Monday, August 6, 2007

Twin Towers Story

PoetryHound doesn't seem to like this video very much. It is in fact a very good summary of many things that the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate, some very significant omissions like the collapse of WTC 7 entirely.







PoetryHound's posts at Twin Towers Story 8.5.07. They appear in reverse order on YouTube, here they are shown in the order they were posted.



PoetryHound

So many misrepresentations in this video, so little space to debunk them, although they've all been dubunked elsewhere. Tower 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of Tower 1. Fires burned for 6 hours with no suppression efforts, possibly exacerbated by the diesel storage and fuel lines in the building. After the bldg started leaning and creaking, NYFD officials pulled people from the site, expecting the collapse. No demo charges seen or heard at time of collapse.



Talk about misrepresentations, PoetryHound is good at it. First his claim that "they've all been dubunked elsewhere" is just the impression he wants to create, not fact. People may have TRIED to "debunk" many of the things in this video but the video is focused on the MANY THINGS the 9/11 Commission pointedly ignored, ignored with such a vengeance that its own report itself is a damning indictment of back-scenes manipulation and corruption. WHY PoetryHound do you think the 9/11 Commission didn't cover the collapse of WTC 7, for just one example? Are you trying to create the impression that THAT GLARING OMISSION has been somehow "debunked"? I would like to hear from you how you think it has, since that is what the video is about and that is what you appear to be claiming has been "debunked" about reasons for the 9/11 Commission pretending the WTC 7 collapse didn't happen, much less the fact they totally ignored the molten steel in the basements of WTC 7 too JUST LIKE THEY DID FOR WTCs 1 AND 2 but we'll get to that later.


"Tower 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of Tower 1" PoetryHound says. Yes it was, on one side, ASYMMETRICALLY. Same with the scattered fires. Since when can a high-rise with ASYMMETRIC DAMAGE collapse PERFECTLY SYMMETRICALLY STRAIGHT DOWN from that damage? Several other buildings were hit even worse with debris and parts of them did collapse from those hits but not symmetrically and completely. HOW DOES POETRYHOUND EXPLAIN HOW THIS COULD BE POSSIBLE?

"Fires burned for 6 hours with no suppression efforts, possibly exacerbated by the diesel storage and fuel lines in the building." Yes that may be technically true but it is not relevant because no matter how long a hydrocarbon fire may burn it can never get hot enough to collapse a steel-framed building (at least it never once happened before 9/11) AND nowhere even remotely hot enough to MELT steel, so where did the molten steel in the basement of WTC 7 come from? OH THAT PESKY MOLTEN STEEL, POETRYHOUND NEVER QUITE WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT DIRECTLY if it can be dodged.

"After the bldg started leaning and creaking, NYFD officials pulled people from the site" Oh this is priceless, inserting the word "pulled" to confabulate and confuse with Larry Silverstein's now-famous slip-up when he used the word "pull" in this manner:


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." -- Larry Silverstein


Pull IT. Not pull THEM as this quote is typically twisted to mean he meant to pull the plural firefighters out of the building, who were in fact already well clear of the building by the time Mr. Silverstein slipped up and accidentally let some of the truth slip: "...they made tat decision to pull AND THEN WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE" (emphasis added) in his clear and plain statement of cause and effect. But PoetryHound can claim he wasn't even talking about this so I won't hold his feet to the fire on it until he does make that lying claim directly.

"No demo charges seen or heard at time of collapse." Well everybody was well pushed back by then, weren't they? The only videos we have of WTC 7 are from a distance, you know the ones showing the near-freefall collapses. There were in fact some flashes and squibs seen, I wasn't there and I haven't heard any recordings that include loud explosions but 1) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and 2) there were LOTS of explosions reported before the collapses of WTCs 1 and 2, some people inside the buildings were even blown over by them, some injured. So when people were close to the buildings that collapsed that day, yes explosions were heard. And there are good recordings of what sound like a series of booming explosions during the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, so WE KNOW THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS OF SOME KIND INVOLVED. PoetryHound would like to create the impression that no demo charges could have been present, but it turns out not to be the case at all.





PoetryHound

Claim: There was "molten steel" and only C4 explosive can cause that. It's difficult to find the source of this claim, but it was clearly anecdotal. There was not "molten steel," and even if there was, even C4 wouldn't keep it in a molten state for weeks, as is claimed. Molten metal would be more plausible, but even "molten" as in "liquid" is problematic. All we know for sure is that the rubble field was very hot and that the fires underneath burned for weeks.




Claim: There was "molten steel" and only C4 explosive can cause that. PoetryHound certainly knows better than to say this, although the way he's putting it down as a claim he's heard somewhere else makes it seem as if it's worthy of debunking. C4 and other explosives may essentially VAPORIZE steel, and in fact Dr. Steven Jones has found large quantities of molten iron/steel spherical granules in samples of WTC dust which might have condensed from some of that vaporization, but nobody I know of is arguing that the molten metal found in the basements of WTCs 1, 2, and 3 were formed or sustained by C4 explosive, that is a complete red herring of an argument. Controlled demolition of buildings is normally accomplished by significantly weakening the structure before setting explosive charges which make the final cuts. Everything had to be surreptitiously done on 9/11 though, so many believe the explanation for the explosions heard before the towers collapsed (indeed even before the first plane struck!) is that they were pre-weakening the structures to prepare them for later explosive demolition. And that is where thermite or thermate come in, because those could have been used to weaken the structures. They are not really explosives although they may share some characteristics with them, but they can melt and even evaporate steel (some steel was apparently EVAPORATED too, but that evidence drifted away with the smoke, good thing we have the melt pools). So thermite or thermate COULD EXPLAIN THE MOLTEN STEEL IN THE BASEMENTS and that is the point. PoetryHound is either mistaken or lying if he meant to leave the impression that "only" C4 could melt steel. If C4 or some other kind of explosive was later used to complete the destruction of the buildings, that of course would not be expected to leave molten puddles of steel behind. So PoetryHound is again trying to confabulate and confuse things with this spurious chase down a rabbit hole of what is probably his own invented "claim" to debunk in the first place.


"There was not "molten steel," and even if there was, even C4 wouldn't keep it in a molten state for weeks, as is claimed. Molten metal would be more plausible, but even "molten" as in "liquid" is problematic. All we know for sure is that the rubble field was very hot and that the fires underneath burned for weeks." Oh no PoetryHound we know a lot more than that for sure. We know from firefighter's witnessing and telling about the molten steel, we have pictures and videos of glowing hot metal being pulled up out of some molten pools, dripping molten steel or iron (they'll appear the same but the one thing we can be sure of is that they weren't aluminum). We have direct and indirect temperature measurements made WEEKS afterward of hotspots far hotter than any hydrocarbon and office materials fire could have created, and we have the solid hard evidence of some of those now-cooled deposits of previously molten metal. One is even nicknamed "the meteorite" because it looks somewhat like one. THERE IS MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN STEEL IN THE BASEMENTS, MOLTEN STEEL IS THE SMOKING GUN OF 9/11 BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.

I especially like PoetryHound's dissembling phrase "even C4 wouldn't keep it in a molten state for weeks, as is claimed" since C4 is explosive and while some explosives may actually burn without exploding, nobody I know is suggesting that C4 explosive somehow burned for weeks to keep that molten metal hot. THERE IS NO DOUBT THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL however so we do need to 1) hypothesize and 2) test hypotheses about how it could have been possible for all that molten metal to have formed and to stay hot for so long. Thermite and thermite can explain that, there may even be other chemicals which could explain it, but I think all agree C4 explosive would not. PoetryHound seems to be suggesting that because C4 couldn't explain molten metal and how it could stay hot for weeks, then there must not have been any molten metal! Who does he think he's fooling, I wonder?





PoetryHound

Another sleight of hand is the citation of the "Fire Engineering" magazine editorial complaining about the fraudulent 9-11 investigation. What the video conveniently omits is the fact that the articles came out BEFORE the FEMA report, 9-11 Commission report, and NIST report were issued. Two subsequent articles, while expressing criticism, agreed with the finding that the combination of the cataclysmic plane impacts and fires weakened the structures on those floors & led to the collapse.



"Another sleight of hand" so perfectly describes what PoetryHound is trying to accomplish with his posts: distract attention from the valid claims by "debunking" absurdist versions of those claims (straw men).

The rest of PoetryHound's quote about Fire Engineering magazine I will have to let slide because I haven't researched that topic myself. I doubt Fire Engineering had any hand in 9/11 but I do know that many statements made by people in the heat of 9/11 have been conspicuously retracted later, like Larry Silverstein's "pull it" slipup.





PoetryHound

The vid accurately cites the call of one firefighter inside calling to say there were no fires we can't control. Well, obviously he didn't see the full extent of the fires. Why were people jumping if the fires were so small? The vid's claim that the towers were in a freefall is false. Besides, it's impossible to verify because the whole last part of their collapse is obscured by the clouds of dust and ash.



"Well, obviously he didn't see the full extent of the fires. Why were people jumping if the fires were so small? " PoetryHound doesn't know with any certainty at all what the firefighter who made that assessment did or didn't see, and the safest most logical assumption, not to mention respectful, is that the firefighter knew his job and made an accurate call. Many experts have said the bulk of the airplanes' fuel was consumed in the initial fireballs. Black smoke indicates incomplete combustion and the fires were not roaring infernos after they had settled down. From the videos I've seen it looks like many of the people who jumped were on the downwind side of the building, and they may have jumped because they couldn't breathe anymore, such is the power of the desire to breathe. Other people may very well have jumped because of heat and flame too, but if the temperatures of those fires inside the building were hot enough to melt or even significantly weaken steel (for crying out loud) I don't think any people would have survived long enough to jump.

"The vid's claim that the towers were in a freefall is false. Besides, it's impossible to verify because the whole last part of their collapse is obscured by the clouds of dust and ash." Ample analysis has been done to show that all three WTCs fell very nearly at freefall speeds. Yes there is a little wiggle room of a second or two because smoke and debris from the explosive demolition obscures some of the view. But all objective analyses so far have said freefall or nearly so. PoetryHound apparently wants to have it both ways though, claiming that they didn't fall at freefall speed but it's impossible to verify LOL. So how can he claim they didn't if it's impossible to verify? Of course he's simply dissembling because the towers can be seen to fall and their rate of collapse can be accurately measured even if a few moments especially at the end are debatable, there is no question that the buildings fell looking like controlled demoltions at nearly freefall.




THIS BLOG IS OPEN FOR COMMENTS, WITH POETRYHOUND INVITED TO POST FIRST. LET HIM TRY TO ANSWER THE REAL QUESTIONS POSED.




PoetryHound can be found on YouTube at www.youtube.com/profile?user=PoetryHound

For a detailed timeline of 9/11 events see Cooperative Research's Complete 911 Timeline

If you haven't seen ZeitGeist the movie you owe it to yourself to see how it finally makes sense of Christianity and puts it into the myth-making context of 9/11. A MUST SEE ESPECIALLY IF YOU THINK YOU ARE CHRISTIAN!



4 comments:

ScaryTruth said...

PoetryHound and I have been sparring for several days about a WTC 7 video collapse on YouTube.
He's got shill marks all over him.
Resorting to the debunker handbook, he uses circular logic, attributing to others what they didn't say and holds the NIST report up as his bible -- until it's pointed out that NIST began with a conclusion and massaged the data in reverse to make it work.
He evades the fact that the NIST data is not open to peer review or public examination.
He finds that NIST's decision that incendiaries could not possibly have played a role in the collapse was completely sound.
They didn't look, yet they state that, "... the collapse of WTC 7 was not caused by explosives or incendiaries ...".
As per his obvious marching orders, any alternative hypothesis, theory, scenario or extrapolation regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on 911 besides the "official" story/excuse is met with rabid, frothing denial.
He's had his ass handed to him on a plate a number of times and I believe that his handlers are not pleased. His stipend, (I can't imagine what an OCT agency would pay him), is likely up for re-evaluation and he is not likely pleased either.
With predictable strategy and tactics, repetitive rhetoric and "opinion bully" methodology he becomes yesterday's news in short order.

ScaryTruth said...

PoetryHound and I have been sparring for several days about a WTC 7 video collapse on YouTube.
He's got shill marks all over him.
Resorting to the debunker handbook, he uses circular logic, attributing to others what they didn't say and holds the NIST report up as his bible -- until it's pointed out that NIST began with a conclusion and massaged the data in reverse to make it work.
He evades the fact that the NIST data is not open to peer review or public examination.
He finds that NIST's decision that incendiaries could not possibly have played a role in the collapse was completely sound.
They didn't look, yet they state that, "... the collapse of WTC 7 was not caused by explosives or incendiaries ...".
As per his obvious marching orders, any alternative hypothesis, theory, scenario or extrapolation regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on 911 besides the "official" story/excuse is met with rabid, frothing denial.
He's had his ass handed to him on a plate a number of times and I believe that his handlers are not pleased. His stipend, (I can't imagine what an OCT agency would pay him), is likely up for re-evaluation and he is not likely pleased either.
With predictable strategy and tactics, repetitive rhetoric and "opinion bully" methodology he becomes yesterday's news in short order.

ScaryTruth said...

The double post is unintended and unexplained.

Alan Trum said...

look at the page linked below for some background on the P-Hound...

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/tv_ZFdds9_A

He's complaining about a "conspiracy" on YouTube out to get him!