This actually makes your hypothesis FAR LESS PROBABLE than the one offered by Grimmer.

Dan Rather, for many, lacks even basic credibility as a JOURNALIST - his opinions on demolition are useless, baseless, and contribute nothing to your theory.

Strawman. No hijacked planes had been used as weapons until earlier that day.

FACT: steel's tensile strength is reduced greatly by extreme heat (1200+ degrees F).

FACT: seven hours of 1800+ degree heat had taken place inside the building.

FACT: concussive impact from debris had removed part of the building's face, including load-bearing supports.

It is not absurd to extrapolate that these three facts would have eliminated the ability of the building to support itself. These don't even rely on the "diesel in the basement" hypothesis, either - which you conveniently ignore.

AGAIN - the burden is on YOU to disprove these concepts, not the other way around.

I request a citation on this - first from an independant demolitions expert, then photos showing the crimp, then testimony from a demolitions expert saying that, categorically, this pattern could not come from anything other than controlled demolition.

It appears at least some experts disagree with you- they're cited in the PM paper.

It is totally inappropriate to claim something is "obviously minimal" using post hoc analysis of film - you're quickly falling off the logic cliff here, and this does nothing to support your hypothesis.

also - cites? and don't lay the "read the site!!!" gag on me - find an independent citation for things you reference as 'facts'

Um . . . both towers fell in 'perfectly symmetrical' manners, IIRC - but you won't extend this hypothesis to them, right?

Also - the Rather bit is tiring, but I'll say it one more time: he is not an expert in what he was speaking of, and he has a long history of using figurative language and overstepping his knowledge in situations. He resigned for similar overstepping. The credibility here is nil.


I can't even begin on this line - but please, address the concerns above, and we can start to address why your thesis here is not a synthesis of your previous points.

Let's deal with this in a logical fashion, no?

Ok ... Ill make it easy for all to understand... The owner of the building said he pulled the building - how is that somehow improbable... I guess his image was somehow superimposed on the screen...

As far as the crimp goes in the building, watch it for yourself as the building falls (*I suggest you watch the clip provided in the first post in its *entirity**,... and others of the colapse) Dan Rather was merely describibng the surreal image he was watching

Ok.. and modern steel buildings dont fall in that manner due to fire!... please just try to find one... you may want to look in Madrid Spain at the tower that was totally engulfed in flames for days and never fell (also seen in video link). Smoke towering out of this building thousands of feet in the air

It takes massive amounts of oxygen and highly explosive fuel well dispensed with the O2 to create even the beginings of what could start to damage steel beams. - just google that info on any legitimate engineering site or ask any demolition expert

Very Important:

And once again... Never in the history of the world has a modern steel building colapsed in this manner except by explosives.

AFAIK this is NOT an analogous situation; the WTC was a more involved situation beyond simple fire.


To imply that there is historical correlation between this and the situation you're addressing is VERY near-sighted, unless you can prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a situation in which a building could similarly collapse without explosives.

If you cannot prove this (past using historical reference, which is an incomplete proof), then you cannot utilize the historical reference for anything past anecdotal evidence.

Your proof sucks, is what I'm telling you.

How is it a different situation?

The buildings owner said he pulled the building!

AFAIK this is NOT an analogous situation; if you don't see why, we're officially done interacting here.



To imply that there is historical correlation between this and the situation you're addressing is VERY near-sighted, unless you can prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a situation in which a building could similarly collapse without explosives.

If you cannot prove this (past using historical reference, which is an incomplete proof), then you cannot utilize the historical reference for anything past anecdotal evidence.

Your proof sucks, is what I'm telling you.

OK... so the Building's owner says it was pulled.

And indeed it fell like any other pulled building.

and Im somehow offbase for implying it was pulled... interesting.

Cognitive dissonance must be harder to break than I once thought.

The building's owner has recanted, and stated that his quotation was out of context. Another, equally likely, scenario has been offered in its place (in this very thread, may I add).

No . . . elements resembled a 'pulled' building, but this is not conclusive proof that it was 'pulled.'

You're not off-base for implying it - you're off-base for not supporting your assertions.

I study cognitive dissonance as a career, essentially - it is indeed difficult to break. Much simpler would be simply supporting your assertions, which is all I ask.

George Bush could say he was quoted out of context when he said he supported CAFTA ... and then say actually he did not support the Bill and I bet you would believe that too.

How in the world is it possible to take out of context that the owner of building seven said it was pulled!... when he "said it was pulled." what exactly is the propper context?

Hegalian double speak is meant to decieve, and it shoudnt be bought... especially when the answer is right in frot of our faces for everyone to see.

Look, the guy was then quoted as saying that he told the FDNY to pull the building, but it fell before that was possible - that's no less viable than your conception of events, but does not carry the burden of proof that yours holds (and you refuse to meet).

I have no idea what this means, friend - please don't tell me you've adopted the common internet shorthand of applying the Hegelian dialectic to any speech you feel is duplicitous . . . how absurd.

If you're referring to the Hegelian Fallacy, then we can talk - but I'm not, to my knowledge, violating this fallacy. I feel that the truth is not, in fact, an equal sythesis of currently known facts, creating a synthetic and fallacious 'happy medium.' I don't feel this way because I have seen NO PROOF to sway me from the thesis and toward the hypothesis.

You have the power to invoke the dialectic, and sway me, but instead you'd rather run jaw about 'doublespeak' . . . spare me the Orwellian paranoia, as I care not for it. I care only for facts, logic, and proof.

When I refer to the Hegelian Dialectic (doublespeak being a slang description) I am not refering to what you are saying, but rather to those who are manipulating thought processes about the events pertaining to 9-11.

Example:

Thesis
Mr. Silverstein says he pulled the building

Antithesis
Mr. sliverstein says he was taken out of context, but doesn't explain how or what he meant

Synthesis
American people nod their heads as if this makes sense



Crisis
Terrorist attacks us

Reaction
People are afraid of being attacked again

Solution
Global war on terrorism and the Patriot Act etc.

I'm surprised concerned451 didn't come post in this thread.

I'm sure you know that the Hegelian dialectic is not automatically a sufficient process for examining any given issue; it cannot be applied by rote or in a mechanical fashion to any given thesis. The reason is that the given thesis/antithesis/synthesis model chosen comes from subjective reasoning, yet has open prejudicial impact upon the examination of the issues within the dialectic structure. This is an amazing case of that facet of Hegel's conception.

I'm openly disputing your application, but beyond that would simply like to point out the irony of using "doesn't explain how or what he meant" as prejudicial language.

Mr. Silverstein said he pulled the Building. Never providing any substantive reason that he meant anything else other than it was out of context.

Dan Rather corroborated the building being pulled live on air when he said the building was "deliberately destroyed"


The building came down in the same fashion that any other steel building comes down when it is pulled

steel beems crumbling like tinkertoys, begining with the classic crimp, symetrical fall, speed at free fall, straight into a nice tiny pile of rubble, all while everyone can see that there are minimal fires live as it happenned - just as a pulled building is designed to colapse

the building not hit by terrorists on the entire opposite end of the block from towers one and two (other buildings were 50 feet away and they were fine) came plummiting down in the fashion of being pulled, the only way in history steel buidlings have fallen this way (pulled buildings), of course all happening after the building's owner said that he pulled the buidling.

But we are to belive somehow that it wasnt pulled. I doubt it.

It may not be reasonable for any issue, but I think it works well here

I am still legitimately concerned with the official story, although I do very much appreciate and understand your perspective.

the proximity of, in this case, buildings, to the site of the calamitous event increases the probability of those buildings sustaining varying levels of structural damage. that much is obvious. but if buildings that stood "50 feet away" remained standing or sustained minimal damage, they are the exception, not the rule.

Wikipedia-

*
a related abstract
may 2002 development of progressive collapse analysis...
results of googling 'examples of progressive collapse'

I remember WTC 7 because it was down the street from where I live. Why would that building be involved in a conspiracy? That makes no sense at all.

ALL of the buildings surrounding the WTC were damaged. All of them. The glass on all of the WFC buildings were blown out, and they were less in the way (west) of destruction than WTC 7 was. The airplanes hit the buildings from the south. WTC 7 was north of those buildings. All sorts of lovely debris, like jet engines, continued to move north. The building caught fire, they were completely evacuated, and there was no water available to put out fires from the fire hydrant system. The water used to attempt to put out the twin towers was from a fire boat on the Hudson.

The conspiracy theory about 7 WTC is ridiculous.

Then the 911 commision was wrong. Debris was located a quarter mile north of WTC 7.

FYI, I have an anecdotal report of this as well, from a friend who lives . . . a quarter mile north of the WTC campus.

My sister, who lived even closer to the WTC than me (I live a half mile north from there,) was freaked out when she looked out her window and saw flaming debris headed her way. She ran out of her apartment, and out of her building barefoot in PJs. She recalls seeing heavy debris on her street (Duane,) northwest of the WTC for days.