Amoeba,

You say >> “If you do not do so but continue to focus on minor issues I will cease this correspondence, knowing your purpose is not to learn but to confuse.”

Firstly, if all of the other points you are bringing up are minor issues, why are you bringing them up? Secondly, my purpose is to debate this issue, the idea that you are teaching me anything is incredibly patronizing and frankly, an overestimation of your skills.

NIST says that most of the floors on the east side of 79, 80 and 81 between floor 13 and floor 7 fell taking their girders with them. In that scenario, columns 79 is supported by only one girder per floor, the girder connecting column 79 to 76, preventing buckling in only one plane, WSW or ENE. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg

I asked: “Why were “they” exploding charges hours before the building was to collapse?”

You said >> “It is perfectly clear that in controlled demolitions they do not do the whole job at once. It is normal to work for weeks, weakening the building using oxy torches and the like.

No way. Demolition teams do this because they don’t need their collapses to look like terrorist/fire incidents. They do it because in financial and safety terms it makes sense. In the video I tendered, the explosions occur moments before the final collapse for a reason, columns are cut in a pre defined order to allow the collapse to go ahead with the smallest footprint and least explosives possible. Furthermore, there were people, including fire and emergency personnel, in the building who could have identified these small explosions.

Why would THEY demolish WTC7 when no plane had hit it? How would they start the fires in WTC 7 if the towers hadn’t hit it? Why were other WTC buildings which suffered more collapse damage not demolished?

Detonating explosives and thus causing floor collapses is not part of normal demolition, thats for sure.

TBC

CONT,

You say > “We all know that ordinary fires cannot make anything white hot, don’t we, but thermite does. “

What about aluminium? As I recall there was a fairly big aluminium plane that was in the building at that time.

You say >> “If you paid attention to Jenning’s words you would know that he made it clear that the explosion which trapped him in WTC7 occurred before either of the towers came down.”

How would he know? He was in the building trapped. There is evidence from firefighters who thought they were experiencing tremendous explosions inside the north tower when in actual fact they were experiencing the collapse of the south tower.http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110019.PDF

Furthermore, there was fuel oil pipes and generators and burners all over the building. It is eminently possible that some of that fuel oil exploded.

You say >> “I did however copy and paste two sections of interest. What more do you want? You made no comment on the issues they raised.”

As far as I’m aware the two issues you raised from the Seattle firefighters website, were Jennings and his video, and the high order damage, I’ve discussed both.

In regards to the high order damage, why haven’t the FDNY guys who were actually there and saw the debris, raised this issue. Where are the det cord, cleanly cut columns and girders, scorch marks etc? Why has no physical evidence of demolition come to light?

You find video of one event which sounds like an explosion somewhere, sometime (the site you pointed me to has a VERY sketchy conclusion), but not of the explosions which actually brought down the buildings, at which hundreds of cameras were pointed. They don’t register on the seismographs in the area?

I note Paul.L's silence in the face of further testimony from New York firefighters who witnessed explosions at the World Trade Center. At least, let's hope from this, he won't repeat his misleading inference that in all of the FDNY only John Schroeder stands by his testimony of having witnessed explosions.

---

amoeba wrote, "If you paid attention to Jenning's words you would know that he made it clear that the explosion which trapped him in WTC7 occurred before either of the towers came down."

Then Paul.L wrote, "How would he know? He was in the building trapped. ..."

This is transcribed from the interview with Barry Jennings' at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

"... when we reached the ... sixth floor, the landing we were standing on gave way. There was an explosion and the landing gave way. And I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the eighth floor. When I made it to the sixth floor, there was an explosion and the explosion was beneath me. Keep in mind now it's pitch black. All the lights went out, so when the explosion happened, it blew us back. ..."

Further along, Barry Jennings' said:

"Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you that the fire department came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because building tower one fell and then tower two fell, and when they came back, they came back with all concerned now to get me the hell out of there. I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. ..."

Clearly, in Barry Jennings own recollection, both towers collapsed after the initial explosion. What else would Paul.L maintain could subsequently have occurred that Barry Jennings the Emergency Coordinator for New York City and all the firemen he was with could have possibly have mistaken for the collapse of the two towers?

Paul.L's post is an insult to our intelligence and the intelligence of Barry Jennings.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Paul.L is also silent about the fact that Barry Jennings' was in fear of losing his job and even for his life. As it happens he mysteriously died of a heart attack in August.

Then Paul.L further insults the late Barry Jennings by writing, "Furthermore, there was fuel oil pipes and generators and burners all over the building. It is eminently possible that some of that fuel oil exploded."

... whilst not acknowledgingJennings' testimony which I have transcribed and twice before pasted into this forum:

"I know what I heard. I heard explosions. The explanation I got was that it was the fuel oil tank. [shakes his head] I'm an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building."

---

Paul.L wrote "Your 'You tube' video had no context; we don't know when or where it was taking place."

Yet when amoeba provided the document at http://www.crono911.net/docs/WTC7Explosion.pdf with evidence which showed that the explosion recorded in YouTube Video at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I 10.16AM and came from WTC7 seemingly confirming Barry Jennings' testimony, he is silent.

---

Paul.L wrote, "In regards to the high order damage, why haven't the FDNY guys who were actually there and saw the debris, raised this issue. Where are the det cord, cleanly cut columns and girders, scorch marks etc? Why has no physical evidence of demolition come to light?"

I have repeatedly asked Paul.L:

"... do you still insist that you can't see evidence of molten steel in http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D ?"

... but he has failed to respond.

Here is some evidence from that page:

"Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:

...

"GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What's going on?

"ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It?s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what?s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

And here's some firefighters speaking on a video linked to from the page:

"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel - molten steel! - running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

... and testimony from another firefighter:

"As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (fallenbrothers.com)

and there is plenty more where that came from.

See also, "Ground Zero ironworkers on 9/11 anomalies" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=X-99CLdHWCc

Earlier on Paul.L hotly disputed that there was any credible evidence of molten steel:

"Eg. Molten steel ? you have provided no evidence except hearsay ..."

Clearly there is evidence of rivers of molten steel beneath all three towers and much other evidence of the towers having been demolished with explosives and thermite. This is attested to by many firefighters, engineers, builders, reporters and others.

Given his amazing ability to find any straw in support of his position, is it conceivable that he has not noticed a good deal of other evidence such as the above, much of which I have repeatedly pointed to, which flies in the face of his repeated assertions?

I would suggest not.

Paul,

I certainly come here to learn as well as inform. One thing I learnt was that NIST now agrees that WTC7 fell part of the way at free fall acceleration. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

Funny isn’t it. We were right all the time and NIST was wrong. Sunder was challenged at the presentation he gave about NIST’s new theory of thermal expansion, regarding the evidence for free fall, and he tried to wave it away. Some unknown figure poked his head into the video and said they would fix it in the final version. And eventually they will I suppose, thanks to the efforts of us truthers.

You are probably right when you say I couldn’t teach you anything. I tried but did not succeed. Here is what you said in the past: “The NIST analysis shows that the building took 5.3 seconds to fall 18 stories. At freefall speeds this would have only taken 3.9seconds.”

So you agreed with NIST when they were saying the fall was much slower than free fall and I suppose you will agree with NIST now when they say the fall was partly at free fall rate. That looks like uncritical acceptance of authority. It does not look like the scientific method, which seeks to test hypotheses. It does not provide us with reason to have confidence in your assertions.

Re the initiation of collapse you say: “NIST says that most of the floors on the east side of 79, 80 and 81 between floor 13 and floor 7 fell taking their girders with them. In that scenario, columns 79 is supported by only one girder per floor, the girder connecting column 79 to 76, preventing buckling in only one plane, WSW or ENE.” http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg

First, one should look at the images of the computer simulation of the collapse on page 593. You will see that the wildly twisted object looked nothing whatsoever like the smooth, straight video images. The simulation is a complete farce