• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon" while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Building 7

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
We can either have informed discussions or stand around and piss in each other's corn flakes. I don't like piss in my cornflakes.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
We can either have informed discussions or stand around and piss in each other's corn flakes. I don't like piss in my cornflakes.
and i dont like coffee coming outta my nose.


Angelo...your something wrong was saying you read the summaries in PM... good one.. funny stuff. Thank you for leaving this thread.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
I wonder if anyone has ever tried to locate the officer shown on video warning people away from Building 7? Numerous interviews have been done with Firefighters who were there that day, but I've never read or seen anything else on that police officer. The Harley-man was finally positively identified sometime back but I haven't seen where he has been interviewed either.

Just to be clear, my position on this is that it is obvious a proper investigation was not done but I do not have any favorite theory. I do think the official conspiracy theory is perhaps one of the weakest pulling a close second behind the no-planes theory. I don't know what really happened, I just wish I did.

Office fires cause the collapse of three steel frame buildings causing steel to run as though in a foundry down the sides of the building. Really? If so, then the Twin Towers were two of the most poorly designed and unsafe high-rise buildings in history. Reviewing the history and construction of those buildings has led me to believe they were designed much better than that.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Oh, I'll still be here - remember, much to your chagrin, Gene has asked me to stay on as a moderator. So I'll be watching!
my chagrin? ... funny stuff. it is more like, much to your chagrin you will have to walk away from this topic.

i still like you tho... you have big balls to think you can discuss this with people who have been studying it damn near long enough to get a Doctorate on the subject.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
I should read all this stuff and then talk so I will do that and pick up the thread once I have.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to locate the officer shown on video warning people away from Building 7? Numerous interviews have been done with Firefighters who were there that day, but I've never read or seen anything else on that police officer. The Harley-man was finally positively identified sometime back but I haven't seen where he has been interviewed either.
You mean the cop yelling something like "they are going to have to take down that building"?
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
my chagrin? ... funny stuff. it is more like, much to your chagrin you will have to walk away from this topic.

i still like you tho... you have big balls to think you can discuss this with people who have been studying it damn near long enough to get a Doctorate on the subject.
No worries dude. In the end, what you think and what I think changes nothing, right? You have yet to say whether you have ANY expertise in the subject or if you are deferring to the experts you happen to agree with. Please answer that, okay? That's all. Neither of us has actually gone on the scene and studied any of this in a lab, or done the computer models. However, if you have, I apologize and will gracefully bow out.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

I should read all this stuff and then talk so I will do that and pick up the thread once I have.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------



You mean the cop yelling something like "they are going to have to take down that building"?
That makes sense though doesn't it? Even if it hadn't collapsed on its own, they would have had to take it down anyway. If you think of it in that context, it makes perfect sense.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
I should read all this stuff and then talk so I will do that and pick up the thread once I have.

You mean the cop yelling something like "they are going to have to take down that building"?
He says at one point, "The building is about to blow up, move it back." He isn't in the frame at the time. See the Ed Asner video.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Angelo.. I have worked on large steel and concrete structures, I was a crane operator and worked with iron workers on many occasions. I have worked with blueprints enough to navigate my way around to what i needed to know. I have worked along side explosive experts on numerous occasions and actually handled the explosives and was allowed to set off charges. I have been involved with demolishing large buildings and know that they always fall towards the path of least resistance and do not globally collapse and fall straight down at the "speed of gravity" unless they are suspended in mid air and released with nothing below them. I have worked with steel, iron, nickel etc in my forging of damascus steel and ornamental iron work... ever try to forge weld something? it takes a pretty good understanding of metal to do it and even more understanding when you get into differential hardening and tempering of your metal and what its purpose will be. Ever tempered a blade to be soft on the spine and hard at the edge? None of that gives me any expertise in the 9/11 events but it DOES give me a much greater understanding of what couldnt have happened... and office fires will NEVER weaken a single column enough to bring down a build like number 7 the way it came down... NEVER in a million years.
I have studied this event since it happened and listened to both sides of the issue. When you factor in WHO stood to gain the most, ie: Silverman, Bush and his ilk... and WHO controlled the investigation, etc... then you can see the real story emerging. Follow Rons example and we might be able to have an intelligent conversation in about 6 years... until then I suggest you stick with debunking people like steven greer and his kind.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
When you factor in WHO stood to gain the most, ie: Silverman, Bush and his ilk... and WHO controlled the investigation, etc... then you can see the real story emerging..
Why even go there? In my opinion that has been a major mistake almost everyone makes. Then you go down the wild speculation road trying to suss out the motivations of hypothetical plotters. Theoretically any number of scenarios could have played out behind the scenes to which no one has any visibility. It seems pointless to me personally. Why not just stick to the events and the physical evidence that is available? The public isn't there yet. The science has to show that what is claimed to have happened, that is office fires destroyed three steel framed buildings, is untrue to the general public before they will even seriously consider the question of "Who" or "Why." I don't think its there yet.

The thing is to get someone to the point where they go, "Hey, office fires don't bring down sky-scrappers! WTF?"
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Why even go there? In my opinion that has been a major mistake almost everyone makes. Then you go down the wild speculation road trying to suss out the motivations of hypothetical plotters. Theoretically any number of scenarios could have played out behind the scenes to which no one has any visibility. It seems pointless to me personally. Why not just stick to the events and the physical evidence that is available? The public isn't there yet. The science has to show that what is claimed to have happened, that is office fires destroyed three steel framed buildings, is untrue to the general public before they will even seriously consider the question of "Who" or "Why." I don't think its there yet.
all good points.

I think it is awesome that anyone can go into high rise demolition now, pile up some office furniture next to a random steel column, light it on fire and wait about 45 minutes. the building will suddenly sag in the middle and the whole building will pulverize all concrete into power and fall neatly into its own footprint. yay!
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
all good points.

I think it is awesome that anyone can go into high rise demolition now, pile up some office furniture next to a random steel column, light it on fire and wait about 45 minutes. the building will suddenly sag in the middle and the whole building will pulverize all concrete into power and fall neatly into its own footprint. yay!
Well, it would certainly save money and time when imploding buildings. No C4 needed. Perhaps thats what the demolitions experts don't want us to know! :)

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

Honestly, I can barely spell "structural integrity" and I have no idea how hot certain fires get. I guess my question is could the fire inside the building blazing for over 7 hours act like an oven and bake the column until the steel softened? I should also state that I know more about the reproductive system of earthworms then I do about steel and its properties or building fires.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted

Honestly, I can barely spell "structural integrity" and I have no idea how hot certain fires get. I guess my question is could the fire inside the building blazing for over 7 hours act like an oven and bake the column until the steel softened? I should also state that I know more about the reproductive system of earthworms then I do about steel and its properties or building fires.
That's where a lot of work has been done. I think the answer is no, it doesn't work that way. Again, I would refer you to the architect site for material on this aspect of the problem. The key here is the structure of the buildings themselves. The massive central columns, the outer casing, they were phenomenal buildings actually built to withstand being hit by an airliner. The fuel from the planes burned away in seconds. Imagine constructing such a thing and it could be brought down by burning office furniture. It seems counter-intuitive and like I said before makes them probably the most dangerous buildings ever constructed. Numerous cases of high rise steel frame buildings surviving longer and more intense fires are out there if you look for them. But don't take my word for it.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Angelo.. I have worked on large steel and concrete structures, I was a crane operator and worked with iron workers on many occasions. I have worked with blueprints enough to navigate my way around to what i needed to know. I have worked along side explosive experts on numerous occasions and actually handled the explosives and was allowed to set off charges. I have been involved with demolishing large buildings and know that they always fall towards the path of least resistance and do not globally collapse and fall straight down at the "speed of gravity" unless they are suspended in mid air and released with nothing below them. I have worked with steel, iron, nickel etc in my forging of damascus steel and ornamental iron work... ever try to forge weld something? it takes a pretty good understanding of metal to do it and even more understanding when you get into differential hardening and tempering of your metal and what its purpose will be. Ever tempered a blade to be soft on the spine and hard at the edge? None of that gives me any expertise in the 9/11 events but it DOES give me a much greater understanding of what couldnt have happened... and office fires will NEVER weaken a single column enough to bring down a build like number 7 the way it came down... NEVER in a million years.
I have studied this event since it happened and listened to both sides of the issue. When you factor in WHO stood to gain the most, ie: Silverman, Bush and his ilk... and WHO controlled the investigation, etc... then you can see the real story emerging. Follow Rons example and we might be able to have an intelligent conversation in about 6 years... until then I suggest you stick with debunking people like steven greer and his kind.
Thanks for that information, as it does give you a much better understanding than me. Unfortunately, you then tarnish that by acting like a jerk by saying I'll only be able to have an intelligent conversation with you in 6 years - way to get someone to listen to you. You need to change your approach, and you also need to understand that going deep into the rabbit hole of conspiracy makes you look silly.
You think that it's impossible for the fire to have collapsed the building, but then there are experts that say it is possible. And then there are those that think there's evidence that shows controlled demolition, as well as the twin towers being a controlled demolition with the involvement of the US government - I don't buy that, not in a million years, that the government decided to do that. Controlled demolition? Maybe, but again, there's no actual proof. Computer models show that it is possible that fires left burning for hours (not 45 minutes like you say) would bring down the building.
Also, the wild speculation you make in earlier posts in this thread about bunkers and such does not help make what you say credible. In the end, there's absolutely no physically proof of controlled demolition - is it possible? Well anything is possible, but for now there really isn't anything more than speculation.

So that's it. Keep on discussing it and thinking that "they" are out to get you. I don't think that way. Say whatever you want about me, call me naive, whatever. All you have are videos that have people with no proof saying things that fit into the theory they want to fit. It's the same thing on the other side, but it makes way more sense than some sort of American government conspiracy.

See you in six years, since you don't think I'm intelligent to discuss this with you. I don't have time to research it anyway, I'll just read articles in magazines that aren't published by the conspiracy theory fringe.

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

Here's a great video I found about the towers collapsing - pretty clear as to how they collapsed without the aid of controlled demolition. Yes, I realize were discussing building 7, but some also seem to think that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.



---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

Another video explaining why it was left out of the report:



---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

That guy has some really interesting videos on the topic and he makes an interesting case as well. Why should I not believe him? Anyway, I'm wasting too much time on this thread - I have six years of catching up to do!
 

Xylo

Paranormal Adept
I'm just surprised by the amount of ad hominem being bandied about. Pixel, really? I know this topic gets you excited and hot under the collar (as it does me) but take a step back. And Angelo, "truther," really? Don't get drawn into it.

I don't know what was inside of building 7, how it was constructed, nor how it was brought down. What I do know is that I don't trust pixelsmith's canned information, nor his architectural expertise, nor his style of argument. I think it's safe to say that none of us are structural engineers and I think it's also safe to say that, on this forum, we'd all like to KNOW what happened. All conjecture aside, I would love to see an investigation re-opened as to the reasons behind the collapse of building 7.

IF the NITSA conclusions were correct, a new investigation would show that, right? And if the NITSA conclusions were wrong, a new investigation would certainly highlight that as well, right? Hearsay, conjecture, and speculation aren't going to convince anyone.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I'm just surprised by the amount of ad hominem being bandied about. Pixel, really? I know this topic gets you excited and hot under the collar (as it does me) but take a step back. And Angelo, "truther," really? Don't get drawn into it.

I don't know what was inside of building 7, how it was constructed, nor how it was brought down. What I do know is that I don't trust pixelsmith's canned information, nor his architectural expertise, nor his style of argument. I think it's safe to say that none of us are structural engineers and I think it's also safe to say that, on this forum, we'd all like to KNOW what happened. All conjecture aside, I would love to see an investigation re-opened as to the reasons behind the collapse of building 7.

IF the NITSA conclusions were correct, a new investigation would show that, right? And if the NITSA conclusions were wrong, a new investigation would certainly highlight that as well, right? Hearsay, conjecture, and speculation aren't going to convince anyone.
About the "truther" thing, some of those that put forth these theories call themselves that, but I'll refrain from using it if it bothers people. I apologize. Now it's up to Pixel to apologize for calling anyone that agrees with the official report a "liar."
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
I'm just surprised by the amount of ad hominem being bandied about. Pixel, really? I know this topic gets you excited and hot under the collar (as it does me) but take a step back. And Angelo, "truther," really? Don't get drawn into it.

I don't know what was inside of building 7, how it was constructed, nor how it was brought down. What I do know is that I don't trust pixelsmith's canned information, nor his architectural expertise, nor his style of argument. I think it's safe to say that none of us are structural engineers and I think it's also safe to say that, on this forum, we'd all like to KNOW what happened. All conjecture aside, I would love to see an investigation re-opened as to the reasons behind the collapse of building 7.

IF the NITSA conclusions were correct, a new investigation would show that, right? And if the NITSA conclusions were wrong, a new investigation would certainly highlight that as well, right? Hearsay, conjecture, and speculation aren't going to convince anyone.
i have stated this before several times. Do NOT believe a word I say. Period. Simply listen and go prove me wrong. That will force you to do your own research which will be far more believable to you. Beware of what "official" reports say. Beware of publications owned by the elite (popular mechanics). It can take years to sort of the signal from the noise.
 

drew hempel

Skilled Investigator
Thanks for that information, as it does give you a much better understanding than me. Unfortunately, you then tarnish that by acting like a jerk by saying I'll only be able to have an intelligent conversation with you in 6 years - way to get someone to listen to you. You need to change your approach, and you also need to understand that going deep into the rabbit hole of conspiracy makes you look silly.
You think that it's impossible for the fire to have collapsed the building, but then there are experts that say it is possible. And then there are those that think there's evidence that shows controlled demolition, as well as the twin towers being a controlled demolition with the involvement of the US government - I don't buy that, not in a million years, that the government decided to do that. Controlled demolition? Maybe, but again, there's no actual proof. Computer models show that it is possible that fires left burning for hours (not 45 minutes like you say) would bring down the building.
Also, the wild speculation you make in earlier posts in this thread about bunkers and such does not help make what you say credible. In the end, there's absolutely no physically proof of controlled demolition - is it possible? Well anything is possible, but for now there really isn't anything more than speculation.

So that's it. Keep on discussing it and thinking that "they" are out to get you. I don't think that way. Say whatever you want about me, call me naive, whatever. All you have are videos that have people with no proof saying things that fit into the theory they want to fit. It's the same thing on the other side, but it makes way more sense than some sort of American government conspiracy.

See you in six years, since you don't think I'm intelligent to discuss this with you. I don't have time to research it anyway, I'll just read articles in magazines that aren't published by the conspiracy theory fringe.

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

Here's a great video I found about the towers collapsing - pretty clear as to how they collapsed without the aid of controlled demolition. Yes, I realize were discussing building 7, but some also seem to think that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.



---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

Another video explaining why it was left out of the report:



---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

That guy has some really interesting videos on the topic and he makes an interesting case as well. Why should I not believe him? Anyway, I'm wasting too much time on this thread - I have six years of catching up to do!
I still haven't seen comments on the videos that pixelsmith posted. I watched the videos you posted but I also read the youtube comments which tear the videos to pieces. Free fall collapse speed isn't explained by the pancake model for the two towers. To say that one tower fell later because it had fewer stories above the burning area does not address the free fall speed for both the towers collapsing. The freefall speed is also the case for tower 7 -- a point ignored by the video.

So again I'm waiting for some criticism of pixelsmith's videos -- until then this is a slam dunk case for controlled demolition. To just defer to "official" is not an argument -- that's not presenting any evidence. Even worse "official" means it should be held up to even more scrutiny considering the previous falsehoods of the "official" positions that have led to the U.S. attacking other countries -- whether it's via the CIA or proxy forces or secret bombings, etc.

Official -- it reminds me of when I was confronting vice president Al Gore in the basement of the VFW in 2000 -- I said "everyone knows the CIA controls the drug trade." Obviously I wasn't presenting the official story but there's so much evidence that this is the case that my statement was not outlandish.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest


Top