September 11 2001 - thoughts, a decade on....?

[jayl0ve]

Rinse, repeat, dominate world

[Bowler2151]

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. that would be major damage to a building thats 40 something stories high.

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center … It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time [emphasis added] and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.

If firefighers thought the building was going to collapse and ordered a evacuation of wtc 7, then how does a controlled demolition fit with that? Assuming the firefighters didnt know there were explosives everywhere around them, Mr. controlled demolition waited for all the fire fighters to evacuate before destroying the building. The North and South towers were destroyed while rescue crew was still in the building so why would he wait for all the firefighters to leave wtc 7 before destroying the buiding?

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition. The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

I have already made 2 posts explaining why the controlled demolition would be just about impossibile to ever pull off. All of that seems to be completely be ignored. I dont mind if you have another theory but when know one can explain how the explosives got into the building thats a bit of a problem. Also the ignored evidence that George Bush was warned a month before and during the spring and summer of that year, that al-Qaeda wants to attack the U.S.

I would still would like to hear the evidence for a controlled demolition.

[Coolhand Texas]

Instructions

1. Listen to the question being asked of you. Before you can avoid answering the question you must carefully listen and understand the question. Although many times the questions seem clear-cut, often there is an underlying meaning to the question and if you don't listen carefully you may actually end up answering the question.

2. Begin your non-answer with background information. A common staple of political debates is timed answers so if you begin with background information in response to the question posed, you'll have exhausted your allowed time before you get a chance to answer. Your background information should include a laundry list of your accomplishments pertaining to the policy or issue addressed in the question.

3. Live by the words "It's not a yes or no answer." When pressed for not answering a question, the best answer is to remind the moderator that the subject isn't as simple as a yes or no. Then go back to listing your accomplishments as they relate to the policy or issue addressed in the question.

4. Refuse to give specifics even when pressed. Although this may seem sketchy you are actually justified to refuse. It isn't politically savvy to give away all your secrets up front, besides the more details you give the more ammunition you give your opponents to go after you.

5. Repeat catchphrases when pressed on issues. Throughout the course of a campaign you will create a few phrases that resonate with voters, when you get backed into a wall rely on those phrases. Some media may criticize you for it, but a prepared answer at a later date can rectify the situation.

6. Sing the praises of your opponents when a question calls for a critique. Answering questions about your opponents' shortcomings is bad news and the only way to get around it is to talk about how great they are, how much you respect them, and how close you are. After that has been covered, go back to why you are qualified to handle the issues on which you were questioned.

What are these instructions for Al?