Libya is finished, what country will be next?

[Rroff]

The conference isn't an observation of yours though, I'm not disputing your observations - that you dad told you a story and that you heard him being worried about some colleagues in NYC on 9/11.

But your story itself about the conference isn't a 1st hand account, you can't even find basic information about it and yet you're happy to share it/pass it on etc..

It isn't my dad telling me a story - I saw his reaction and borrowing all the phones he could to try and get in contact with people and knew what was going on at work. I didn't put as much importance in details as you are implying as I knew it happened and just found it odd - not trying to further a conspiracy.

The WTC7 stuff is unconnected to that.

 

[dowie]

It isn't my dad telling me a story - I saw his reaction and borrowing all the phones he could to try and get in contact with people and knew what was going on at work. I didn't put as much importance in details as you are implying as I knew it happened and just found it odd - not trying to further a conspiracy.

The WTC7 stuff is unconnected to that.

Roff I'm not disputing your observations re: your dad calling people in NYC or being worried about them on 9/11. That is missing the point somewhat, the fact is that you don't have any details re: this conference and it seems pretty dubious that there wouldn't be anything online about it given your claims. Pointing out that the event was several years ago now is also rather irrelevant, there has been a ridiculous amount of attention paid to the various people and organisations that were in and around the WTC on that day.

 

[GGizmo]

Short answer, the WTC complex consisted of seven buildings. Planes were flown into the two largest buildings WTC1 and WTC2, this caused catastrophic damage and multiple fires which eventually caused the buildings to collapse thus destroying the smaller WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6 and causing severe damage to WTC7 (the outermost building of the complex) setting it ablaze. WTC7 was much newer than WTC1/WTC2 (the first designs of their kind) and so had a sprinkler system, sadly this was disabled by the collapse of WTC1/WTC2 and so with structural damage, widespread fires and an no war to fight the fire WTC7 collapsed too.

I answered my own question a couple of posts after I asked that. I decided to read the report and it was very interesting. Officially the report only give a hypothetical answer as to how it could have collapsed saying it was the first time a fire had been responsible for a building collapse. https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/31908620

I'm genuinely curious about something. Do you think that a large building would be demolished by pulling it down, i.e. by attaching ropes or chains to it and pulling on them? While it was on fire? The person who put the title on that video obviously does, but do you?

I remembered hearing of the Silverstein guy years ago say something contraversial. It's only when I saw his name in the report that I typed it in youtube and that came up. So I picked the video for the sound bite and not the title of it.

The only thing I knew about WTC 7 before was watching it collapse live on TV when it all happened. Then I remember some talk about it from the usual conspiracy places back then. But since then I've had others things in life to think about. It's only when I noticed WTC 7 mentioned on the thread that I asked my question of how it collapsed. Then as you saw Tefal challenged me to read the report, so eventually I did.

To answer the question of how it came down. I guess it comes down to what is meant by "pull it". The way he was talking it sounded like he was trying to pass the buck on to the fire department for taking the decision, whatever it meant. But the official report says there was no blast heard and made a hypothetical answer that regular fire collapsed the building, acknowledging this would have been the first time in history this happened, and also other buildings with major fires haven't collapsed.

I think the American people have been robbed of a full investigation because all the evidence from WTC 1, 2 and 7 had been removed before any official investigation could begin. This was said in the report.

I'm not fully convinced fire alone caused the collapse. The report didn't make a definitive answer. But unless there is evidence to contradict it then we'll have to accept it.

There are many questions of at least WTC 7 that can't be fully answered. We'll never know the answers. But the questions will always keep coming. But I'll let Bush have the final words, if you're ever thinking of asking questions;

 

[dowie]

It doesn't help that Larry Silverstein is admitting in the video that either he, or the fire department commander, "pulled it". What is meant by "pull it"? and then watch it collapse. That suggests someone took the decision to bring it down. But that is inconsistant to what the official report said. Though the report does have a get out clause as at the start of all these reports all documentary evidence had been removed before the investigation started. This is said in all the reports.

I recommend reading the reports.

Here is a link to the short Larry video I quoted from earlier;

this is ridiculous - do you not suppose he's talking about the fire service operation - in context he mentions the loss of life they'd already had that day and firefighters were indeed pulled out from around WTC7

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?

 

[ubersonic]

this would have been the first time in history this happened, and also other buildings with major fires haven't collapsed

September the 11th 2001 was also the first and only time a steel skyscraper had ever faced a major unfought fire. The threat of fire to steel buildings is the main reason later buildings (the WTC towers were the first of their kind) must have sprinkler systems. The other buildings with major fires you're referring too were either made of concrete (much stronger) or concrete and steel, none of the same design as the WTC have ever caught fire and burned unfought.

One notable example of this is the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, which was basically a WTC style exoskeleton built on a concrete core (think WTC 1 or 2 but with the Empire State Building inside it), the result of the fire was that the WTC style steel section collapsed but the building as a whole didn't due to the concrete section.

I'm not fully convinced fire alone caused the collapse.

It didn't, fire combined with structural damage and the disablement of the sprinkler system which was required to fight the fire did.

There are many questions of at least WTC 7 that can't be fully answered.

The only one that can't is why the BBC reported it had collapsed 30 minutes early. And even then it's more plausible that they were simply confused/rushing as six buildings had already collapsed, rather than them being pre-briefed on a super conspiracy.

 

[Sankari]

My implication was (very loosely) that someone higher up had found some reason to cancel it not that anyone involved cancelled it because they'd become aware of a plot - though subsequently it seems likely the reason why it was cancelled was due to certain foreign representatives pulling out citing security concerns.

Why would they cite security concerns? Are you or are you not claiming that these security concerns were related to the pending attacks?

 

[Sankari]

According to a simuilation hypothetical, no blast played a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

So the report leaves it open as a mystery.

The report doesn't leave it open as a mystery.

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers.

The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit.

The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

...Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause.

"This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference.

"What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7."

The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

(Source).

 

[Rroff]

Why would they cite security concerns? Are you or are you not claiming that these security concerns were related to the pending attacks?

I have no idea as to whether they pertained to the impending attacks - as I said it was rumours that security reasons underpinned it - I'm not even sure the origins of that explanation never mind specifics. I mean some of these countries people have problems getting clearance into the US at the best of times so it could simply be that.

 

[GGizmo]

this is ridiculous - do you not suppose he's talking about the fire service operation - in context he mentions the loss of life they'd already had that day and firefighters were indeed pulled out from around WTC7

I just think its an odd phrase to use.

September the 11th 2001 was also the first and only time a steel skyscraper had ever faced a major unfought fire. The threat of fire to steel buildings is the main reason later buildings (the WTC towers were the first of their kind) must have sprinkler systems. The other buildings with major fires you're referring too were either made of concrete (much stronger) or concrete and steel, none of the same design as the WTC have ever caught fire and burned unfought.

I was very careful about that paragraph as I expected someone to try and shoot the messenger. It is the report that talked about that. I can't talk for WTC 1 or 2 as the report I was reading was solely about WTC 7.

It didn't, fire combined with structural damage and the disablement of the sprinkler system which was required to fight the fire did.

Debris didn't collapse the tower, nor was the sprinkler system fully off. It activated on some floors and not on others. The walls were also fire resistant. The building had reinforced concrete walls between 1ft to 2.5ft thick. Many of the walls had steel columns embedded (this is in the report).

The report doesn't leave it open as a mystery.

Why don't you read the report for yourself instead of relying on third party sites? Technically the quote you made is correct. But the report also said its answer was the result of simulations rather than actual evidence.

Here is a paragraph from the report;

This is the final report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. The report is the result of an extensive, state of the art reconstruction of the events that affected WTC 7 and eventually led to its collapse. Numerous facts and data were obstained, then combined with validated computer modeling to produce an account that captures the key features of what actually occurred. However the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting. Nonetheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.

I'm not going to reply to people questioning the information I'm replying with as I'm taking it directly from the report. It doesn't let me copy/paste so I'm having to type it out to post it. Anyone can easily read the report here: https://www.nist.gov/publications/f...building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0

 

[Rroff]

I just think its an odd phrase to use.

Events like this people's mouths tend to run faster than their brains also even within boroughs in New York you get very different use of phrases some that aren't used elsewhere so I wouldn't read to much into that aspect alone. I mean there are turns of phrase used here in the South West that make zero actual sense and probably seem quite odd to someone from say London but have been in use for decades or even 100s of years heh.

 

[ubersonic]

Technically the quote you made is correct. But the report also said its answer was the result of simulations rather than actual evidence.

Ahem

Nonetheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.

I don't mean to be rude here, but from the way you're quoting things then highlighting parts to try and alter the context it's quite obvious that even though you claim to have read the report you are more interested in seeing what you believe than believing what you see.

 

[GGizmo]

The report is saying that WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires that lasted for almost 7 hours.

Grenfell Tower had uncontrolled fires for over 24 hours and is still standing.

The conspiracy I see so far is people not wanting to ask questions. It seems most of the people coming at me havent bothered to read the report, even though I've put the link in a couple of posts. Tefal himself posted a link to the wrong report and so far hasn't commented further on the thread. It feels like some people think by tripping me up they win some kind of argument. The report is there for everyone to read in black and white. Read it with an objective mind.

Ok, I'm off the thread. The truth IS out there!

 

[Rroff]

Grenfell Tower had uncontrolled fires for over 24 hours and is still standing.

There is a huge difference in this case - other than the shape of the buildings which is substantially different WTC7 was also badly damaged structurally additional to any effects from fire which may or may not have made a difference to the outcome but certainly a big difference in simplistic comparisons.

 

[Angilion]

The report is saying that WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires that lasted for almost 7 hours.

Grenfell Tower had uncontrolled fires for over 24 hours and is still standing.

The conspiracy I see so far is people not wanting to ask questions. It seems most of the people coming at me havent bothered to read the report, even though I've put the link in a couple of posts. Tefal himself posted a link to the wrong report and so far hasn't commented further on the thread. It feels like some people think by tripping me up they win some kind of argument. The report is there for everyone to read in black and white. Read it with an objective mind.

Ok, I'm off the thread. The truth IS out there!

It's good that you have become aware of your role in what you now regard as a conspiracy.

You don't want to ask questions such as "Was Grenfell Tower structurally identical to WTC 7 in all relevant ways?" and "were the circumstances of the fires and other damage identical in all relevant ways?" Probably because you already know the answers are "no" and "no".

You don't want to ask questions such as "How was WTC demolished without explosives and without preparation?". Probably because you already know how ridiculous that sounds. You've proposed that people repeatedly climbed it while it was badly damaged by impacts and on fire in order to attach chains to it and pull on the chains to slowly demolish it a little bit at a time. Which makes less sense than "they used alien disruptor rays from Area 51".

You don't want to ask questions such as "Why were the insurers and the fire brigade and every firefighter in on this conspiracy?" and "how come none of the large number of people involved have confessed?" Although the usual conspiracy believer answer to the second question would be that The Conspiracy can detect the precrime thoughtcrime of intending to confess and will murder everyone who thinks about confessing. Which is at least internally consistent.

 

[dowie]

The truth IS out there!

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Don't they buy futures storing oil is a nightmare.

Strategic resveres for the US run by the govenrment in massive underground salt tanks are onky like a week or two worth for the military.

Millions of lovers is nothing.

Millions of barrels is hardly a drop

100's of millions of litres in single locations. It all adds up. When you stand to make say 5p a litre.

Futures is trading and yes companies use that too.

They can also buy special insurance to protect against price increases. It isn't cheap though.

 

[dowie]

100's of millions of litres in single locations.

Futures is trading and yes companies use that too.

They can also buy special insurance to protect against price increases. It isn't cheap though.

thats what futures and options can do....

 

[Psycho Sonny]

thats what futures and options can do....

It's different from futures. I can't remember the name of the top of my head.

Futures is like shorting oil.

This is insurance to protect you from costs rising too much too quick

 

[dowie]

It's different from futures. I can't remember the name of the top of my head.

Futures is like shorting oil.

not necessarily - futures are an obligation, options are, well an option...

you can buy or sell oil futures - if you buy (or sell) 1 lot at the current futures market price you're obliged to buy (or sell) 1000 barrels of the specified oil at that price at some date in the future (of course most of these contracts are netted against each other and no delivery takes place)

an option is the right to buy or sell oil at some specified price at a date in the future... you can buy the right to buy or buy the right to sell or sell the right to buy or sell the right to sell....

a call option gives you the right to buy, a put option gives you the right to sell - if you sell them you're said to be writing options

(the options can be options on futures... when they get to expiry, if in the money, you get oil futures)

This is insurance to protect you from costs rising too much too quick

well if you wanted to protect yourself from rising costs because you might want to buy some oil in the future then you could buy call options to cover the amount of oil you'd wish to buy... how much this costs depends on a few factors but the higher the price/further away from the money the cheaper that option will be

 

[Werewolf]

The report is saying that WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires that lasted for almost 7 hours.

Grenfell Tower had uncontrolled fires for over 24 hours and is still standing.

The conspiracy I see so far is people not wanting to ask questions. It seems most of the people coming at me havent bothered to read the report, even though I've put the link in a couple of posts. Tefal himself posted a link to the wrong report and so far hasn't commented further on the thread. It feels like some people think by tripping me up they win some kind of argument. The report is there for everyone to read in black and white. Read it with an objective mind.

Ok, I'm off the thread. The truth IS out there!

Grenfell Tower is quite a different design to the WTC buildings (for one thing it's residential rather than offices).

One of the things a lot of people seem to have real difficulty understanding is that just because two buildings superficially look the same doesn't mean they have anything really in common other than size and the general materials* (and even two buildings that are identical in initial construction can very massively in later renovations, or even just what materials the tenants have in them).
Buildings with different uses have to conform to different fire standards (residential blocks for example tend to be much better built to contain fires to small areas for obvious reasons), buildings in different countries also have different standards.

This is even before you consider that TWC7 was an unusual design even for it's location and time as it was built over and around an existing building which meant it's structure intenrally (how the loads were spread and braced) is going to be very different to anything else of the same size, external style and age.


*A possible example you might consider is cars, they're all built to roughly the same shape/basic design (4 or sometimes 3 wheels, 2-5 seats, engine etc), with roughly the same materials, and even if you had two cars from the same era but different manufacturers you wouldn't automatically expect them to perform the same or act the same in a crash.