger. Also, how many would be needed and whre would such be obtained. Records would exist up the wazoo.

 

[airdata]

A babbling idiot answering a question from a Truther, on a subject he knows nothing about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_uojEXJEEE

Donald Rumsfeld letting it slip that flight 93 was shot down. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things... but there's no reason to lie about things lest you make people wonder just how much the government lies about.

Give me a few minutes and maybe I'll find Bill Clinton quoted in questioning whether or not we landed on the moon since in his 8 years in office, he saw things that would make you wonder as much.

 

[LunarRay]

Such as who, specifically? Hayden says he was that the WTC 7 would come down by some engineer he refuses to name, and plenty of other people were told the same; but who actually knew, and how could anyone rightly know when no high-rise building in history had ever been felled by fires?

Regarding this bit... IF you listen to the audio comments and read the transcripts many of the fire chiefs and deputy chiefs while looking at the damage caused to the South face at the edge by the North Tower collapse felt that building was in danger from that alone. One comment was "(...) about half of the interior at that edge was smashed up for about 25 floors. (...)" I think NIST's wizard said as much too...

Putting into context the removal of the two Nomadic creatures from the eighth floor perch was not an easy task... apparently there was limited ingress and egress to any part of that building after the last Tower Collapse. Maybe, just maybe there was more damage than folks charged with finding cause wish to admit for what ever reason. I don't know what that one fellow observed that blew him and his buddy up from the sixth to the eighth floor but it could have been the collapse of the Tower hitting below him... or the fuel oil bunkers... him being an "Old Boiler Man" suggests he knows about boilers blowing up and I don't find that credible. I know a bit about being blown up and I don't have the foggiest idea what transpired other than finding myself in medevac.