Could the bulge in the wall of WTC 7 have been a sign of instability? (1 Viewer)

[Fledermaus]

Its hilarious.....

That some people saw a bulge? Eyewitnesses right?....And the pantomime debunkers believe them.
That some people saw molten steel? Eyewitnesses right?.....And the pantomime debunkers don't believe them.

When....

Is there any supporting evidence for this bulge other than eyewitnesses? No.
Is there any supporting evidence for molten steel other than eyewitnesses? Yes.

Lets assume there was a bulge cause I'm not denying it.....I'm just pointing out the debunker hypocrisy!

Does a building with a bulge mean that it will collapse? Not really, it proves that it might collapse.

And does that prove that fire or damage caused the bulge? No!

The bulge ws observed and attested to by firefighters (Professionals in their field) and MEASURED.

The "Molten Steel"? Only statements. Zero physical evidence to support..... Zero scientific foundation.

 

[stundie]

The bulge ws observed and attested to by firefighters (Professionals in their field) and MEASURED.

The molten steel was observed and attested to by firefighters and many others including ironworkers who are professional in their field.

And who measured it and where is the record of this measurement?? Or is this another Fledermaus Fantasy? lol

The "Molten Steel"? Only statements.

Not just statements, did you forget all the news reports and the scientific reports?? lol

Zero physical evidence to support.....

Except for a meteorite which you can check on it's veracity by contacting the WTC museum.

But you won't do that will you, you intellectual coward....lol

Zero scientific foundation.

You have zero scientific foundation........and even less credibility with your denials and ignorance! lol

 

[yankintx]

Whats with the fascination with bulges?

 

[stundie]

Whats with the fascination with bulges?

I think you need to ask the pantomime debunkers like Fledermaus........lol

The only other people I've seen so obsessed with bulges are women hitting a strip club......And there is more chance of them collapsing from the bulges than the WTC 7. lol

 

[Fledermaus]

The molten steel was observed and attested to by firefighters and many others including ironworkers who are professional in their field.

Ironworkers?

And who measured it and where is the record of this measurement?? Or is this another Fledermaus Fantasy? lol

Asked and answered and ignored.

Not just statements, did you forget all the news reports and the scientific reports?? lol

Statements in the news reports...

So, the molten STEEL.... Where is it?

Except for a meteorite which you can check on it's veracity by contacting the WTC museum.

Insisting unmolten materials are evidence of melting is a fool's game.

But you won't do that will you, you intellectual coward....lol

You can stop the childish name calling.

You have zero scientific foundation........and even less credibility with your denials and ignorance! lol

Projecting more than an IMAX theater....

So, other than statements and a COMPRESSION artifact that does not indicate melting... What have you?

And how does "molten steel" work in to your CD fantasy?

 

[ozeco41]

Whats with the fascination with bulges?

There is nothing fascinating about the bulge per se - "in its own right".

It - singular - there was one - was part of the evidence observed by the fire-fighters and Emergency Commander on site on the day.

The WHOLE of the evidence was used to make the correct decision - correct in both foresight and hindsight BTW - to abandon fire fighting of WTC7 under all the conditions faced at that time in real time on the day.

The "fascination" is that it is yet another issue where Tony Szamboti and some sycophant supporters have taken ONE issue out of context so they can treat it as a straw-man argument.

That practice is SOP for Tony - one of his trademark debating tricks. ALL of his claims rely on false premises. Most of them like this current one also rely on taking single issues out of context. Remeber it was Tony's OP which set up the false premise AND the "single issue out of context" focus. So from the OP Tony following his standard line of trickery.

If there is any fascination it is driven by repetition of debating tricks. Nothing special about the bulge. Even the question of whether the bulge mattered or not is irrelevant.

What caused the bulge - even the question of if there was one - is also irrelevant.

Bottom line - if we take allegations of "bulging" totally out of the picture - the Emergency Controller's decision to cease fire-fighting of WTC7 and set up a safety zone was correct.

 

[mike2810]

There is nothing fascinating about the bulge per se - "in its own right".

It - singular - there was one - was part of the evidence observed by the fire-fighters and Emergency Commander on site on the day.

The WHOLE of the evidence was used to make the correct decision - correct in both foresight and hindsight BTW - to abandon fire fighting of WTC7 under all the conditions faced at that time in real time on the day.

The "fascination" is that it is yet another issue where Tony Szamboti and some sycophant supporters have taken ONE issue out of context so they can treat it as a straw-man argument.

That practice is SOP for Tony - one of his trademark debating tricks. ALL of his claims rely on false premises. Most of them like this current one also rely on taking single issues out of context. Remeber it was Tony's OP which set up the false premise AND the "single issue out of context" focus. So from the OP Tony following his standard line of trickery.

If there is any fascination it is driven by repetition of debating tricks. Nothing special about the bulge. Even the question of whether the bulge mattered or not is irrelevant.

What caused the bulge - even the question of if there was one - is also irrelevant.

Bottom line - if we take allegations of "bulging" totally out of the picture - the Emergency Controller's decision to cease fire-fighting of WTC7 and set up a safety zone was correct.

Your correct.
Lack of water , water pressure, fire involved building, damage to said building, lack of resources, amount of area involved in the incident (wtc1,2,7, others) and other factors. The IC made the right call.

Firefighter and public safety is priority 1.

 

[yankintx]

There is nothing fascinating about the bulge per se - "in its own right".

It - singular - there was one - was part of the evidence observed by the fire-fighters and Emergency Commander on site on the day.

The WHOLE of the evidence was used to make the correct decision - correct in both foresight and hindsight BTW - to abandon fire fighting of WTC7 under all the conditions faced at that time in real time on the day.

The "fascination" is that it is yet another issue where Tony Szamboti and some sycophant supporters have taken ONE issue out of context so they can treat it as a straw-man argument.

That practice is SOP for Tony - one of his trademark debating tricks. ALL of his claims rely on false premises. Most of them like this current one also rely on taking single issues out of context. Remeber it was Tony's OP which set up the false premise AND the "single issue out of context" focus. So from the OP Tony following his standard line of trickery.

If there is any fascination it is driven by repetition of debating tricks. Nothing special about the bulge. Even the question of whether the bulge mattered or not is irrelevant.

What caused the bulge - even the question of if there was one - is also irrelevant.

Bottom line - if we take allegations of "bulging" totally out of the picture - the Emergency Controller's decision to cease fire-fighting of WTC7 and set up a safety zone was correct.

Ah I used the word bulge to be humorous, I have better things to do than debate with conspiracy theorist, they like to add 1+1 and come up with 3

 

[Fledermaus]

Ah I used the word bulge to be humorous, I have better things to do than debate with conspiracy theorist, they like to add 1+1 and come up with 3

The Mossad snuck a stealth Ninja 1 in there while you were distracted by the NORAD exercises....

 

[stundie]

Ironworkers?

Yes, ironworkers describing how glad they were not working with molten steel at GZ in the news articles from that infamous thread where you deny all the evidence.

Asked and answered and ignored.

You claimed they took measurements, so what you are saying is you have no evidence, so you'll pretend you answered when I don't recall anyone ever showing evidence that firefighters took measurements.

So what were these measurement you talk of?

So, the molten STEEL.... Where is it?

In the WTC museum.

Insisting unmolten materials are evidence of melting is a fool's game.

So now you are accusing the WTC museum of playing a fools game? :shock:

Let me see here.....who do I trust here....

The WTC who have an object fused of molten steel and concrete, which is clearly documented in photos....are playing a fools game!

or

Fledermaus who has never clapped eyes on it and refuses to believe it even thought there's a clear photo but is too much of an intellectual coward to contact the WTC museum.....is playing the fools game!

Ladies, Gentleman, Boy and Girls, Lurkers, Twoofers and fans of Fledermaus........What do I do? Who do I think's playing the fools game? Who do you think is playing the fools game.

Better still Fledermaus, if you were in my shoes, who do you think is playing the fools game?? lol

You can stop the childish name calling.

It's not a name call, you think the WTC museum are wrong but you won't call them cause you know they'll just laugh you for suggesting otherwise! lol

Projecting more than an IMAX theater....

Not projecting, it's an observable fact! lol

So, other than statements and a COMPRESSION artifact that does not indicate melting... What have you?

Much more than you.

You have opinions, I have evidence.

And how does "molten steel" work in to your CD fantasy?

Thermite...How does it work in your fire induced fantasy?

Oh it's doesn't, so if you say there was no molten steel 3 times, it'll have never existed. lol

 

[stundie]

There is nothing fascinating about the bulge per se - "in its own right".

It - singular - there was one - was part of the evidence observed by the fire-fighters and Emergency Commander on site on the day.

The WHOLE of the evidence was used to make the correct decision - correct in both foresight and hindsight BTW - to abandon fire fighting of WTC7 under all the conditions faced at that time in real time on the day.

The "fascination" is that it is yet another issue where Tony Szamboti and some sycophant supporters have taken ONE issue out of context so they can treat it as a straw-man argument.

That practice is SOP for Tony - one of his trademark debating tricks. ALL of his claims rely on false premises. Most of them like this current one also rely on taking single issues out of context. Remeber it was Tony's OP which set up the false premise AND the "single issue out of context" focus. So from the OP Tony following his standard line of trickery.

If there is any fascination it is driven by repetition of debating tricks. Nothing special about the bulge. Even the question of whether the bulge mattered or not is irrelevant.

What caused the bulge - even the question of if there was one - is also irrelevant.

Bottom line - if we take allegations of "bulging" totally out of the picture - the Emergency Controller's decision to cease fire-fighting of WTC7 and set up a safety zone was correct.

I think it was the correct decision too.

Plus according this report, they were told to leave not long after both towers came down.



See how she also mentions firebombs and explosions.

At 10:50am Rose Arce reports people running from another explosion from another building about 2 block away from the WTC.

Then at 15:21pm Rose Acre tells the news anchor that they hear explosions followed by falling debris and that firefighters can't get close to the building because of falling debris.

So it didn't help that FF were reporting explosions going off throughout the day at WTC 7 either. I don't think any would disagree that it was the right decision.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes, ironworkers describing how glad they were not working with molten steel at GZ in the news articles from that infamous thread where you deny all the evidence.
You claimed they took measurements, so what you are saying is you have no evidence, so you'll pretend you answered when I don't recall anyone ever showing evidence that firefighters took measurements.

So what were these measurement you talk of?
In the WTC museum.
So now you are accusing the WTC museum of playing a fools game? :shock:

Let me see here.....who do I trust here....

The WTC who have an object fused of molten steel and concrete, which is clearly documented in photos....are playing a fools game!

or

Fledermaus who has never clapped eyes on it and refuses to believe it even thought there's a clear photo but is too much of an intellectual coward to contact the WTC museum.....is playing the fools game!

Ladies, Gentleman, Boy and Girls, Lurkers, Twoofers and fans of Fledermaus........What do I do? Who do I think's playing the fools game? Who do you think is playing the fools game.

Better still Fledermaus, if you were in my shoes, who do you think is playing the fools game?? lol
It's not a name call, you think the WTC museum are wrong but you won't call them cause you know they'll just laugh you for suggesting otherwise! lol
Not projecting, it's an observable fact! lol
Much more than you.

You have opinions, I have evidence.
Thermite...How does it work in your fire induced fantasy?

Oh it's doesn't, so if you say there was no molten steel 3 times, it'll have never existed. lol

Thermite does not explode.

So, the molten steel. Where was it again?

Oh, that's right. You insist non molten items are evidence of melting.

 

[mike2810]

We all know that on the scene as it is happening reporting is so accurate and reporters never make a mistake.:lamo

 

[stundie]

Thermite does not explode.

2 things....
1....Yes it can as shown in the Jon Cole video and as patents show.
2....Why couldn't they use a combination of thermite and explosives.

Making your point........even more pointless.

So, the molten steel. Where was it again?

At GZ, according to lots of independents eyewitnesses.

The only people who deny are idiots who weren't there and think their opinion outweights the evidence from independent eyewitnesses! lol

Oh, that's right. You insist non molten items are evidence of melting.

Its really not my fault if you don't understand that molten metal cool will cool down once it's removed from the heat source.

Is that one of the questions you have for the WTC museum when you ring them?

Fledermaus on the phone to the WTC museum....

Fled...."The WTC metoerite is not molten"
WTC...."Not now because it's cooled down"
Fled...."But the WTC metoerite is not molten"
WTC...."No, it was molten, but it's cooled down so we could transport it."
Fled...."But the WTC metoerite is not molten, how can you say it's molten when its not........
*Sound of the phone being hung up!*
Fled..."Errr...Hello, I've got serious questions to aks you?"


Let us know when you've called them and document it, for a laugh.......lol

 

[stundie]

We all know that on the scene as it is happening reporting is so accurate and reporters never make a mistake.:lamo

Sorry but do you have evidence it is wrong?

And another fine example of someone whose thinks his opinion is evidence and that it outweighs that of the news reporter.

Such a foolish thing to do.....lol

 

[Fledermaus]

2 things....
1....yes it can as shown in the jon cole video and as patents show.
2....why couldn't they use a combination of thermite and explosives.

Making your point........even more pointless.
At gz, according to lots of independents eyewitnesses.

The only people who deny are idiots who weren't there and think their opinion outweights the evidence from independent eyewitnesses! Lol
its really not my fault if you don't understand that molten metal cool will cool down once it's removed from the heat source.

Is that one of the questions you have for the wtc museum when you ring them?

Fledermaus on the phone to the wtc museum....

Fled...."the wtc metoerite is not molten"
wtc...."not now because it's cooled down"
fled...."but the wtc metoerite is not molten"
wtc...."no, it was molten, but it's cooled down so we could transport it."
fled...."but the wtc metoerite is not molten, how can you say it's molten when its not........
*sound of the phone being hung up!*
fled..."errr...hello, i've got serious questions to aks you?"


let us know when you've called them and document it, for a laugh.......lol

SBS...

So. Anything to say about the bulge?

 

[ozeco41]

I think it was the correct decision too.

Thanks. I can empathise with the Emergency Controllers who were in the "hot seat" on the day. Emergency/incident management was a significant part of my career experience. That plus military training probably biasing me towards being able to identify and make the hard decisions when the situation needed same.

So it didn't help that FF were reporting explosions going off throughout the day at WTC 7 either. I don't think any would disagree that it was the right decision.

Agreed - particularly if we take it out of the artificial and polarised setting of Forum discussion of conspiracy.

There would be no nit picking pedantry over "explosions" in a more realistic discussion environment either.

In fact I've on several occasions needed to explain to "normal reasonable people" why "loud banging noises" are "explosions" but do not mean use of explosives. The usual response is a bemused look and comments "Why do you bother?" I should ask myself the same question.

 

[mike2810]

Sorry but do you have evidence it is wrong?

And another fine example of someone whose thinks his opinion is evidence and that it outweighs that of the news reporter.

Such a foolish thing to do.....lol

Do you have anything to show the report is 100% correct? Your the one who posted the vid. Yours to support.

I agree with oz. Not going to bother with your explosion/explosive rabbit hole.

 

[stundie]

SBS...

So. Anything to say about the bulge?

Yes, a bulge doesn't prove that fires brought the building down.

A bulge could have been done by one of the many explosions heard on that day.

 

[stundie]

Thanks. I can empathise with the Emergency Controllers who were in the "hot seat" on the day. Emergency/incident management was a significant part of my career experience. That plus military training probably biasing me towards being able to identify and make the hard decisions when the situation needed same.

Agreed - particularly if we take it out of the artificial and polarised setting of Forum discussion of conspiracy.

There would be no nit picking pedantry over "explosions" in a more realistic discussion environment either.

In fact I've on several occasions needed to explain to "normal reasonable people" why "loud banging noises" are "explosions" but do not mean use of explosives. The usual response is a bemused look and comments "Why do you bother?" I should ask myself the same question.

The problem is nobody knows for sure what those explosions were, they could have been something in the fires as I've always said and maintained, but if we don't know the source, then it's possible it was explosives.

It's not proof, it's just evidence showing the possibility.

The problem is that some people can't grasp this concept. Thankfully you look like someone who does.

 

[ozeco41]

Ah I used the word bulge to be humorous, I have better things to do than debate with conspiracy theorist, they like to add 1+1 and come up with 3

No problem - I thought that was probably the case. BUT it gave me the opportunity to identify the real fascination.

 

[stundie]

Do you have anything to show the report is 100% correct?

No, but there's been no retraction as far as I'm aware.

Now do you have any evidence the report is wrong?

Remember your opinions are not evidence.

Your the one who posted the vid. Yours to support.

Why do you not support it? Is it because it's doesn't support your belief.

I'm sure if she reported a bulge, you'd have no trouble doubting it's veracity.

I agree with oz. Not going to bother with your explosion/explosive rabbit hole.

Well see you later then, there is no rabbit hole though, it's just a small ditch.

 

[ozeco41]

The problem is nobody knows for sure what those explosions were, they could have been something in the fires as I've always said and maintained, but if we don't know the source, then it's possible it was explosives.

It's not proof, it's just evidence showing the possibility.

The problem is that some people can't grasp this concept. Thankfully you look like someone who does.

Correct - fully agree the first six points and thanks again for Point #7. (If I am counting correctly.)

It's part of the trend evident in 9/11 CT discussion towards "black and white" - "all or nothing" - "binary" thinking OR "us v them" polarisation. Drives clear thinking rationality out of the window - or more accurately off the forum. If not - going metaphoric - "up the wall" :mrgreen:

It's been there since I entered the debate on Internet in 2007 but the last 4-5years has got worse. Or more prominent as a lot of rational thinkers from both "sides" have moved on.

Usually it sets up false dichotomies of the G W Bush "If you are not with us you are agin us" structure. No recognition of grey area middle ground.

A related issue on one forum in particular is the pair of "memes":
1) "Bazant is never wrong"; and
2) "Truthers are never right"

...and I'm not afraid to identify where Bazant has been arong OR agree with persons - alleged truthers - when they say something right.

Fortunately for me attacking Bazant's errors lèse majesté is no longer a capital offence in the law of the relevant jurisdictions.

Had an agreement with one member - that if a truther made a true claim debunkers would line up to denounce it as false. We called it "Blue Sky Syndrome" because - the way I first said it "If a truther claimed that 'the cloudless daytime sky is blue' the debunkers would line up to denounce it with 'the sky is not blue'" Literally hundreds of examples so we made a smilie:

 

[mike2810]

Correct - fully agree the first six points and thanks again for Point #7. (If I am counting correctly.)

It's part of the trend evident in 9/11 CT discussion towards "black and white" - "all or nothing" - "binary" thinking OR "us v them" polarisation. Drives clear thinking rationality out of the window - or more accurately off the forum. If not - going metaphoric - "up the wall" :mrgreen:

It's been there since I entered the debate on Internet in 2007 but the last 4-5years has got worse. Or more prominent as a lot of rational thinkers from both "sides" have moved on.

Usually it sets up false dichotomies of the G W Bush "If you are not with us you are agin us" structure. No recognition of grey area middle ground.

A related issue on one forum in particular is the pair of "memes":
1) "Bazant is never wrong"; and
2) "Truthers are never right"

...and I'm not afraid to identify where Bazant has been arong OR agree with persons - alleged truthers - when they say something right.

Fortunately for me attacking Bazant's errors lèse majesté is no longer a capital offence in the law of the relevant jurisdictions.

Had an agreement with one member - that if a truther made a true claim debunkers would line up to denounce it as false. We called it "Blue Sky Syndrome" because - the way I first said it "If a truther claimed that 'the cloudless daytime sky is blue' the debunkers would line up to denounce it with 'the sky is not blue'" Literally hundreds of examples so we made a smilie:
View attachment 67200538

Good post.
You are correct things are not black or white. I have stated that I accept a fire induced collapse for WTC1,2,7. A fire induced collapse can be accepted without believing 100% what NIST has produced.

I have also stated I doubt that we will ever know the exact sequence of collapse that occurred for any of the buildings. That is why reports dealing with WTC7 use words like "highly likely" or "high probability".

What is known is wtc7 was damaged from falling debris. Fires occurred, the building collapse.

Stundie is correct that it is not known what exactly caused the "explosive" sound. It is not uncommon for "explosions" to occur during large building fires.
I am not one when reviewing footage of WTC7 that I immediately come to the conclusion, it must have been a CD. Much like when I see footage of a building collapsing during an earthquake, I don't think well someone blew that one up.

imo, it is up to those who say that WTC7 was brought down by a CD , have the burden to show that is the case.

 

[stundie]

Correct - fully agree the first six points and thanks again for Point #7. (If I am counting correctly.)

It's part of the trend evident in 9/11 CT discussion towards "black and white" - "all or nothing" - "binary" thinking OR "us v them" polarisation. Drives clear thinking rationality out of the window - or more accurately off the forum. If not - going metaphoric - "up the wall" :mrgreen:

It's been there since I entered the debate on Internet in 2007 but the last 4-5years has got worse. Or more prominent as a lot of rational thinkers from both "sides" have moved on.

Usually it sets up false dichotomies of the G W Bush "If you are not with us you are agin us" structure. No recognition of grey area middle ground.

A related issue on one forum in particular is the pair of "memes":
1) "Bazant is never wrong"; and
2) "Truthers are never right"

...and I'm not afraid to identify where Bazant has been arong OR agree with persons - alleged truthers - when they say something right.

Fortunately for me attacking Bazant's errors lèse majesté is no longer a capital offence in the law of the relevant jurisdictions.

Had an agreement with one member - that if a truther made a true claim debunkers would line up to denounce it as false. We called it "Blue Sky Syndrome" because - the way I first said it "If a truther claimed that 'the cloudless daytime sky is blue' the debunkers would line up to denounce it with 'the sky is not blue'" Literally hundreds of examples so we made a smilie:
View attachment 67200538

Sounds like you are talking about the JREF forum.

I'm afraid the groupthink anti truther bile is rampant there....but its always been like that since I joined 10 years ago with the moderators being heavily biased too. Its got worse since they've covered up the forum member donors badges.