Looks like he is just collecting more data. Where does he say he questions the stability of WTC7? That sounds more like an inference by you.

Thanks Arie, keep it up.

and very little damage from "falling debris". As for what the black band might be, got me--I suppose it could be a trick of the camera, or some kind of long tarp hanging down--we can't know what relevance it has without more info on what it might be, if "anything"...

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

I'd be more interested to know how come these fires started in the first place -- there doesn't seem to be any debris damage nearby...

That's always puzzled me as well. I don't see how unlit "falling debris" snaked its way into those floors -- without damaging the outer wall -- and ignited anything. The slightly damaged corner wasn't even flaming. It seems so obvious to me that the fires were deliberately started. Insofar as anyone has attempted to explain anything about 7, do you know what the spin on this is?

from what I've seen it's always been attributed to some kind of flaming debris somehow doing it. I think we should try to determine for sure what floor it is that seems to be mostly on fire--I would guess that it was one where there was a lot of stuff, maybe paper? that needed to be destroyed, and could not be risked to end up intact in a junkyard somewhere...

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

.

I think we were trying to figure out exactly what those who DON'T think it was arson think. Or those who SAY they don't think it was arson...

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

I must have been mistaken when the second video posted said, "We are also told by Port Authority officials that the building over there which is building #7, which you can see, uh... it is referred to as building #7, it's about, oh, I would say probably a 20 story building, that there is some concern on the part of Port Authority officials, about the STABILITY of that building at this point. So obviously as we have been discussing all day a very very difficult circumstance here as to exactly when that area really is going to be truly secure", and I "inferred" that they made a reference to the STABILITY of building #7.

Funny how that honest, and accurate posting got voted down.

Seems to me maybe people need to go read this.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Sorry if I misread you. It sounded as though you were referring to Arie questioning the stability of 7 and not one of the videos posted. It should be easy to see how I read that from your comment.

"Funny how that honest, and accurate posting got voted down."

Seems to me maybe people need to be a little less dramatic.

You're the one that "inferred" something. I see. No, I am not going to get into a debate about whether or not Controlled Demolition took place at the WTC or not. I thanked arie for the post, as you can plainly see, and pointed out that there was yet another mention of concern for the stability of WTC7 before it collapsed.

Yet, that got voted down. No drama here.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

you been hanging with Albanese lately?

A multitude of things giving me a headache.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

"No, I am not going to get into a debate about whether or not Controlled Demolition took place at the WTC or not."

Huh? What do you mean Jon? Aren't you sure that Controlled demolition took place at the WTC?
My whole view of 911 being an inside job is based on that fact.

To tell you what happened at the WTC. I believe Prof. Jones and Kevin Ryan are extremely convincing, and if they were given an outlet before Congress, or any legal body to make their respective presentations, they would most assuredly manage to convince some of the people there that at the very least, it's an avenue worth looking into.

You say, "my whole view of 911 being an inside job is based on that fact."

I say expand your horizons.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

the pernicious "I'm not a structural engineer, therefore I cannot see the buildings being blown up" meme.

It's true that once you acknowledge that in the videos the buildings are exploding, you become aware of the fact that this was a game with many more players than the Atta patsy cell. (Unless you think that rapid pulverization of skyscrapers can be induced by plane crashes or, in the case of 7, by less-than-raging fires.) You may wonder who blew up the buildings and how to such a degree that the back-story around the patsy cell recedes in importance for you. That's too bad, because there really is a tremendous amount of information out there on the genesis, care and feeding of a cell of hapless patsies. (And as Webster Tarpley points out, patsies really are bad guys, with plenty of criminal intent, just not the means to suspend laws of physics.)

There's no harm in looking at the patsy backstory. It may even lead toward the people who were responsible for funding, scripting, and desiring 9/11.

Because of the fact that there is no footage in existence of a 300,000lb plane crashing into a 110 story building, I don't know 100% what the results would be. Which is why, unfortunately, I am laboring under the influence of the pernicious I'm not a structural engineer, therefore I cannot see the buildings being blown up meme.

Fortunately, I have people like casseia around to point it out.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

When I wrote this to Prof. Jones...

Dr. Jones,

Jon

He didn't seem to mind...

Thank you so much, Jon.

Steve

Too bad I'm not allowed that same courtesy here.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

thing. Yes, people get mad when for some reason you want to set up the circumstantial evidence in opposition to the evidence that the plane crashes did not cause the destruction. They are irritated by the idea that our scope of inquiry should center on the patsies when we want to know who blew up the buildings.

How people can accuse me of trying to "center on the patsies" when I've contributed things like statements from first responders about the Molten Metal, statements about pulverized concrete, and a multitude of other things related to idea of Controlled Demolition.

I also don't get when people on this site decided that it was only acceptable to talk about Controlled Demolition.

I also don't get, again, how people can accuse me of trying to "center on the patsies" when I have 1000's of articles collected pertaining to things like NORAD's response, The 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Report, the motives of this administration, and a plethora of other subjects.

I did not sign up for the Controlled Demolition movement. Nor should 4+ years of hard work and determination unmatched by most be questioned BECAUSE I didn't sign up for the Controlled Demolition movement.

I have no doubt this movement will succeed. What I do have doubts about is whether or not I'll be apart of it when it does.

Bullshit like this makes me think not.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

I appreciate your attempts to maintain credibility in the fields in which you do have the highest standing while abandoning those in which you may be most heavily scrutinized.

You are gaining standing in this movement and I see your point.

Continue doing everything that you do and leave the speculation to us. We will carry your torch.

Peace
___________________
Together in Truth!

The thing is, there are things we can see, with the basic grasp of physical principles that we have from living in the world they govern, which do not require expertise. There's no need to pretend otherwise. If you drop your cup of coffee, you know, without an expert to explain, that the cup is going to break and the coffee to spill. You also know that the coffee isn't going to turn to steam and the cup to dust, without Steven Jones telling you. If that's what took place, you would stop in your tracks and want to know what the hell happened.

OTOH, there are things that may be beyond intuitive grasp. I don't know what it would look like for the plane to hit the building and what that would look like when captured on video.

Sure there is, it's called being able to explain "the basic grasp of physical principles" with conviction, confidence, and a few whistleblowers that took part in the planting of the alleged explosives.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

I can explain the basic physical principles with confidence and I'm a liberal arts major. I don't pretend to know how it was done, and so I have no need of whistleblower testimony. All I seek to convey is that the official explanation cannot possibly be true (not to mention the fact that there IS no official explanation anymore, since NIST recanted the progressive collapse theory and failed to provide a substitute.)

One of your three criteria is "Will it bring people into the movement." You know physical evidence has brought many, many people into the movement, including me.

... but I don't think one needs to be one to see the following:

Any object dropped from the roof of WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have taken minimally 11 seconds to hit the ground (in free fall through air).

WTC 1 and 2 came to the ground in 15 seconds maximum.

This means that there was a maximum of 0.04 seconds time for each floor to be crushed (4 seconds divided by 110 floors). And of course each floor had to be crushed - including the floors above the "collapse zone" (some forget this)!

In the case of WTC 7, there was virtually no time for each floor to be crushed (free fall time through air: 6.5 - 7 seconds, collapse time: ~6.5 seconds).

Each floor has a large surface area (=a lot to be crushed) in all the buildings.

[quote]I'm not qualified...

To tell you what happened at the WTC. I believe Prof. Jones and Kevin Ryan are extremely convincing, and if they were given an outlet before Congress, or any legal body to make their respective presentations, they would most assuredly manage to convince some of the people there that at the very least, it's an avenue worth looking into.

You say, "my whole view of 911 being an inside job is based on that fact."

I say expand your horizons.[/quote]
=====================================

You are not qualified to compare the research between Jones/Ryan and NIST? I can assure you it is slam dunk evidence. You don't have to be an expert to realize that. All you need is common sense.

Expand my horizon?Besides the WTC demolitions there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. When I look at this mountain I already know from the CD of WTC, that 9/11 was an inside job.

"An avenue worth looking into"??? Are you kidding me?
This must be the understatement of the year. This is the foundation of the truth movement

And that is the scariest statement of the year.

The foundation of the movement was formed long before the idea of Controlled Demolition became popular.

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

and NOT see two exploding towers and one imploding one. It is there on every video, in every photo. Unlike you to me, I take you to be genuine, but your attitude to the FACT of CD just astounds me.