New Footage of Building 7 Collapse!!!!!

[zizozain]

Free Fall due to small office fires.....and remember folks? " a fire did this"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCu0VkUxpr4

---

Note from a forum admin: Some random guy suddenly discovers a new video on his camera over a decade later? Also, is this video at actual speed, or is it doctored? I don't trust stuff like this.

[miller-time]

Small office fires are pretty much the main reason firefighters stop fighting fire and abandon a building.

[niko]

You have to be ten levels of stupid to think that there was a conspiracy to knock down the twin towers AND building 7. That's like conspiring to murder Michael Jackson and Tito Jackson's dog. People who worked in the WTC didn't necessarily know their were 7 buildings.

People are just really stupid.

[niko]

I support your effort, but you need to be careful of the pro-US/Israeli government lobby on ISH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6JN9cwY_OE).
It's WTC 7. When it happened it was basically throw away news. It's a comparably small building to all the others. LETS KNOCK DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS. YEAH! AND WTC 7!

Take a step back and try to figure out how that makes any kind of sense and if you do, i'll listen to the rest of the story.

[bagelred]

Free Fall due to small office fires.....and remember folks? " a fire did this"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCu0VkUxpr4

You're never going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. Don't even try anymore. Waste of energy. If people can't see that's an obvious controlled demolition, then any new angle you show won't change their mind. Move on.

[Cangri]

So what's the point in destroying Building 7 anyways? Just don't see any reason for it if they already destroyed the twin towers.

[knickballer]

You're never going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. Don't even try anymore. Waste of energy. If people can't see that's an obvious controlled demolition, then any new angle you show won't change their mind. Move on.

Pretty much. Even if you try to post your thoughts in a calm and coherent matter people will spit out fire regardless.

"OMG, Are you a ****ing idiot? Why would they destroy the Twin Towers? For shots and giggles? You are some sick pieces of shit!"

[bagelred]

Pretty much. Even if you try to post your thoughts in a calm and coherent matter people will spit out fire regardless.

"OMG, Are you a ****ing idiot? Why would they destroy the Twin Towers? For shots and giggles? You are some sick pieces of shit!"

Let me tell ya....9/11 was an eye opening event in a lot of ways. And not only about the gov't and their agendas, etc. But I learned more about people, how easy it is to basically fool people, and how no one really wants to think, and how easy it is to control people's thoughts and perceptions. It's been fascinating and I guess not in a good way. You feel the same way?

[knickballer]

Let me tell ya....9/11 was an eye opening event in a lot of ways. And not only about the gov't and their agendas, etc. But I learned more about people, how easy it is to basically fool people, and how no one really wants to think, and how easy it is to control people's thoughts and perceptions. It's been fascinating and I guess not in a good way. You feel the same way?

I'd pretty much agree. Although, I think other events that have happened over the past 40 years are better examples shockingly. Stuff like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

like :wtf:

Use the Kuwaiti's ambassador to make a fake testimony? Crazy..

[Dresta]

Pretty much. Even if you try to post your thoughts in a calm and coherent matter people will spit out fire regardless.

"OMG, Are you a ****ing idiot? Why would they destroy the Twin Towers? For shots and giggles? You are some sick pieces of shit!"
It is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories i have ever heard. Anyone who believes it is simply incredibly stupid. Calling those who disparage your idiot theories you found on the internet is not some kind of denialist, so stop pretending that they are.

[gts]

It is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories i have ever heard. Anyone who believes it is simply incredibly stupid. Calling those who disparage your idiot theories you found on the internet is not some kind of denialist, so stop pretending that they are.

this

[JtotheIzzo]

Any moron, and I think this word is too light to describe how stupid they are, who thinks building 7 was a controlled demolition needs to be lined up and summarily shot as they are a threat to the well being of the gene pool.

the entire back side of the building was basically hollowed out from fire before the collapse, but conspiracy profiteers don't want you to see that, so they ignore it.

I have no time to engage with myopic muppets over this ridiculousness, so I will let the BBC handle it from here, watch this documentary (especially from 27:20 onwards for building 7).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM

Check 38:30 for footage of the south face of Building 7, and voila, there is your reason for collapse.

[Sarcastic]

So what's the point in destroying Building 7 anyways? Just don't see any reason for it if they already destroyed the twin towers.

Because anyone who was interested in blowing it up would obviously tell us why and what was in the building beforehand. DUH!!!

[bagelred]

Stuff like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

like :wtf:

Use the Kuwaiti's ambassador to make a fake testimony? Crazy..

i forget all the details around this event, but i do remember it. But even when the gov't is caught redhanded, the media and the masses still basically ignore it.

[niko]

I've literally asked 100 times in these threads why they knocked down WTC 7 and except when i do it like this and beg for an answer it just gets glossed over. It honestly makes no sense. Don't tell me why they knocked down WTC 1 and 2, why 7? To my analogy, it's again really like going after Michael Jackson, and Tito's dog.

Why WTC 7? People doubt your theories because it's all over. There's no overriding logic or tie together. It's just a list of facts you find strange. What in life besides conspiracies do you talk about by listing non related facts you find interesting?

Again, why WTC 7 as it ties into everything else?

[KevinNYC]

So what's the point in destroying Building 7 anyways? Just don't see any reason for it if they already destroyed the twin towers.


It's WTC 7. When it happened it was basically throw away news. It's a comparably small building to all the others. LETS KNOCK DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS. YEAH! AND WTC 7!

Take a step back and try to figure out how that makes any kind of sense and if you do, i'll listen to the rest of the story.

If you thinking the conspiracy was about the Twin Towers that's what they what you to think. If you think the real goal of the false flag was to get to WTC 7, you're still missing the truth. The attack was staged to get at Borough of Manhattan Community College!
When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.

Specifically it was aimed at second year nursing student Luisa Delgado who at the time of the WTC collapse would have been sitting in her Nursing Process III: Pediatric and Basic Medical-Surgical Nursing Care class.

[KevinNYC]

Because anyone who was interested in blowing it up would obviously tell us why and what was in the building beforehand. DUH!!!

Blowing it up would have required an explosive force that broke every window for several blocks in lower Manhattan.

[KevinNYC]

Only watched two minutes but sounds sincere, looks like she is reading from a script but I would to if it was a long speech on TV. Why is this WTF?

She was posing as a regular Kuwaiti citizen who witnessed horrible things. However, she wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

[nathanjizzle]

none of you conspiracy theorists are scientists nor engineers, so claiming a fire wouldn't weaken metal is a dumb thing to say.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

[ballup]

So what's the proof?

[IamRAMBO24]

Let me tell ya....9/11 was an eye opening event in a lot of ways. And not only about the gov't and their agendas, etc. But I learned more about people, how easy it is to basically fool people, and how no one really wants to think, and how easy it is to control people's thoughts and perceptions. It's been fascinating and I guess not in a good way. You feel the same way?

Well there is a whole psychological technique behind it. From my understanding, the indoctrination starts at a very age in elementary school where kids are taught to blindly love the government, cops, media, etc. and the introduction of a well known traitor.

Some people still hold this childish neurotic fixation; I mean even I was guilty of it for a while in my early years when I could see no wrong in the government, believe everything in the media, and viewed cops as mythological heroes.

Then you have guys like Niko, who is brainwashed further by being in the military where they stripped his entire ego, beat it down to the an*l retentive stage, and pretty much have made him into a zombie excessively obssessed with the frontal lobe.

We all hate N Korea for their brainwashed population, but we really need to take a look in the mirror because the majority of our people are just as bad (if not more) than they are.

[n00bie]

The fact still stands that this was the only case of a whole building going down from fire. There are only 2 explanations from this. The building was brought down by explosives, or the buildings in NY are the weakest buildings in the world.

In Russia, buildings survive fires. In the u.s., fires bring down buildings.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9-fN8KKmBbI

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm not fully convince yet about 9/11, but I will admit there are a lot of potholes.

Since I am the resident logician, I would like to point out two very commonly used form of logical deception amongst the naysayers.

1. Appeal to authority. I've been noticing they've been using propaganda media machines such as the BBC, CNN, and Popular Mechanics as their voice of authority. If these guys say it is true, it must be true.

2. Hypotheticals. They love to use this to divert from the premise by asking why did they did this or if they are aiming for building 7, why didn't they aim for the community college down the street. The use of hypotheticals is to set up a strawman and divert the discussion in a different direction. Example: if someone has to explain why the terrorists didn't aim for the community college down the street along with 7, then the discussion is no longer about what brought the building down but about some dumb college irrelevant to the discussion.

[Dresta]

Well there is a whole psychological technique behind it. From my understanding, the indoctrination starts at a very age in elementary school where kids are taught to blindly love the government, cops, media, etc. and the introduction of a well known traitor.

Some people still hold this childish neurotic fixation; I mean even I was guilty of it for a while in my early years when I could see no wrong in the government, believe everything in the media, and viewed cops as mythological heroes.

Then you have guys like Niko, who is brainwashed further by being in the military where they stripped his entire ego, beat it down to the an*l retentive stage, and pretty much have made him into a zombie excessively obssessed with the frontal lobe.

We all hate N Korea for their brainwashed population, but we really need to take a look in the mirror because the majority of our people are just as bad (if not more) than they are.While i agree with you that people love the Government too much and have begun to rely on the state for everything (this often from people who claim not to trust politicians, but still want them to organise the world), you are waaay off: the people who don't believe in some unsubstantiated mass-conspiracy theory about 9/11 are not trapped in some 'childish neurotic fixation' - they simply aren't self-obsessed losers with desperate persecution complexes.

You ignore that it is pretty popular and trendy also to hate the state, say everything the state does is evil, and believe in large conspiracies that justify your own inadequacy. But you are still just believing propaganda like those you deprecate: the dogmatic propaganda of the other side, the Michael Moore club et al. Idiot attention seekers that need to fabricate inanities to make themselves feel important.

Chumps like you and bagelred just like to think you're special by knowing something everyone else is too 'brainwashed' to realise. You are dogmatic and have a default position that you fall into as a response to every event. It's pathetic.

[gts]

The fact still stands that this was the only case of a whole building going down from fire.

Stop right there, here's where you fail. The building did not go down because of fire alone. You can beat that drum but it's a pile of horsesh*t.

The building was struck by debris from one of the towers, lot's of it, it weakened the structure it's also what ultimately caused the fire.

Stop being a gullible wimp, think things through, examine all the info not just the bits that fit you're bias

[knickballer]

Only watched two minutes but sounds sincere, looks like she is reading from a script but I would to if it was a long speech on TV. Why is this WTF?

Why?
Because that girl reading the script was the Kuwaiti's ambassadors daughter who claimed she was a nurse and witness all these horrors which she obviously never witnessed..

Fake testimonials like that raise support for a intervention. You don't see a problem with a staged event like that?

[Scholar]

When it comes to 9/11 chatter, I think Niko is the most annoying poster. All he does is say, "You guys are stupid" or "How f*cking stupid can you be?"

As bagelred mentioned on the first page:


You're never going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. Don't even try anymore. Waste of energy. If people can't see that's an obvious controlled demolition, then any new angle you show won't change their mind. Move on.

This. How people continue to ignore that it is an obvious controlled demolition of a set of buildings is beyond me.

And for those who ask questions like, "Why would our govt do this to us, their own people?" Umm... To keep people in check, you instill fear in them. Duh. :confusedshrug: I thought that'd be obvious if you even took only ONE history class your entire life. Any history class. Pick one and go study it. Monarchs, emperors, dictators, rulers of all shapes & sizes, and now presidents/govt officials.

But what's the point? Guys like Niko will just drop by and say, "No, you're f*cking stupid. History doesn't repeat itself. We've moved on. There's no such thing as a 9/11 inside job." :facepalm

[DeuceWallaces]

When it comes to 9/11 chatter, I think Niko is the most annoying poster. All he does is say, "You guys are stupid" or "How f*cking stupid can you be?"

As bagelred mentioned on the first page:



This. How people continue to ignore that it is an obvious controlled demolition of a set of buildings is beyond me.

And for those who ask questions like, "Why would our govt do this to us, their own people?" Umm... To keep people in check, you instill fear in them. Duh. :confusedshrug: I thought that'd be obvious if you even took only ONE history class your entire life. Any history class. Pick one and go study it. Monarchs, emperors, dictators, rulers of all shapes & sizes, and now presidents/govt officials.

But what's the point? Guys like Niko will just drop by and say, "No, you're f*cking stupid. History doesn't repeat itself. We've moved on. There's no such thing as a 9/11 inside job." :facepalm

Because you guys are idiots and it's been dis-proven time and time again. That is the definition of an idiot; denial in the face of evidence, logic, and reasoning. You guys are a bunch of losers on the internet with nothing better to do.

[Dresta]

When it comes to 9/11 chatter, I think Niko is the most annoying poster. All he does is say, "You guys are stupid" or "How f*cking stupid can you be?"

As bagelred mentioned on the first page:



This. How people continue to ignore that it is an obvious controlled demolition of a set of buildings is beyond me.

And for those who ask questions like, "Why would our govt do this to us, their own people?" Umm... To keep people in check, you instill fear in them. Duh. :confusedshrug: I thought that'd be obvious if you even took only ONE history class your entire life. Any history class. Pick one and go study it. Monarchs, emperors, dictators, rulers of all shapes & sizes, and now presidents/govt officials.

But what's the point? Guys like Niko will just drop by and say, "No, you're f*cking stupid. History doesn't repeat itself. We've moved on. There's no such thing as a 9/11 inside job." :facepalmNo one has said the crap you are saying people do. People who reject your conspiracy theorist garbage do so because it is utterly idiotic and unsubstantiated.

And please don't preach history: you clearly know **** all about history, and live your life in a little self-created bubble where you smirk at how clever you are for figuring it all out. When in actuality you just saw some moronic video on the internet and decided to believe something you wanted to believe. As such history expert could you point out a single Government conspiracy that in scope and magnitude was even comparable to 9/11?

I can think of 1, that was disputed, and during wartime, and far less complex. 'History repeats itself'

Give the platitudes a rest, son.

[KevinNYC]

We would need MachoMan covered in pink yarn to compete with this idiocy.

[bagelred]

Because you guys are idiots

The classic first response.


it's been dis-proven time and time again.

No it hasn't. Just because you say something, don't make it true.


That is the definition of an idiot;

The classic first response again...don't look at info., disparage the messenger.


denial in the face of evidence, logic, and reasoning.

Irony.


You guys are a bunch of losers on the internet with nothing better to do.

The classic first response YET again...disparage the messengers as idiots.

Well done DeucesWallaces. You are like the cliche of all cliches. :cheers:

[niko]

Actually Niko has always said "give me a coherent narrative of the conspiracy". There is none. There actually is a very simple narrative (Bush knew attacks were coming, did not act, then took advantage). But NO....that doesn't allow to list 10,000 "facts' that are all unrelated, most unprovable. There is this thought by the people who like the conspiracy that more is better. Yes, more "proof" would be better. But you need to have a consistent narrative around which it's built for it to make sense.

If this was a murder case, you'd be running around pointing out the person's house had strange screws in it that normally aren't used, that the person hates bagels, but had a bagel that day, that the knives the person used, one of them had a slighlty less blue handle, on and on random shit that didn't connect.

For the hundreth time, if you want me to listen to this (or others) what is the reason WTC 7 went down in connection with the conspiracy? Because knocking down a building most NYers didn't even know existed makes no sense.

The funniest thing? If it really was an inside job, WTC 7 falling almost certainly still was just collateral damage. :lol

Note: The other thing that bothers me is that over time people have changed the narrative. They've added things, deleted things (the plane hitting was always a very violent thing felt a long way off, it's become a pinprick would couldn't possible knock a building down - and note: my observations are from myself (not far way) and my friends and family (one in the building, some right near it)). But over time, people who were nowhere in the area, not close by in NYC hearing information, or seeing things in real time have completely changed the narrative to something that they want it to be. To me, it's weird. Sorry.

[DeuceWallaces]

The are several credible reports and investigations which show it was not a controlled demolition. One even posted in this very thread. You guys are tinfoil hat morons. People don't have a problem disbelieving the government. Look how they got shredded after weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't you think the Dems would have loved putting Republicans six feet under if there was even a remote possibility that it was true?

Stop being ****ing idiots.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

The are several credible reports and investigations which show it was not a controlled demolition. One even posted in this very thread. You guys are tinfoil hat morons. People don't have a problem disbelieving the government. Look how they got shredded after weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't you think the Dems would have loved putting Republicans six feet under if there was even a remote possibility that it was true?

Stop being ****ing idiots.
Stop being such a sheep and listen to what they're telling you.

[niko]

Again for all of you with all the facts, WHY WTC 7?

[AllenIverson3]

It's WTC 7. When it happened it was basically throw away news. It's a comparably small building to all the others. LETS KNOCK DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS. YEAH! AND WTC 7!

Take a step back and try to figure out how that makes any kind of sense and if you do, i'll listen to the rest of the story.
Dumbest shit I ever ****in read...

[niko]

Dumbest shit I ever ****in read...
How so? WTC 7 was as inconsequential as you can get. People in NY didn't necessarily know there were 7 buildings. And only WFC 1,2,3 ans WTC 1,2 are the really big office complexes. I did consulting for years so i knew that area well but no one gave a **** about 7.

If i was going to asassinate the president and vice president, would i run over and cap his maid too? If it's so damn obvious, tell me the link.

[zizozain]

Why building seven was knocked down?

For starters

Silversteen only had bought building seven. Shortly before 9/11 happened he bought the whole complex. He took out an insurance on it and got $3.5 billion from it.

[niko]

Why building seven was knocked down?

For starters

Silversteen only had bought building seven. Shortly before 9/11 happened he bought the whole complex. He took out an insurance on it and got $3.5 billion from it.
So why not knock down a bigger building? Why seven? So Silversteen knocked down WTC 1,2 for insurance money? Or are we making a second conspiracy jumping on the first.

I thought the conspiracy is the US govt and oil. It's also insurance money for private citizens?

Not sure if serious....

[gts]

If you think any of those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition you need to take the time and seriously research what goes into a controlled demolition on a building that size

Weeks of preparation, 100's of man hours, exploratory explosions, drilling thousands of holes in the proper places. pre weakening the structure so it will implode upon it's own footprint etc etc etc. They strip these building down to the core to do all this yet somehow you think a team of people pulled this off without nobody ever knowing.

A building that has 24/7 access to it's tenants was wired with 200 plus pounds of explosives, hundreds of feet of cable were laid out and everything else that goes into demolishing a building and not one person said hmmm somethings odd here...

Seriously, go read about the logistics involved, the manpower needed, the equipment involved then come back here and tell me how it was pulled off, then tell me why they did it that way when a simple multi floor fire would have been more than enough to condemn the building.

[Bless Mathews]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg

[Rasheed1]

If you look at the video? It is obviously a controlled demolition.. :oldlol: all the namecalling and insults in the world cannot change that..

add that to the fact that they reported it as collapsed before it actually collapsed? That makes it even more suspicious

[gts]

If you look at the video? It is obviously a controlled demolition.. :oldlol: all the namecalling and insults in the world cannot change that..

add that to the fact that they reported it as collapsed before it actually collapsed? That makes it even more suspicious

You're too smart for that BS and you know. Can't believe you of all people would be this gullible or wouldn't spend the time to thoroughly research the topic

[Rasheed1]

You're too smart for that BS and you know. Can't believe you of all people would be this gullible or wouldn't spend the time to thoroughly research the topic


Don't even come at me like that... I have spent too much time researching all of the nonsense that went on that day.. and I have had more than enough conversations on this board about the subject

I wont bother to get deep into it again... but will say that Im smart enough to recognize a controlled demolition when I see one..

People have put forth alot of reasons for why it would be done.. I dont pretend to know the truth of that...

I just know that buildings dont fall down like that unless they are done in a controlled fashion

[travelingman]

If you look at the video? It is obviously a controlled demolition.. :oldlol: all the namecalling and insults in the world cannot change that..

add that to the fact that they reported it as collapsed before it actually collapsed? That makes it even more suspicious

Simple case of the BBC wanting to be the first to break a story they had little substance to help support. This happens all of the time in the media when something big or controversial happens. There was also a report of an explosion on Capitol Hill on 9/11...have any conspiracy theory to let out surrounding this reporting error? Or the report that a car bomb was outside the State Department? Or that a couple of people were arrested with explosives under the GW Bridge?

[Rasheed1]

Simple case of the BBC wanting to be the first to break a story they had little substance to help support. This happens all of the time in the media when something big or controversial happens. There was also a report of an explosion on Capitol Hill on 9/11...have any conspiracy theory to let out surrounding this reporting error? Or the report that a car bomb was outside the State Department? Or that a couple of people were arrested with explosives under the GW Bridge?


http://reinep.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bbc_jane_standley_wtc7_9_11.png

Building is standing right behind her :lol WTF??

Like I said I wont go to far into it... but if you simply look at the video? its obvious it was controlled demolition.. No conspiracy theory or anything like that needed to come to that conclusion.. it is plain as day

[aj1987]

Has anyone ever come out and said that they were part of the operation to bring down the buildings? I imagine that an operation of this magnitude would require at least a couple thousand people..

[JtotheIzzo]

watch this documentary (especially from 27:20 onwards for building 7).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM

Check 38:30 for footage of the south face of Building 7, and voila, there is your reason for collapse(the entire south side of the building has already been hollowed out by fire).

so, the whole idea the building collapsed is not exactly true. The fa

[bdreason]

Too much to lose and too little to gain in destroying the WTC as a false flag. Definitive proof that the government brought down the towers would probably lead to civil war.

If the government wanted to invade Iraq/Afghanistan for notorious reasons, there are a lot easier/safer false flags than killing 5000+ Americans.

For example, we could just claim that Saddam/Taliban were using chemical weapons on their own people (which Saddam actually did), and that we needed to stop the genocide (see Syria/Lybia/etc).



Now that's not to say that I don't believe we entered Afghanistan and Iraq for notorious reason. Only that the excuse we used (9/11) wasn't carried out by our government. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with finding Bin Laden, or saving Iraqi's from Saddam. In the modern age, who the fukc would occupy a country to assassinate a couple people? :oldlol:

[IamRAMBO24]

Don't even come at me like that... I have spent too much time researching all of the nonsense that went on that day.. and I have had more than enough conversations on this board about the subject

I wont bother to get deep into it again... but will say that Im smart enough to recognize a controlled demolition when I see one..

People have put forth alot of reasons for why it would be done.. I dont pretend to know the truth of that...

I just know that buildings dont fall down like that unless they are done in a controlled fashion

I would like to add you are a smart guy for sticking to the premise.

Let's not be idiots and stick with logic guys. Stop with the name calling, stop with the hypotheticals, stop with the slew of logical inconsistencies and argue pound for pound.

Premise:

1. The buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition.

If you disagree with this premise, then back it up with a video, evidence, science, reason, whatever, I don't care, just stick to the premise and PROVE it is not a controlled demolition.

As is, the conspiracy nuts have a stronger case since the videos and science of a controlled demolition look pretty damn similar to what happened to that building.

[Crystallas]

Gonna go ahead and assume everyone saying it was CLEARLY a controlled demolition are demolitions experts and structural engineers...

That is where the information is coming from. All different kinds of engineers, architects, demolitions experts. That is why this argument goes on. It's not just an ISH debate.

[Patrick Chewing]

Oh shit it must be September 11th again....

[JtotheIzzo]

I would like to add you are a smart guy for sticking to the premise.

Let's not be idiots and stick with logic guys. Stop with the name calling, stop with the hypotheticals, stop with the slew of logical inconsistencies and argue pound for pound.

Premise:

1. The buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition.

If you disagree with this premise, then back it up with a video, evidence, science, reason, whatever, I don't care, just stick to the premise and PROVE it is not a controlled demolition.

As is, the conspiracy nuts have a stronger case since the videos and science of a controlled demolition look pretty damn similar to what happened to that building.


watch this documentary (especially from 27:20 onwards for building 7).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM

Check 38:30 for footage of the south face of Building 7, and voila, there is your reason for collapse(the entire south side of the building has already been hollowed out by fire).

The conspiracy profiteers hate the topic of the south side of building 7 because it crushes their premise (well that and logic).

[IamRAMBO24]

Gonna go ahead and assume everyone saying it was CLEARLY a controlled demolition are demolitions experts and structural engineers...

Again, another logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

You have to keep in mind an observation is a very strong method of proof. Look at the videos of a demolition and compare it to the 9/11 buildings. Then read up on the science behind how the towers are built.

The science alone kind of proves buildings like that don't collapse from the top down, but rather the bottom up.

[JtotheIzzo]

Again, another logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

You have to keep in mind an observation is a very strong method of proof. Look at the videos of a demolition and compare it to the 9/11 buildings. Then read up on the science behind how the towers are built.

The science alone kind of proves buildings like that don't collapse from the top down, but rather the bottom up.

Observation leads to assumption which leads to misunderstandings.

Not everything is as it seems on the surface, nor is it as it seems in a Youtube video.

We make a conscious choice on who to believe, but lets look at it logically.

if it looks 'exactly' like a controlled demolition, then now go deeper, look at the preparation needed for a controlled demolition and tell me when or how this could have been done with no one knowing...

Makes it a little less likely now doesn't it.

why has no one come forward in 12 years? It would be safe to 'assume' 1000s of people would need to have knowledge of the conspiracy.

why has Julian Assange or someone within the government not leaked this information? No Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning here? Highly unlikely.

why haven't rival political factions, or fringe political players looking for a bump used this information?

[IamRAMBO24]

watch this documentary (especially from 27:20 onwards for building 7).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM

Check 38:30 for footage of the south face of Building 7, and voila, there is your reason for collapse(the entire south side of the building has already been hollowed out by fire).

The conspiracy profiteers hate the topic of the south side of building 7 because it crushes their premise (well that and logic).

Not convincing. There's just no way all the columns could of been knocked out at one time by the fire.

I'm just saying, there is not one credible experiment or a video of a fire knocking down a building the same way that happened to those buildings.

The conspiracy theorists have more of a legitimate argument because they have proof of a demolition and the science behind how the buildings were brought down.

I'm just sticking to logic. Show me the proof. Period.

[JtotheIzzo]

Not convincing. There's just no way all the columns could of been knocked out at one time by the fire.

I'm just saying, there is not one credible experiment or a video of a fire knocking down a building the same way that happened to those buildings.

The conspiracy theorists have more of a legitimate argument because they have proof of a demolition and the science behind how the buildings were brought down.

I'm just sticking to logic. Show me the proof. Period.


http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

[IamRAMBO24]

why has no one come forward in 12 years? It would be safe to 'assume' 1000s of people would need to have knowledge of the conspiracy.

why has Julian Assange or someone within the government not leaked this information? No Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning here? Highly unlikely.

why haven't rival political factions, or fringe political players looking for a bump used this information?

Again, the use of logical fallacies is prevalant.

Hypotheticals.

The idea is to divert away from the premise by asking "what ifs."

Stick to the premise. All the columns were knocked out at the same time based on the rate of the fall. If a fire can cause this, then where is the evidence it can mimick a controlled demolition.

Fact of matter is there is not one single shred of evidence it can do such a thing. I challenge any of you to come up with a video where a fire can cause a building to collapse like that.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Not the video I was looking for. With so much hogwash coming from the media and covert governement agents, the only thing I will believe in now is to see it for my very own eyes.

1. Conspiracy theorists said it looks like a controlled demolition and I saw the videos of that.

2. Naysayers are saying it's all caused by a fire. I have yet to see a fire cause a building to fall like that.

Show me the video.

+1 for conspiracy theorists.

[JtotheIzzo]

Again, the use of logical fallacies is prevalant.

Hypotheticals.

The idea is to divert away from the premise by asking "what ifs."

Stick to the premise. All the columns were knocked out at the same time based on the rate of the fall. If a fire can cause this, then where is the evidence it can mimick a controlled demolition.



In bold is a false comment. The columns were not knocked down at the same side, the entire south side of the building was hollowed out before the collapse (see my link above).


Also, arguing a false positive because you don't have 'convincing' evidence to the contrary is disingenuous.

Example, I think you are gay, and until you can prove you are not gay, I will continue to hold this theory because it seems most obvious.

Its a facile analogy based on a false assumption, and a very dangerous way to sell an idea.

Look around the setting of the entire conspiracy narrative (though I do not think there is one).

Government knocked down WTC7

how? Controlled demo? How was that executed, I will not believe you until you show me how they got everyone out of the building and drilled all those holes for detonators and laid miles and miles of cables without anyone looking.

why? Not even sure about this.

How did they keep it a secret?

Not an easy task, yet you are so sure about all this and skeptical about other more logical turns of events.


This is the ultimate conspiracy fallacy, ignoring mountains of evidence and focusing on a minutia of inconsistencies.

[JtotheIzzo]

Not the video I was looking for. With so much hogwash coming from the media and covert governement agents, the only thing I will believe in now is to see it for my very own eyes.

1. Conspiracy theorists said it looks like a controlled demolition and I saw the videos of that.

2. Naysayers are saying it's all caused by a fire. I have yet to see a fire cause a building to fall like that.

Show me the video.

+1 for conspiracy theorists.

You are ignoring the fact the building was gutted on the south side and collapsed into itself.

and the 'covert government agents media' BS argument is weak.

Who has more to lose on this than the cottage industry of truthers?

They need you to keep believing in a dream.

[IamRAMBO24]

You are ignoring the fact the building was gutted on the south side and collapsed into itself.

and the 'covert government agents media' BS argument is weak.

Who has more to lose on this than the cottage industry of truthers?

They need you to keep believing in a dream.

Why do you keep on infringing on logic? I've already pointed out your fallacies, but yet you keep on deceiving the readers with your hypotheticals.

I'm only sticking with science and proof. As is, the conspiracy theorists have a stronger argument because they have the video of a controlled demolition (a strong method of proof) and the science behind it to cause a building to fall in that manner.

There are degrees of burn, it is arguable jet fuel can be hot enough to melt steel, but for the heat to be that consistent to knock out all the columns at once from the bottom up does not fit with the science.

Plus, where is the video?

[HarryCallahan]

http://photos.imageevent.com/pizon/photofilenormanjames8x10photos/Randy%20Savage%20a.jpg

Most insightful post in this thread so far.

[bagelred]

add that to the fact that they reported it as collapsed before it actually collapsed? That makes it even more suspicious

:oldlol: That BBC video was too perfect.

[bagelred]

:oldlol: That BBC video was too perfect.

Anywho, I like this physics teacher giving simple explanations of what's wrong with the collapses. I know, I know...he's just another crazy kook.....I mean, he has a beard for christ sake? nutjob....

You might want to skip to 5:00 minute mark...he starts to get into it more.....

http://vimeo.com/14140615

[tontoz]

I guess the firefighters were part of the conspiracy since they pulled out of the building hours before it fell, predicting it's collapse.



:facepalm

[tontoz]

[QUOTE]"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn

[IamRAMBO24]

I guess the firefighters were part of the conspiracy since they pulled out of the building hours before it fell, predicting it's collapse.



:facepalm

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

[travelingman]

Why do you keep on infringing on logic? I've already pointed out your fallacies, but yet you keep on deceiving the readers with your hypotheticals.

I'm only sticking with science and proof. As is, the conspiracy theorists have a stronger argument because they have the video of a controlled demolition (a strong method of proof) and the science behind it to cause a building to fall in that manner.

There are degrees of burn, it is arguable jet fuel can be hot enough to melt steel, but for the heat to be that consistent to knock out all the columns at once from the bottom up does not fit with the science.

Plus, where is the video?

If you have that scientific evidence readily available, please use it to disprove any of the following arguments that run contrary to yours.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

http://www.policymic.com/articles/63215/building-7-why-conspiracy-theorists-get-it-wrong

[IamRAMBO24]

If you have that scientific evidence readily available, please use it to disprove any of the following arguments that run contrary to yours.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

http://www.policymic.com/articles/63215/building-7-why-conspiracy-theorists-get-it-wrong

1. The building collapse from the bottom up.

2. Jet fuel is theoretically hot enough to melt steel columns, but the plane only crashed at the top, but yet, the base of the building (which were made of steel and concrete) and lower level columns were magically taken out causing a free fall collapse.

3. Building 7 did not have jet fuel direct burning.

4. There is absolutely no proof a fire can cause a building to collapse like that. Using links from government hacks won't change this fact. Show me a video. I'm only asking for one because there is too much disinformation regarding the science behind it all. I want to see it with my own eyes and come to my own conclusion.

[shlver]

Anywho, I like this physics teacher giving simple explanations of what's wrong with the collapses. I know, I know...he's just another crazy kook.....I mean, he has a beard for christ sake? nutjob....

You might want to skip to 5:00 minute mark...he starts to get into it more.....

http://vimeo.com/14140615
Couple of problems with this video.
He presents a high IDEALIZED scenario while throwing out words like "within a few percent of free fall" by taking inaccurate measurements by freeze framing a youtube video or even worse a live television show as he seems to imply he took said measurements on the day of the attack. Highly unreliable. Secondly, buildings are not cars. They do not have crumple zones; they are static structures. Without specific calculations done by a structural engineer, you cannot assume that the retarding force of the trusses were enough to slow down the accelerating force of gravity and the mass of the top floors and claim it is an "impossibility."

[IamRAMBO24]

Couple of problems with this video.
He presents a high IDEALIZED scenario while throwing out words like "within a few percent of free fall" by taking inaccurate measurements by freeze framing a youtube video or even worse a live television show as he seems to imply he took said measurements on the day of the attack. Highly unreliable. Secondly, buildings are not cars. They do not have crumple zones; they are static structures. Without specific calculations done by a structural engineer, you cannot assume that the retarding force of the trusses were enough to slow down the accelerating force of gravity and the mass of the top floors and claim it is an "impossibility."

We can argue until the cows come home, but let's skip the foreplay and just show me a video of a fire causing a building to collapse like that.

All I'm saying is the conspiracy theorists have the demolition videos and they look strikingly similar down to the exact physics.

Truth is in observation. You can lie about the physics, you can try to speak from an authoritarian position or use propaganda to manipulate the public, but you can't deny the proof you see with your very own eyes.

Again, video. A hot blazing fire that lasts for days can't even bring down some 17th century building like that, let alone the twin f*ckin towers.

[gts]

And once again it's clear from his posts Rambo doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

Mixing up the twin towers and WTC7 events :lol

[shlver]

We can argue until the cows come home, but let's skip the foreplay and just show me a video of a fire causing a building to collapse like that.

All I'm saying is the conspiracy theorists have the demolition videos and they look strikingly similar down to the exact physics.

Truth is in observation. You can lie about the physics, you can try to speak from an authoritarian position or use propaganda to manipulate the public, but you can't deny the proof you see with your very own eyes.

Again, video. A hot blazing fire that lasts for days can't even bring down some 17th century building like that, let alone the twin f*ckin towers.
Why do you keep requesting videos when the circumstances of any building collapsing is unique? Do you not understand buildings have different structures, different circumstances preceding collapse, etc? It is a pointless exercise to request a video and requesting such a video shows no base in logic or science.

[IamRAMBO24]

And once again it's clear from his posts Rambo doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

Mixing up the twin towers and WTC7 events :lol

Straw man

[IamRAMBO24]

Why do you keep requesting videos when the circumstances of any building collapsing is unique? Do you not understand buildings have different structures, different circumstances preceding collapse, etc? It is a pointless exercise to request a video and requesting such a video shows no base in logic or science.

There are literally millions of fires every year, surely there should be a video of a fire causing a similar collapse.

Fact of the matter is, fires don't collapse buildings like that. If you look at a fire burning a two story building, guess what, it'll burn around the building and not collapse in itself because the base of the structure is holding up the building. To cause a free fall like that you have to take out the base and all supporting columns from the bottom up.

[rufuspaul]

This thread should be deleted, especially today.

[shlver]

There are literally millions of fires every year, surely there should be a video of a fire causing a similar collapse.

Fact of the matter is, fires don't collapse buildings like that. If you look at a fire burning a two story building, guess what, it'll burn around the building and not collapse in itself because the base of the structure is holding up the building. To cause a free fall like that you have to take out the base and all supporting columns from the bottom up.
Fact of the matter is requesting such a video is a pointless exercise.

[ballup]

I'm pretty sure no one is convincing the other side of anything. All that's going to happen is that one side will pose a question that is unabled to be answered by the other side and even if an answer is provided, its validity would be questioned, making it thrown out of any actual discussion.

I've studied structural engineering as part of my tribute to my civil engineering degree. I'm no expert or anything and even if I was, I would still not be 100% confident in my analysis of the collapse because the dynamics of building stability is much more complicated than it is lead to be believed for your average person unversed in the basics of structural engineering. After looking at claims from both sides, I will say the NIST's final report is fairly plausible and that side is which I would believe.

[tontoz]

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.



Logic? A guy who ignores a 20 story hole in WTC 7 is not in a position to even mention the word logic.

[gts]

The bottom floors of WTC 7 were still in place when the dust settled.

The building didn't come down from fire alone, it was structurally compromised be falling debris from the twin tower, then it caught on fire and burned for 6 hours before it came down.

[IamRAMBO24]

The bottom floors of WTC 7 were still in place when the dust settled.

The building didn't come down from fire alone, it was structurally compromised be falling debris from the twin tower, then it caught on fire and burned for 6 hours before it came down.

Then you have to look at the physics of the fall instead of just assuming the debris cause the building to collapse by it's own weight.

The weight theory doesn't make any sense since the structure of the base is built by a code to support the entire weight of the building, so even if debris is toppling on top of one another, the structure should still be able to hold the weight since there is no added weight.

[niko]

The bottom floors of WTC 7 were still in place when the dust settled.

The building didn't come down from fire alone, it was structurally compromised be falling debris from the twin tower, then it caught on fire and burned for 6 hours before it came down.

Come on man, giant pieces of debris falling from larger buildings, the physical falling of the two other buildings, the planes hitting and the force shakign the ground, and the fire for a few hours, things like that don't knock down buildings. WTF is wrong with you. And the giant hole, did you see it with your eyes? I didn't. Therefore, how do i know the hole was there?

:hammerhead: I feel bad for those of you who ignore things like youtube videos made my random people and instead try to recite the story from people clearly mixed up in the conspiracy.

[Scholar]

This thread should be deleted, especially today.

I can agree with this.

The debates of '9/11 truthers vs. non-truthers' is just silly now. 13 years later and neither side budges.

[IamRAMBO24]

Come on man, giant pieces of debris falling from larger buildings, the physical falling of the two other buildings, the planes hitting and the force shakign the ground, and the fire for a few hours, things like that don't knock down buildings. WTF is wrong with you. And the giant hole, did you see it with your eyes? I didn't. Therefore, how do i know the hole was there?

:hammerhead: I feel bad for those of you who ignore things like youtube videos made my random people and instead try to recite the story from people clearly mixed up in the conspiracy.

The base can withstand earthquakes, so you are going to tell me a fire a couple of hundred of stories up is going to take it out by its own weight when it's built to withhold that weight to begin with? Please.

[tontoz]

Then you have to look at the physics of the fall instead of just assuming the debris cause the building to collapse by it's own weight.

The weight theory doesn't make any sense since the structure of the base is built by a code to support the entire weight of the building, so even if debris is toppling on top of one another, the structure should still be able to hold the weight since there is no added weight.


Who is assuming that the debris caused the building to collapse by its own weight? That is just you making up nonsense and pretending someone said it, something trufers are good at.

[tontoz]

The base can withstand earthquakes, so you are going to tell me a fire a couple of hundred of stories up is going to take it out by its own weight when it's built to withhold that weight to begin with? Please.


It wasn't built to withstand one of the twin towers falling into it, not to mention uncotrolled fires burning for 6 hours.

[KingBeasley08]

Gotta love 9/11 truthers


USA can't even keep NSA/Snowden shit secret yet they've somehow covered up an operation that's a million times more convoluted. People say Bush was a dumbass (he was) and then they turn around and believe that he masterminded the largest conspiracy in history like some evil genius.










I could see Cheney pulling something like that off though

[ballup]

On second thought, keep debating. Watching people debate about infrastructure when they have no clue on the subject, but insist that they making a valid point, is amusing to me.

[shlver]

On second thought, keep debating. Watching people debate about infrastructure when they have no clue on the subject, but insist that they making a valid point, is amusing to me.
Case in point.

Fact of the matter is, fires don't collapse buildings like that. If you look at a fire burning a two story building, guess what, it'll burn around the building and not collapse in itself because the base of the structure is holding up the building. To cause a free fall like that you have to take out the base and all supporting columns from the bottom up.

[travelingman]

1. The building collapse from the bottom up.

2. Jet fuel is theoretically hot enough to melt steel columns, but the plane only crashed at the top, but yet, the base of the building (which were made of steel and concrete) and lower level columns were magically taken out causing a free fall collapse.

3. Building 7 did not have jet fuel direct burning.

4. There is absolutely no proof a fire can cause a building to collapse like that. Using links from government hacks won't change this fact. Show me a video. I'm only asking for one because there is too much disinformation regarding the science behind it all. I want to see it with my own eyes and come to my own conclusion.

Did you read the third link? I'm very much interested in your response to its last paragraph.

[IamRAMBO24]

It wasn't built to withstand one of the twin towers falling into it, not to mention uncotrolled fires burning for 6 hours.

Well what about the twin towers themselves? How did the top fire collapse the lower columns and base?

[tontoz]

Well what about the twin towers themselves? How did the top fire collapse the lower columns and base?



It didn't. Even as the top floors were collapsing the bottom floors were intact. The collapse happened from the top down. Any picture of the collapse in process shows that but i am not surprised you didn't notice.

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WTC-041.jpg

[Immortal Bum]

Gotta love 9/11 truthers


USA can't even keep NSA/Snowden shit secret yet they've somehow covered up an operation that's a million times more convoluted. People say Bush was a dumbass (he was) and then they turn around and believe that he masterminded the largest conspiracy in history like some evil genius.

I could see Cheney pulling something like that off though

The truth is in your face, its just if you're set on one belief that there is no way this was an inside job, then no matter what evidence or notes you are given to show how so much about the "truth" doesn't make sense, then you aren't going to believe it anyway.

Is the government full of masterminds? no. but the the country IS full of fools. You'll never see me blame the government for much, because they only get away with what we allow them too. mentally the u.s. is a weak and lazy country (outside of that top % who knows how to keep playing everyone below because they see how easy it is to create sheep).

they got away with stealing an entire election in a so-called democracy, and you think its not possible that they were so desperate to get that presidency to further other plans of theirs? like getting into a war.

You do know that all the u.s. is around the world is hired guns. this country is just a big world market, and the only way they keep this system going is through profiting from arms and war. the u.s. has cities that are as bad as some third world countries, and the government couldn't care less, yet you think they don't use their resources to find as many ways as possible to keep profiting, even if it includes murdering residents of this country (because they really don't consider you a citizen if you aren't rich and have money working for you).

[ballup]

Case in point.
The one about earthquakes got to me.
http://i.imgur.com/QaP3dLb.gif

[travelingman]

The truth is in your face, its just if you're set on one belief that there is no way this was an inside job, then no matter what evidence or notes you are given to show how so much about the "truth" doesn't make sense, then you aren't going to believe it anyway.

Is the government full of masterminds? no. but the the country IS full of fools. You'll never see me blame the government for much, because they only get away with what we allow them too. mentally the u.s. is a weak and lazy country (outside of that top % who knows how to keep playing everyone below because they see how easy it is to create sheep).

they got away with stealing an entire election in a so-called democracy, and you think its not possible that they were so desperate to get that presidency to further other plans of theirs? like getting into a war.

You do know that all the u.s. is around the world is hired guns. this country is just a big world market, and the only way they keep this system going is through profiting from arms and war. the u.s. has cities that are as bad as some third world countries, and the government couldn't care less, yet you think they don't use their resources to find as many ways as possible to keep profiting, even if it includes murdering residents of this country (because they really don't consider you a citizen if you aren't rich and have money working for you).

The only people who call it a "democracy" are those who don't know that it isn't one. Laws aren't created and passed by referendums/initiatives that are decided through the citizens directly. This is a federal presidential constitutional republic.

[HardwoodLegend]

Rambo would be better served by following The Macho Man's lead and just posting pictures of Rambo everywhere.

Making no sense whatsoever and overestimating his structural expertise.

[gts]

Rambo would be better served by following The Macho Man's lead and just posting pictures of Rambo everywhere.

Making no sense whatsoever and overestimating his structural expertise.

He cracks me up, the guy tries to lord over the forum with his imaginary intellectual depth that he has to cut and paste from other websites



Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2013/01/logical-fallacy-of-week-red-herring.html

[IamRAMBO24]

If you have that scientific evidence readily available, please use it to disprove any of the following arguments that run contrary to yours.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

http://www.policymic.com/articles/63215/building-7-why-conspiracy-theorists-get-it-wrong

The weight theory: the building collapse into itself by a succession of weight falling on top of another.

It's hard for me to accept this theory because of a few things:

1. The fire would have to magically melt all the columns at the same time to cause such a precise free fall, but fires are erratic and don't behave like controlled demolitions.

2. The weight falling on itself floor by floor would mean each column is being melted one by one, so let's just say the top 5 floors have melted to collapse it, that would mean the lower level columns and base would still withhold the weight for a short amount of time until the fire melts them. Then you have to take into consideration where the fire came from. Did it come from the twin towers? If that is the case, then the fire would of had to work itself from the top downwards.

[ballup]

The weight theory: the building collapse into itself by a succession of weight falling on top of another.

It's hard for me to accept this theory because of a few things:

1. The fire would have to magically melt all the columns at the same time to cause such a precise free fall, but fires are erratic and don't behave like controlled demolitions.

2. The weight falling on itself floor by floor would mean each column is being melted one by one, so let's just say the top 5 floors have melted to collapse it, that would mean the lower level columns and base would still withhold the weight for a short amount of time until the fire melts them. Then you have to take into consideration where the fire came from. Did it come from the twin towers? If that is the case, then the fire would of had to work itself from the top downwards.
Oh please keep these "theories" coming. :roll:

[IamRAMBO24]

It didn't. Even as the top floors were collapsing the bottom floors were intact. The collapse happened from the top down. Any picture of the collapse in process shows that but i am not surprised you didn't notice.

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WTC-041.jpg

Hey I don't claim to know it all like you guys do, I'm actually pretty ignorant on this subject, but it still doesn't make sense to me how a fire can cause the base and lower columns to collapse. The picture and video of the free fall clearly shows a bottom up process and not the weight of the building falling on itself (which would be impossible since the building is built to withstand it's own weight).

[gts]

Hey I don't claim to know it all like you guys do, I'm actually pretty ignorant on this subject, but it still doesn't make sense to me how a fire can cause the base and lower columns to collapse. The picture and video of the free fall clearly shows a bottom up process and not the weight of the building falling on itself (which would be impossible since the building is built to withstand it's own weight).

No. If you'd clicked on the links provided you'd have seen pictures of WTC7's base still standing after the collapse of the building.

[tontoz]

The weight theory: the building collapse into itself by a succession of weight falling on top of another.

It's hard for me to accept this theory because of a few things:

1. The fire would have to magically melt all the columns at the same time to cause such a precise free fall, but fires are erratic and don't behave like controlled demolitions.

2. The weight falling on itself floor by floor would mean each column is being melted one by one, so let's just say the top 5 floors have melted to collapse it, that would mean the lower level columns and base would still withhold the weight for a short amount of time until the fire melts them. Then you have to take into consideration where the fire came from. Did it come from the twin towers? If that is the case, then the fire would of had to work itself from the top downwards.



This is where your stupidity rears it's ugly head. You can hide it with your copy and paste jobs but whenever you put your own thoughts down....FAIL.


The fire didn't have to melt any of the columns at all. That is just nuts. All the fire had to do was weaken the columns enough so that they couldn't support the weight of the top floors.

This is just common sense, something you obviously lack.

[tontoz]

Hey I don't claim to know it all like you guys do, I'm actually pretty ignorant on this subject, but it still doesn't make sense to me how a fire can cause the base and lower columns to collapse. The picture and video of the free fall clearly shows a bottom up process and not the weight of the building falling on itself (which would be impossible since the building is built to withstand it's own weight).


No it doesn't. The picture clearly shows that the bottom floors are intact as the upper floors are collapsing. That is why the debris cloud is being pushed out away from the building while the lower floors are intact.

The picture clearly shows this but i am not surprised you can't see it

[Lebowsky]

He cracks me up, the guy tries to lord over the forum with his imaginary intellectual depth that he has to cut and paste from other websites




http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2013/01/logical-fallacy-of-week-red-herring.html
If you ever have a bad day, I suggest you look up the thread on Trayvon Martin and read his posts there.

[unbreakable]

Any moron, and I think this word is too light to describe how stupid they are, who thinks building 7 was a controlled demolition needs to be lined up and summarily shot as they are a threat to the well being of the gene pool.
27:20 onwards for building 7).



"anyone who disagrees with mainstream media should be killed"

LMAO how much are they paying you fool:biggums:

[rufuspaul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w

[niko]

The weight theory: the building collapse into itself by a succession of weight falling on top of another.

It's hard for me to accept this theory because of a few things:

1. The fire would have to magically melt all the columns at the same time to cause such a precise free fall, but fires are erratic and don't behave like controlled demolitions.

2. The weight falling on itself floor by floor would mean each column is being melted one by one, so let's just say the top 5 floors have melted to collapse it, that would mean the lower level columns and base would still withhold the weight for a short amount of time until the fire melts them. Then you have to take into consideration where the fire came from. Did it come from the twin towers? If that is the case, then the fire would of had to work itself from the top downwards.

There is so much wrong here. :lol

[niko]

Well what about the twin towers themselves? How did the top fire collapse the lower columns and base?

Have you never seen video of the fall? It clearly comes down and pushes the lower floors down. You clearly didn't see it live because unfortunately the brain processed that moment very slowly and detailed as it came down and crushed the lower floors beneath it.

[Crystallas]

Have you never seen video of the fall? It clearly comes down and pushes the lower floors down. You clearly didn't see it live because unfortunately the brain processed that moment very slowly and detailed as it came down and crushed the lower floors beneath it.

So the weight of the building crushed itself?

[niko]

So the weight of the building crushed itself?
I don't know exactly. The fire burned for awhile. it had to be burning inside ****ing things up. But it does look like the building fell down and the weight pushed it down, no? These are kind of unusual buildings, they are really tall and relatively thin for how tall they are. The buildings got hit by a plane, went on fire, and then fell down. The getting hit by a plane strikes me as very unusual, the buildings falling after suffering all that damage, not so much. I said this many times and people gloss over it but I highly doubt the structure of the building was built to withstand a huge punch like that in the middle. Earthquake, made to shake maybe. Wind damage. Explosion at the bottom.

Structures fall down all the time, engineers build, and things don't work like they are supposed to, or something happens they don't expect, and it falls down. Only difference here is you have crazy people who have a compelling need for it to be something strange.

[bagelred]

Have you never seen video of the fall? It clearly comes down and pushes the lower floors down. You clearly didn't see it live because unfortunately the brain processed that moment very slowly and detailed as it came down and crushed the lower floors beneath it.

Why isn't the lower larger intact building stopping the smaller debris? Talking about the 2 towers.

Like described by a physics professor, imagine a hammer hitting a nail. You have to swing the hammer several times or more to get the nail in the wood. Why? Why doesn't the nail just give? Because it exerts an equal force upwards on the hammer, causing the hammer to stop. So you have to hit the nail many times to get it into the wood.

So why isn't the base of the completely intact larger building, a building that has 47 interior core columns of steel and concrete, who's one purpose is to STAND AND NOT GIVE, not stopping the debris AT ALL? Where is all the energy coming from to crush the entire building into dust? Why is everything being pulvarized downward? Why doesn't the debris just fall over the side into the air and less resistance instead of somehow crushing the entire building into the path of MOST resistance? Seems odd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh?

I don't expect an answer. Just call me a crackpot. I'll show my way out........:bowdown:

[DonDadda59]

People still believe this shit? :facepalm

Let's toss aside the fact that this 'controlled' demolition is, by a million miles, the most intricate, perfect, and pointless operation in the History of mankind. I mean to be able to plant tons of explosives on every floor of multiple skyscrapers without any of the thousands of employees, security guards, or bystanders noticing something was up... have none of the hundreds-thousands of people who were involved in the set up ever come forward (construction workers, demolition experts, drivers, government officials, etc)... AND on top of all that have planes (remote controlled?) crash into the buildings as well? Talk about overkill :lol

No, toss that all away. Stick to the basics. The one question that always has the theorists fumbling their words... WHY?

What was the purpose of this impossibly complex and intricate plot to bring down several buildings? They didn't think remote controlled airplanes crashing into the twin towers was enough? It was a necessity for the buildings to actually collapse in order for the NWO plan to work?

:biggums:

[tontoz]

So the weight of the building crushed itself?


Not exactly. If you put a rock on top of your head and it won't feel that heavy, but if someone drops it on you from 3 stories up it will feel a lot heavier.

Once the steel columns weakened enough that they couldn't hold the weight of the top floors then they collapsed. The weight/force of the top floors falling is what crushed the lower floors.

[tontoz]

Why isn't the lower larger intact building stopping the smaller debris? Talking about the 2 towers.

Like described by a physics professor, imagine a hammer hitting a nail. You have to swing the hammer several times or more to get the nail in the wood. Why? Why doesn't the nail just give? Because it exerts an equal force upwards on the hammer, causing the hammer to stop. So you have to hit the nail many times to get it into the wood.

So why isn't the base of the completely intact larger building, a building that has 47 interior core columns of steel and concrete, who's one purpose is to STAND AND NOT GIVE, not stopping the debris AT ALL? Where is all the energy coming from to crush the entire building into dust? Why is everything being pulvarized downward? Why doesn't the debris just fall over the side into the air and less resistance instead of somehow crushing the entire building into the path of MOST resistance? Seems odd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh?

I don't expect an answer. Just call me a crackpot. I'll show my way out........:bowdown:


Dust? Why did the cleanup take so long if the building was crushed into dust?
:roll:

All you have to do is look at the picture. Much of the smaller debris is getting pushed out away from the building as the lower floors remained stable. It isn't complex.

[gts]

So the weight of the building crushed itself?
Yes and no.

The structure intact is designed to work together, to form a matrix so to speak. Each floor is self supporting because of this matrix but if you weaken a section then the floors below that section not only have to support their own weight but that of the floors above them.

So you have a section that has been weakened first by a impact then the fire. Now the floor directly below that floor must not only support itself but the floors above it and down she goes, each floor collapsing under the added weight of the floors above it.

If the damage and fire had been on a top floor then the building probably would have survived the two assaults on it's integrity but the further down you go the more chance of failure you have.

[ballup]

Why isn't the lower larger intact building stopping the smaller debris? Talking about the 2 towers.

Like described by a physics professor, imagine a hammer hitting a nail. You have to swing the hammer several times or more to get the nail in the wood. Why? Why doesn't the nail just give? Because it exerts an equal force upwards on the hammer, causing the hammer to stop. So you have to hit the nail many times to get it into the wood.

So why isn't the base of the completely intact larger building, a building that has 47 interior core columns of steel and concrete, who's one purpose is to STAND AND NOT GIVE, not stopping the debris AT ALL? Where is all the energy coming from to crush the entire building into dust? Why is everything being pulvarized downward? Why doesn't the debris just fall over the side into the air and less resistance instead of somehow crushing the entire building into the path of MOST resistance? Seems odd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh?

I don't expect an answer. Just call me a crackpot. I'll show my way out........:bowdown:
And I thought the science ignorance couldn't get any worse. I mean structural analysis I can understand, but this is simple physics being messed up here. :oldlol:

[shlver]

Why isn't the lower larger intact building stopping the smaller debris? Talking about the 2 towers.

Like described by a physics professor, imagine a hammer hitting a nail. You have to swing the hammer several times or more to get the nail in the wood. Why? Why doesn't the nail just give? Because it exerts an equal force upwards on the hammer, causing the hammer to stop. So you have to hit the nail many times to get it into the wood.

So why isn't the base of the completely intact larger building, a building that has 47 interior core columns of steel and concrete, who's one purpose is to STAND AND NOT GIVE, not stopping the debris AT ALL? Where is all the energy coming from to crush the entire building into dust? Why is everything being pulvarized downward? Why doesn't the debris just fall over the side into the air and less resistance instead of somehow crushing the entire building into the path of MOST resistance? Seems odd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh?

I don't expect an answer. Just call me a crackpot. I'll show my way out........:bowdown:
The towers aren't designed to absorb energy. Once again, buildings are static structures; they are designed to withstand static stress, not several floors collapsing after weakened steel beams buckled and snapped. The towers are not strong enough to absorb the impact and redirect the energy sideways. If the towers were hit lower, we might have seen a toppling effect. All of this is described in the nist reports

[KevinNYC]

The towers aren't designed to absorb energy. Once again, buildings are static structures; they are designed to withstand static stress, not several floors collapsing after weakened steel beams buckled and snapped. The towers are not strong enough to absorb the impact and redirect the energy sideways. If the towers were hit lower, we might have seen a toppling effect. All of this is described in the nist reports

All the higher floors also represent a massive amount of potential energy.

Also the steel at the Trade Center didn't become dust. The gypsum plaster drywall sheets between offices became dust. Seeing that gypsum plaster is pretty much made out of dust, this isn't surprising.

[AllenIverson3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6WBHM3U

[shlver]

All the higher floors also represent a massive amount of potential energy.

Also the steel at the Trade Center didn't become dust. The gypsum plaster drywall sheets between offices became dust. Seeing that gypsum plaster is pretty much made out of dust, this isn't surprising.
The point about potential energy is why I completely ignored rambo's post comparing a two story building to the towers. "Based in science" :lol

[aj1987]

Why isn't the lower larger intact building stopping the smaller debris? Talking about the 2 towers.

Like described by a physics professor, imagine a hammer hitting a nail. You have to swing the hammer several times or more to get the nail in the wood. Why? Why doesn't the nail just give? Because it exerts an equal force upwards on the hammer, causing the hammer to stop. So you have to hit the nail many times to get it into the wood.

So why isn't the base of the completely intact larger building, a building that has 47 interior core columns of steel and concrete, who's one purpose is to STAND AND NOT GIVE, not stopping the debris AT ALL? Where is all the energy coming from to crush the entire building into dust? Why is everything being pulvarized downward? Why doesn't the debris just fall over the side into the air and less resistance instead of somehow crushing the entire building into the path of MOST resistance? Seems odd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh?

I don't expect an answer. Just call me a crackpot. I'll show my way out........:bowdown:
That guy has to be DUMBEST physics professor alive.

Once again, has anyone ever come out and said that they were part of the operation to bring down the buildings? I imagine that an operation of this magnitude would require at least a couple thousand people..

[kentatm]

Like described by a physics professor, imagine a hammer hitting a nail. You have to swing the hammer several times or more to get the nail in the wood. Why? Why doesn't the nail just give?

:biggums:

Uhh, you usually can't hammer in a nail in one hit b/c you would smash your fingers.

[bagelred]

The towers aren't designed to absorb energy. Once again, buildings are static structures; they are designed to withstand static stress, not several floors collapsing after weakened steel beams buckled and snapped. The towers are not strong enough to absorb the impact and redirect the energy sideways. If the towers were hit lower, we might have seen a toppling effect. All of this is described in the nist reports

Quoting NIST. :oldlol: They pretty much lied about everything. That's like trusting OJ Simpson's analysis of Nicole's murder.

The building, as explained, had 10X redundancy. Meaning those core columns that disintegrated could hold 10X the weight of the structure. So if you put nine WTC buildings on top of that one building, the building would still hold...that's how strong the building was.

Yet, it couldn't hold the small top of the building that broke off and completely disintegrated, due to a small gravitational drop. :oldlol:

[ballup]

Quoting NIST. :oldlol: They pretty much lied about everything. That's like trusting OJ Simpson's analysis of Nicole's murder.

The building, as explained, had 10X redundancy. Meaning those core columns that disintegrated could hold 10X the weight of the structure. So if you put nine WTC buildings on top of that one building, the building would still hold...that's how strong the building was.

Yet, it couldn't hold the small top of the building that broke off and completely disintegrated, due to a small gravitational drop. :oldlol:
I have never heard of a project that had a safety factor of 10. 6 maybe, but usually it's 2.5 to 3. Again, you are showing that you know nothing about building design. :oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

Quoting NIST. :oldlol: They pretty much lied about everything. That's like trusting OJ Simpson's analysis of Nicole's murder.

The building, as explained, had 10X redundancy. Meaning those core columns that disintegrated could hold 10X the weight of the structure. So if you put nine WTC buildings on top of that one building, the building would still hold...that's how strong the building was.

Yet, it couldn't hold the small top of the building that broke off and completely disintegrated, due to a small gravitational drop. :oldlol:

Simple questionnaire for you, just interested where exactly you stand on this err.... 'debate'. Just complete these sentences.

I believe that the specific perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks were __________________.

I believe the purpose of these attacks was ____________________.

Very simple and straightforward :cheers:

[shlver]

Quoting NIST. :oldlol: They pretty much lied about everything. That's like trusting OJ Simpson's analysis of Nicole's murder.

The building, as explained, had 10X redundancy. Meaning those core columns that disintegrated could hold 10X the weight of the structure. So if you put nine WTC buildings on top of that one building, the building would still hold...that's how strong the building was.

Yet, it couldn't hold the small top of the building that broke off and completely disintegrated, due to a small gravitational drop. :oldlol:
Um no. Redundancy refers to lateral forces. (Winds, earthquakes, etc.
Edit: http://www.gostructural.com/magazine-article-gostructural.com-december-2005-1617.2__redundancy-4528.html

[gts]

As much time as he spends cracking little jokes and all his attempts at being a comedian Bagelred's greatest comedic moment is happening in this thread and he doesn't realize it
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[tontoz]

Quoting NIST. :oldlol: They pretty much lied about everything. That's like trusting OJ Simpson's analysis of Nicole's murder.

The building, as explained, had 10X redundancy. Meaning those core columns that disintegrated could hold 10X the weight of the structure. So if you put nine WTC buildings on top of that one building, the building would still hold...that's how strong the building was.

Yet, it couldn't hold the small top of the building that broke off and completely disintegrated, due to a small gravitational drop. :oldlol:


Disintegrated? :oldlol:


Would you rather balance a 10 pound rock on your head or have a 1 pound rock dropped on your head from one story up? Neither would probably affect you given how hard your head is.

[KevinNYC]

I just looked at a WTC truther blog where the guy is promoted a new book that says a different group of 19 different suspects did it. Most of the reviews of the book on Amazon are 5 stars from other truthers.

However there is a one star review that is 3000 words long. It's also from a truther, he didn't like the book because he has a different conspiracy theory. I apparently stumbled into the rift between the nano-thermite loons and directed free energy loons.

Happy 9/11 everyone!

[AllenIverson3]

NEVER before or after 9/11 has a building come down due to fire. EVER! But on that one day, 3 buildings came down in free fall speed due to "fire". 2 110 story building collapsed in 10 ****in seconds... that's 10 floors per second and thats without controlled demollition... LMAO at any dumd **** who believes that... one building wasn't even hit and it came down in a perfect controlled demolition. Collapse started at the bottom and you could see the whole building falling down without break up... that's called "controlled" demolition. Only on that day, all laws of physics were magically abandoned and right after, life was perfect again.

[travelingman]

NEVER before or after 9/11 has a building come down due to fire. EVER! But on that one day, 3 buildings came down in free fall speed due to "fire". 2 110 story building collapsed in 10 ****in seconds... that's 10 floors per second and thats without controlled demollition... LMAO at any dumd **** who believes that... one building wasn't even hit and it came down in a perfect controlled demolition. Collapse started at the bottom and you could see the whole building falling down without break up... that's called "controlled" demolition. Only on that day, all laws of physics were magically abandoned and right after, life was perfect again.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/63215/building-7-why-conspiracy-theorists-get-it-wrong

Read the last paragraph. You won't have an answer for it.

[niko]

NEVER before or after 9/11 has a building come down due to fire. EVER! But on that one day, 3 buildings came down in free fall speed due to "fire". 2 110 story building collapsed in 10 ****in seconds... that's 10 floors per second and thats without controlled demollition... LMAO at any dumd **** who believes that... one building wasn't even hit and it came down in a perfect controlled demolition. Collapse started at the bottom and you could see the whole building falling down without break up... that's called "controlled" demolition. Only on that day, all laws of physics were magically abandoned and right after, life was perfect again.
That's really false, "google firefighter dies when building collapses". 1.1MM hits. I have friends who are firefighters, they are actually as scared of that as they are of the smoke, the building falling down. It happens literally all the time.

Are people retarded? A BUILDING HAS NEVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE - where are these facts coming from? If the beams holding the building up sustain enough damage, the building falls down. Period.

[niko]

Dust? Why did the cleanup take so long if the building was crushed into dust?
:roll:

All you have to do is look at the picture. Much of the smaller debris is getting pushed out away from the building as the lower floors remained stable. It isn't complex.
Bagel's never been near the area, he never talks about what happened or the aftermath with anything but youtube videos or someone else's thoughts. There were endless piles of rubble taken out of there, columns, concrete, endlessly for what felt like forever. It wasn't dust.

[ballup]

That's really false, "google firefighter dies when building collapses". 1.1MM hits. I have friends who are firefighters, they are actually as scared of that as they are of the smoke, the building falling down. It happens literally all the time.

Are people retarded? A BUILDING HAS NEVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE - where are these facts coming from? If the beams holding the building up sustain enough damage, the building falls down. Period.
What he meant to say was that no steel skyscraper has collapsed from a fire, but like many people who first start listening to conspiracy theories, he just paraphrases the main source.

[LikeABosh]

http://i.imgur.com/mqQ1XGb.gif

[niko]

What he meant to say was that no steel skyscraper has collapsed from a fire, but like many people who first start listening to conspiracy theories, he just paraphrases the main source.

Did people think this was a normal everyday occurance that could be prepared for? Jet Plane hits, explosion, Jet fuel burning, building all goes on fire, integrity of building compromised , building falls. Second building had no chance, first building falling was like a small earthquake 100 or so feet away.

Building didn't fall due to fire. Building fell due to a plane hitting hit, causing huge damage, and then not being able to stay structually sound from the remaining fire.

I know it's not a sexy explanation but that's what happened. If you want to tell me the CIA trained terrorists or whatever then id disagree but its a more reasonable thing than secret bombs being placed in a building to make a plane hitting it seem worse than it was.

[ballup]

Did people think this was a normal everyday occurance that could be prepared for? Jet Plane hits, explosion, Jet fuel burning, building all goes on fire, integrity of building compromised , building falls. Second building had no chance, first building falling was like a small earthquake 100 or so feet away.

Building didn't fall due to fire. Building fell due to a plane hitting hit, causing huge damage, and then not being able to stay structually sound from the remaining fire.

I know it's not a sexy explanation but that's what happened.
Now these days, newly constructed building are now better suited to resist explosive forces. Back then, it wasn't as much as a prominent design factor as it is now.

[AllenIverson3]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/63215/building-7-why-conspiracy-theorists-get-it-wrong

Read the last paragraph. You won't have an answer for it.
I don't need to answer it.... it's coming from NIST.... the same company that's being lying and changing their story year after year. The same company that said they couldn't explain why Building 7 even came down.

There are thousands of people who reported hearing bombs going off in all 3 buildings after the planes hit.... Type in Barry Jennings on youtube and watch for yourself.... The reporter at BBC is reporting that Building 7 has COME down 20 minutes before it actually came down.... can u explain that to me?

watch this video and tell me how those firefighters know it was gonna come down... shit even Silverstein said they decided to "pull" it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok

[KevinNYC]

What he meant to say was that no steel skyscraper has collapsed from a fire, but like many people who first start listening to conspiracy theories, he just paraphrases the main source.

Also if you actually watch the WTC towers collapse, you can easily see debris from the building falling at free fall, this sections far much faster than the floors itself http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos305_2_.jpg

Those pieces outlined in pink are each about 5 stories tall

[KevinNYC]

I don't need to answer it.... it's coming from NIST.... the same company that's being lying and changing their story year after year. The same company that said they couldn't explain why Building 7 even came down.

The reporter at BBC is reporting that Building 7 has COME down 20 minutes before it actually came down.... can u explain that to me?

watch this video and tell me how those firefighters know it was gonna come down... shit even Silverstein said they decided to "pull" it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok

NIST is a company? :facepalm

Yes, I can explain the BBC reporter. Can I explain it to you? Highly doubtful. Especially since you ignore the evidence. The fact that the firefighters knew it was going to come down hours before it did, is the explanation for the BBC reporter. The corner of WTC was bulging for hours before it collapsed, a bulge like that is a evidence that the building was losing its structurally integrity. When the NYFD saw that plus the creaking noises the building was making they "pulled" the rescue effort and created a perimeter around WTC because they were pretty sure the whole thing was coming down. It was this reports that the BBC messed up.* It was reported by other media that we have a report "that WTC 7 collapsed or is about to collapse." It was an news screwup. Or do you think that conspiracists like to give away their plans early on the BBC? ......Wait, don't answer that you probably do.

*Actually it was Reuters that made this error first then the BBC picked it up.

[niko]

I don't need to answer it.... it's coming from NIST.... the same company that's being lying and changing their story year after year. The same company that said they couldn't explain why Building 7 even came down.

There are thousands of people who reported hearing bombs going off in all 3 buildings after the planes hit.... Type in Barry Jennings on youtube and watch for yourself.... The reporter at BBC is reporting that Building 7 has COME down 20 minutes before it actually came down.... can u explain that to me?

watch this video and tell me how those firefighters know it was gonna come down... shit even Silverstein said they decided to "pull" it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok
I have people i knew in the immediate area, including firefighters. Nobody talked about bombs exploding. And note: they'd need to explode as the building was falling down right?

The BBC reporter made an error asswad. They also said there were 7 more unaccounted for planes, at one point that a plane hit the sears tower. The fact one of the errors came true isn't exactly surprising.

Note: are you saying the people planning the conspiracy were also in the BBC, or told the BBC? I'm interested in how this all works.

This is confusing to me, none of this makes any sense, even within the context of the conspiracy.

[travelingman]

I don't need to answer it.... it's coming from NIST.... the same company that's being lying and changing their story year after year. The same company that said they couldn't explain why Building 7 even came down.

There are thousands of people who reported hearing bombs going off in all 3 buildings after the planes hit.... Type in Barry Jennings on youtube and watch for yourself.... The reporter at BBC is reporting that Building 7 has COME down 20 minutes before it actually came down.... can u explain that to me?

watch this video and tell me how those firefighters know it was gonna come down... shit even Silverstein said they decided to "pull" it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok

1. So you are admitting you have no way of proving that the last paragraph of that link has any inaccuracies? Not surprising. Truthers never really did have much of a case when the argument shifted from observations of video footage to scientific reasoning as to the events that occurred. But of course when a truther makes an argument that a debunker can't necessarily prove wrong, then the truther has made a "strong" point.

2. I have already answered that question earlier in this thread. See post #51. I'd like to see you answer the question I pose in that response as well.

[gts]

I just looked at a WTC truther blog where the guy is promoted a new book that says a different group of 19 different suspects did it. Most of the reviews of the book on Amazon are 5 stars from other truthers.

However there is a one star review that is 3000 words long. It's also from a truther, he didn't like the book because he has a different conspiracy theory. I apparently stumbled into the rift between the nano-thermite loons and directed free energy loons.

Happy 9/11 everyone!

Not uncommon. A couple years ago there was a fracture in the truther business as some of the bigger names went off on their own and started talking up another line of 911 conspiracy. lots' of accusations flew back and forth, quite entertaining to follow. Nothing better than watching a good old fashioned public backstabbing

[niko]

Not uncommon. A couple years ago there was a fracture in the truther business as some of the bigger names went off on their own and started talking up another line of 911 conspiracy. lots' of accusations flew back and forth, quite entertaining to follow. Nothing better than watching a good old fashioned public backstabbing
I used to read really cool "factual" books about aliens and the loch ness monster too which seemed to contain lots of scientific proof. I didn't know better though. At some age don't people know better?

[gts]

I used to read really cool "factual" books about aliens and the loch ness monster too which seemed to contain lots of scientific proof. I didn't know better though. At some age don't people know better?
Evidently not... :lol

[DonDadda59]

Simple questionnaire for you, just interested where exactly you stand on this err.... 'debate'. Just complete these sentences.

I believe that the specific perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks were __________________.

I believe the purpose of these attacks was ____________________.

Very simple and straightforward :cheers:

Looks like Bagel won't answer this, so I welcome anyone who thinks 9/11 was an 'inside job' or disputes the idea that it was a terrorist attack orchestrated by Al Qaeda operatives.

Why is it that you people can come up with the most outlandish, absurd theories yet can't answer the most basic questions?

In order to pay the thousands of people involved in this conspiracy (for planning, labor, hush money, etc) would've run in the tens of millions. So obviously whoever perpetrated this must've had a damn good reason to go through all that trouble and throw away all that damn money :oldlol:

Just interested who they were and what that reason was. Can't be that hard to answer, right? :confusedshrug:

[bagelred]

Simple questionnaire for you, just interested where exactly you stand on this err.... 'debate'. Just complete these sentences.

I believe that the specific perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks were how the f-ck should I know.

I believe the purpose of these attacks was how the f-ck should I know for sure, although you could easily speculate.



There. Happy?

[DonDadda59]

There. Happy?

So basically you're convinced that the collapse of the towers was a controlled demolition (a feat that would've cost tens-hundreds of millions of dollars, countless man hours and participants). Yet you can't say who was involved or why they even bothered to do it.

Do you think Al Qaeda had anything at all to do with the attacks? Was the controlled demolition not slightly overkill considering that massive jumbo jets were flown into buildings?

[bagelred]

So basically you're convinced that the collapse of the towers was a controlled demolition (a feat that would've cost tens-hundreds of millions of dollars, countless man hours and participants). Yet you can't say who was involved or why they even bothered to do it.



Ugh...I'm not going into this all again, I promised myself I wouldn't. I'll just say this. There's a huge difference between knowing a crime was committed and knowing EXACTLY who did it and why, right?

But is it really difficult to understand who benefits from a massive attack like that? I mean, you can read right? You understand all the interests that benefitted from "the new Pearl Harbor" right? So those would probably be the prime suspects. Right?

It's silly to suggest that if we don't know every who, what, where, when, how and why...and don't have every single answer to every question you have, that we can't say the official story is wrong? Why don't you think about that....and stop asking questions we're never going to know all the answers to.


Yet you can't say who was involved or why they even bothered to do it.

This is just a retarded statement. Plain and simple.

[DonDadda59]

Ugh...I'm not going into this all again, I promised myself I wouldn't. I'll just say this. There's a huge difference between knowing a crime was committed and knowing EXACTLY who did it and why, right?

But is it really difficult to understand who benefits from a massive attack like that? I mean, you can read right? You understand all the interests that benefitted from "the new Pearl Harbor" right? So those would probably be the prime suspects. Right?

It's silly to suggest that if we don't know every who, what, where, when, how and why...and don't have every single answer to every question you have, that we can't say the official story is wrong? Why don't you think about that....and stop asking questions we're never going to know all the answers to.



This is just a retarded statement. Plain and simple.

You took the roundabout route to avoiding some direct questions :lol

So I'll ask them again... Do you think Al Qaeda was involved in the attacks? Do you think that a controlled demolition of buildings was necessary if the unknown perpetrators were going to fly jumbo jets into the buildings anyway?

I'll be honest with you- the 'inside job' theory is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... about anything. It makes absolutely no sense. The fact that you people can't even answer basic logical questions just goes to further show just how asinine this whole 'debate' is.

[bagelred]

You took the roundabout route to avoiding some direct questions :lol

So I'll ask them again... Do you think Al Qaeda was involved in the attacks? Do you think that a controlled demolition of buildings was necessary if the unknown perpetrators were going to fly jumbo jets into the buildings anyway?



What do I think? Like, you want me to take a guess? No, Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks. I'm not even convinced there is an "Al Qaeda" per se, or I should say it's just CIA backed, whatever it is. But that's another story....

The whole thing, IMO, was a sophisticated black ops operation, which was unbelievably well coordinated, from the planes, to the demolitions to everything. It was a flawless plan carried out with military precision. Why did they need to do a controlled demolition? I guess because they needed a spectacle of immense proportions to shock the public enough, so they (the gov't) could do whatever they want..like start new wars, Patriot Act, fleecing the Treasury, take away civil rights...yada yada yada....




I'll be honest with you- the 'inside job' theory is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... about anything. It makes absolutely no sense. The fact that you people can't even answer basic logical questions just goes to further show just how asinine this whole 'debate' is.

Maybe you're just stupid and closed minded and your small brain can't comprehend it. Possible, right? :confusedshrug: Stupid people don't always know they're stupid. Think about it....if you can.

G'night.

[oh the horror]

So it's ridiculous to think the government lied about 9/11....


We are discussing the same government that has lied to their people before.


The very same that has been known to cover up and experiment on human beings.


Why is it so ridiculous to believe they had a hand in this?



What's ridiculous to me is that some of you find such a shady entity far fetched to be involved in shady business.

[HardwoodLegend]

Why did they need to do a controlled demolition? I guess because they needed a spectacle of immense proportions to shock the public enough, so they (the gov't) could do whatever they want..like start new wars, Patriot Act, fleecing the Treasury, take away civil rights...yada yada yada....

Planes flying into two buildings were enough to create the spectacle. Rigging a 3rd building with explosives is just wholly unnecessary and needlessly adds further to risk of exposure.

The two planes with the brown dudes on board was definitely enough to strike fear into people and persuade them that we needed to fight back.

So, essentially we're left with the question whether Al Qaeda actually did this on their own or were in cahoots.

[Jameerthefear]

entire thread is lol. rambo looking dumb again

[DonDadda59]

What do I think? Like, you want me to take a guess? No, Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks. I'm not even convinced there is an "Al Qaeda" per se, or I should say it's just CIA backed, whatever it is. But that's another story....

The whole thing, IMO, was a sophisticated black ops operation, which was unbelievably well coordinated, from the planes, to the demolitions to everything. It was a flawless plan carried out with military precision. Why did they need to do a controlled demolition? I guess because they needed a spectacle of immense proportions to shock the public enough, so they (the gov't) could do whatever they want..like start new wars, Patriot Act, fleecing the Treasury, take away civil rights...yada yada yada....

So we finally get an answer to who- Sophisticated Black Ops... whatever the hell that means. And the why- new wars, Patriot act, etc. That's a start at least.

So if I'm understanding correctly- these unnamed Black Ops specialists were able to rig multiple skyscrapers with explosives without anyone batting an eye or the thousands of employees and bystanders noticing a thing. Then they hijacked 3 747s without anyone noticing. They somehow flew these planes into those buildings (remote control?) and thought 'cool, but not enough, let's start the controlled demolitions now'. Buildings go down. They pay off thousands of actors to make believe they lost loved ones on those remote controlled planes that were obviously empty. They pay off the demolitions experts, construction workers, truck drivers, employees who work on every floor of every building they rigged, etc to not say a word... ever.

All in an effort to make a case for wars (I thought WMDs were the reason for the season in Iraq?) and destroy civil liberties?

And this all makes sense to you? Really?



Maybe you're just stupid and closed minded and your small brain can't comprehend it. Possible, right? :confusedshrug: Stupid people don't always know they're stupid. Think about it....if you can.

G'night.

I'm being 'close-minded' by giving you the platform to express clearly your thoughts about what happened on 9/11?

I'm 'stupid' and have a 'small brain' because you can't answer the most basic questions because all you can muster up is some bullshit about 'Black Ops'?

:biggums:

Yeah, go to sleep. You've embarrassed yourself enough. I'm sure you'll dream up some more corny jokes no one will laugh at.

[HardwoodLegend]

We would have far less civil liberties than we do now at this point if that's what the government was after with this "special black ops" and "tightly monitored education system to brainwash us from an early age" as IamRAMBO24 suggests.

It's hard to believe some grand scheme of this nature would be moving at such a snail's pace.

[travelingman]

Anyone who believes a controlled demolition took place, respond to this:

"NIST concluded that the blasts within the building did not occur and found no evidence that could explain why they would have happened. Blasts from the smallest charge capable of failing a single critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels to 140 decibels, 10 decibels short of eardrum rupture at a distance of at least half a mile. No witnesses reported hearing of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/63215/building-7-why-conspiracy-theorists-get-it-wrong

[DonDadda59]

So it's ridiculous to think the government lied about 9/11....


We are discussing the same government that has lied to their people before.


The very same that has been known to cover up and experiment on human beings.


Why is it so ridiculous to believe they had a hand in this?



What's ridiculous to me is that some of you find such a shady entity far fetched to be involved in shady business.

The logistics of what's proposed are completely ridiculous and far-fetched. Which scenario makes more sense to you?

A) Muslim fundamentalists armed with knives/boxcutters overpowered stewardesses and forced them to open the cockpit. They ambushed and killed the pilots, took control of the planes (we have documented proof they took flying lessons), and flew them into the towers, the pentagon, and a third going down in PA after passengers fought back.

B) Unnamed 'Black Ops' hired thousands of demolition experts, construction workers, and other laborers to somehow, undetected plant explosives in the walls of every floor of every building that went down. They then somehow managed to get 4 unmanned and presumably empty planes to crash into the buildings they had already rigged with explosives. After the crash, they detonated the explosives, causing an implosion. Then they paid off thousands of actors to make believe they lost loved ones on those planes as well as everyone who was involved with the explosives planting and phantom plane hoax.

Take your time. Not saying the gumment in always honest. Just asking you to use basic logic.


Planes flying into two buildings were enough to create the spectacle.

Nope. Jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers is an everyday occurrence. That wouldn't get the Patriot Act passed. You need the Jets AND a controlled demolition, this is Black Ops 101 :facepalm

[Lamar Doom]

One thing you guys don't seem to get is that just because we don't believe 9/11 was an inside job doesn't mean we trust the government. There are many things you could propose to me about our government's "shady business" that I would give some credence to, just not this.

"I don't believe there was controlled demolition" does not equal "I believe everything the government tells me and they can do no wrong"

[tontoz]

One thing you guys don't seem to get is that just because we don't believe 9/11 was an inside job doesn't mean we trust the government. There are many things you could propose to me about our government's "shady business" that I would give some credence to, just not this.

"I don't believe there was controlled demolition" does not equal "I believe everything the government tells me and they can do no wrong"



Exactly. I think the Bush Administration was in full CYA mode. I am sure there is plenty of evidence that they could have prevented the attacks if they had been semi-competent.

It was well known that terrorists were taking flight lessons in our country before the attacks.

[AllenIverson3]

NIST is a company? :facepalm

Yes, I can explain the BBC reporter. Can I explain it to you? Highly doubtful. Especially since you ignore the evidence. The fact that the firefighters knew it was going to come down hours before it did, is the explanation for the BBC reporter. The corner of WTC was bulging for hours before it collapsed, a bulge like that is a evidence that the building was losing its structurally integrity. When the NYFD saw that plus the creaking noises the building was making they "pulled" the rescue effort and created a perimeter around WTC because they were pretty sure the whole thing was coming down. It was this reports that the BBC messed up.* It was reported by other media that we have a report "that WTC 7 collapsed or is about to collapse." It was an news screwup. Or do you think that conspiracists like to give away their plans early on the BBC? ......Wait, don't answer that you probably do.

*Actually it was Reuters that made this error first then the BBC picked it up.

I didn't mean NIST being literally a company :oldlol: They were the ones who so called "explained" why buildings fell down.... How did the firefighters know it was gonna come down unless they were told? You telling me you can watch a building have fires on some of the floors and tell me exactly when it's coming down? Plus the BBC reporter stated that the building HAS come down when it's standing in the back of her. There's a big difference between has and is going to come down. And how do u make a mistake like that? were they not following the news? They made a mistake by reporting it too early because they knew it was gonna be pulled.... and please don't give that bullshit ass explanation that he referred to firefighters being "pulled".... Why the hell would he say "pull" it then? since when do u refer to people as it? wouldn't it be "them".... Pull it is a demolition term referring to a building being brought down. And besides, the firefighters were outta the building even before 12.... so it doesn't make sense that he referred to them.... he was clearly talking about the building and that's why he used "it" instead of "them" as a normal person would... or did he ALSO make a mistake ? :confused:

[AllenIverson3]

I have people i knew in the immediate area, including firefighters. Nobody talked about bombs exploding. And note: they'd need to explode as the building was falling down right?

The BBC reporter made an error asswad. They also said there were 7 more unaccounted for planes, at one point that a plane hit the sears tower. The fact one of the errors came true isn't exactly surprising.

Note: are you saying the people planning the conspiracy were also in the BBC, or told the BBC? I'm interested in how this all works.

This is confusing to me, none of this makes any sense, even within the context of the conspiracy.
NO the script was written for them on what to report.... they messed up be reporting it too early... within hours every media outlet knew exactly who did it and how make of them were.... they knew every single piece of information about those "hijackers"... how is that possible if the attack was "unexpected" as Rice and Bush told us....?

Don;t just listen and accept what the government tells you.... they've been lying and staging terrorist attacks for decades.... this is nothing new.

[gts]

How did the firefighters know it was gonna come down unless they were told?

Because they're fireman, they're experts in fighting fires, it's their job to know when the building is going to fail, they don't want to get crushed by a billion tons of building.

for fu*ksakes you're stupid

[AllenIverson3]

1. So you are admitting you have no way of proving that the last paragraph of that link has any inaccuracies? Not surprising. Truthers never really did have much of a case when the argument shifted from observations of video footage to scientific reasoning as to the events that occurred. But of course when a truther makes an argument that a debunker can't necessarily prove wrong, then the truther has made a "strong" point.

2. I have already answered that question earlier in this thread. See post #51. I'd like to see you answer the question I pose in that response as well.
Did you not see where i said there are thousands of people who heard explosions after the planes hit the buildings? explosions in all three towers, not just Twin.

look at these 2 videos and tell me they are not the same.... both have white smoke coming from underneath them before they actually fall.... also the same dust cloud.... both buildings start to collapse from the bottom and cave in out itself....you're really trynna convince me that WTC 7 doesn't look almost exactly as bank implosion and that it came down due to fire on some floors exactly like a controlled demolition? i have no words for this shit.... it amazes me how people can be blinded by the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8iO4TQsp9Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4

[DonDadda59]

I would totally eat yr butt dadda

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmyl770F0H1qf3rk4o1_400.jpg

Well? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItAzJD0o9NQ) :confusedshrug:

[AllenIverson3]

watch this full documentary and then tell me if you still believe it was 19 dudes with box cutters guided by a dude in a cave managed to destroy the most heavily protected air space in the world.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMXJFN_JnKo

[travelingman]

Did you not see where i said there are thousands of people who heard explosions after the planes hit the buildings? explosions in all three towers, not just Twin.

look at these 2 videos and tell me they are not the same.... both have white smoke coming from underneath them before they actually fall.... also the same dust cloud.... both buildings start to collapse from the bottom and cave in out itself....you're really trynna convince me that WTC 7 doesn't look almost exactly as bank implosion and that it came down due to fire on some floors exactly like a controlled demolition? i have no words for this shit.... it amazes me how people can be blinded by the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8iO4TQsp9Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4

The quietist the explosions could have brought about a demolition were just 10 decibels short of eardrum rupture. That means hearing loss/heaving hearing impairment would most assuredly come with being within half of a mile of the explosions from the charges...so...where are the masses who experienced hearing loss? Hearing explosions is not simply enough. Some firefighters thought the explosions many alluded to could have been electrical in nature (referring to power transformers and other high voltage electric equipment which was in WTC7).

[AllenIverson3]

The quietist the explosions could have brought about a demolition were just 10 decibels short of eardrum rupture. That means hearing loss/heaving hearing impairment would most assuredly come with being within half of a mile of the explosions from the charges...so...where are the masses who experienced hearing loss? Hearing explosions is not simply enough. Some firefighters thought the explosions many alluded to could have been electrical in nature (referring to power transformers and other high voltage electric equipment which was in WTC7).
Honestly, did u watch the videos? if so please tell me that those 2 are not pretty much the same collapse ?

You're showing me proof that was presented by the government.... you expect me to believe when they've been fabricating everything about the whole event.... Commission Report is full of lies.... it's hard to find any truth in it. They don't even mention the collapse of the building that we're talking about. :oldlol:

[travelingman]

Honestly, did u watch the videos? if so please tell me that those 2 are not pretty much the same collapse ?

You're showing me proof that was presented by the government.... you expect me to believe when they've been fabricating everything about the whole event.... Commission Report is full of lies.... it's hard to find any truth in it. They don't even mention the collapse of the building that we're talking about. :oldlol:

If it's false, then why can't you disprove it? Oh, that's right...because it is factual. You're engaging in the reverse scientific method here.

[zizozain]

Because they're fireman, they're experts in fighting fires, it's their job to know when the building is going to fail, they don't want to get crushed by a billion tons of building.

for fu*ksakes you're stupid
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!

but but they're experts

but but it's their job to know when the building is going to fail

they don't want to get crushed by a billion tons of building.

for fu*ksakes you're stupid fu*king shill

[AllenIverson3]

If it's false, then why can't you disprove it? Oh, that's right...because it is factual. You're engaging in the reverse scientific method here.
There are thousands of people who heard bombs going off in all the toweres.... why can't u disprove that.... why don't u answer my question about the 2 videos.... bcuz u can't or otherwise u will look stupid and my point will be proven.

besides, i've already told u my answer to the lies presented by NIST and your beloved government. I have a mind and ears that see and hear past bullshit unlike you.

[AllenIverson3]

343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!

but but they're experts

but but it's their job to know when the building is going to fail

they don't want to get crushed by a billion tons of building.

for fu*ksakes you're stupid fu*king shill
i was gonna reply to him but i see you already did the job... lmao.... ether'd :oldlol:

[gts]

343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!
343 firefighters died when WTC1 and WTC2 Collapsed!!!!

but but they're experts

but but it's their job to know when the building is going to fail

they don't want to get crushed by a billion tons of building.

for fu*ksakes you're stupid fu*king shill

They died in 1 and 2 because they along with the NYPD were in there trying to get civilians out. They knew it was dangerous, but that's what firemen do, they go into building everyone else is trying to leave. They'll knowingly take that risk. Yes they'd even take that risk to save your pathetic life

They didn't die in WTC7 because the building had been cleared for several hours there was no reason to be in a building they knew was going to fail

There's big difference between the two scenarios and the fact you can't tell the difference comes as no surprise.

[travelingman]

There are thousands of people who heard bombs going off in all the toweres.... why can't u disprove that.... why don't u answer my question about the 2 videos.... bcuz u can't or otherwise u will look stupid and my point will be proven.

besides, i've already told u my answer to the lies presented by NIST and your beloved government. I have a mind and ears that see and hear past bullshit unlike you.

I already told you about the electrical transformers being a likely cause for people hearing "explosions". You are very silent on the issue of the 130-140 decibel sound levels that would accompany a series of explosions necessary to bring down WTC7. Shocking.

Also, of course I will address your question about the demolition vs. the collapse of WTC7. In fact, while you are stuck trying to prove a point by simply looking at a demolition and saying "herpidyderpidy, dat dere looks like a demolition to meee!", I have a source that includes scientific reasoning as to why the building collapsed. Here's your answer. You can't disprove anything that is brought up in this article. Instead, you will once again run back to dismissing it as some "government misinformation ish".

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

[XxNeXuSxX]

Did you know, there is an intellectual honest way to approach this issue and actually gain knowledge?

It's called admitting your ignorance. Both sides seem to assert complete knowledge of something they are speaking from ignorance from. It's called being ignorant of your ignorance. Once you become aware of this, and admit your ignorance, intellectual growth can occur.

The biggest obstacle for people to be so heavy handed on either side is due to the fact that they create an emotional attachment to a preconception. Convincing yourself that you may be mistaken is the most difficult things for most humans to do; which is the fundamental human flaw. This human flaw makes us act AGAINST our own self interest because of pride/ego/social status. Thus, nothing that is presented is going to grant knowledge, nor is the person delivering the information interested in doing so. The only purpose, which I muse at, is to feel emotionally satisfied that you 'won' the argument.

That's called intellectual dishonesty.

See, the truth of the matter is. Building 7 fell in a unique fashion. That's an objective statement. To understand why it fell in that way, there needs to be an investigation on the physical evidence. This hasn't happened. Neither by the 'NIST' or by 'architects and engineers for 9/11 truth'Therefore, we're arguing on conjecture alone. Thus, there is one logical conclusion.

We can test these theories once evidence is gathered on how the building fell. Otherwise, this is useless bantering.

[travelingman]

Did you know, there is an intellectual honest way to approach this issue and actually gain knowledge?

It's called admitting your ignorance. Both sides seem to assert complete knowledge of something they are speaking from ignorance from. It's called being ignorant of your ignorance. Once you become aware of this, and admit your ignorance, intellectual growth can occur.

The biggest obstacle for people to be so heavy handed on either side is due to the fact that they create an emotional attachment to a preconception. Convincing yourself that you may be mistaken is the most difficult things for most humans to do; which is the fundamental human flaw. This human flaw makes us act AGAINST our own self interest because of pride/ego/social status. Thus, nothing that is presented is going to grant knowledge, nor is the person delivering the information interested in doing so. The only purpose, which I muse at, is to feel emotionally satisfied that you 'won' the argument.

That's called intellectual dishonesty.

See, the truth of the matter is. Building 7 fell in a unique fashion. That's an objective statement. To understand why it fell in that way, there needs to be an investigation on the physical evidence. This hasn't happened. Neither by the 'NIST' or by 'architects and engineers for 9/11 truth'Therefore, we're arguing on conjecture alone. Thus, there is one logical conclusion.

We can test these theories once evidence is gathered on how the building fell. Otherwise, this is useless bantering.

Didn't you used to be a "truther" and argue for all of this conspiratorial nonsense? What happened?

[XxNeXuSxX]

Didn't you used to be a "truther" and argue for all of this conspiratorial nonsense? What happened?
Do you have another name? I haven't been here in years.

I never really "Argued" it ("X" did it"); but I formerly am an offender of delivering conjecture based on hearsay ("This guy found this"). Then I prioritized my hierarchy of needs. I woke up, moved to Switzerland, and follow Socrates.

[travelingman]

Do you have another name? I haven't been here in years.

I never really "Argued" it ("X" did it"); but I formerly am an offender of delivering conjecture based on hearsay ("This guy found this"). Then I prioritized my hierarchy of needs. I woke up, moved to Switzerland, and follow Socrates.

Was there some sort of watershed moment when you changed your thinking (maybe a bit too romanticized) or did you just get tired of the endless arguments that go on when something like this topic is thrown on the table for all to comment on?

[travelingman]

We can test these theories once evidence is gathered on how the building fell. Otherwise, this is useless bantering.

But I must wonder when/if evidence on how WTC7 fell that hasn't already been brought to light will surface. I really do lean more toward "if" than "when"...so I see no problem with holding these arguments, as I do not believe any more profound evidence will be presented that hasn't already.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Was there some sort of watershed moment when you changed your thinking (maybe a bit too romanticized) or did you just get tired of the endless arguments that go on when something like this topic is thrown on the table for all to comment on?

DeuceWallaces?

It actually has nothing to do with this topic at all. It has to do with approaching everything in life you do. For example, a real personal application I noted was with personal relationships. Do I pretend I am satisfied with someone I'm not? If not, do you confront the issue, or simply cheat? I refuse to do the latter, and I learned to embrace the former. Taking objectivity into account, I've found a mutually consenting relationship with a female where both my girlfriend and I bring home new girls and develop friends with benefits. That's having my cake and eating it too; for both of us.

[XxNeXuSxX]

But I must wonder when/if evidence on how WTC7 fell that hasn't already been brought to light will surface. I really do lean more toward "if" than "when"...so I see no problem with holding these arguments, as I do not believe any more profound evidence will be presented that hasn't already.

The focus of a relevant; productive topic would include:

Have we conducted physical analysis of the item in question to test theory x versus theory y?

If yes, physical evidence has been gathered, analyzed, and tested upon, what where the results?

If not, what's preventing it?

[travelingman]

DeuceWallaces?


I will neither confirm nor deny this.

[travelingman]

The focus of a relevant; productive topic would include:

Have we conducted physical analysis of the item in question to test theory x versus theory y?

If yes, physical evidence has been gathered, analyzed, and tested upon, what where the results?

If not, what's preventing it?

Well, judging by the specifications you present here... don't ALL topics on this message board fail to qualify as "productive" topics? I mean, this is all speculation and I doubt anyone here is someone who will be an activist for their beliefs on what happened that day (if they are, then criticizing them for pointlessly arguing in favor/against a conspiracy theory would be understandable). In the end, this is a message board, and I don't think anyone is losing sleep over threads such as these or letting it interfere too much with their personal lives (at least I hope not).

[Norcaliblunt]

Screw how the buildings fell I wanna know how 4 men were able to take over a whole plane with only box cutters, and then succesfully divert all air response, while only being amateur pilots, and flying the planes well enough under pressure, to hit not one, not two, but three targets. Those dudes were on some Jason Bourne shiznit.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well, judging by the specifications you present here... don't ALL topics on this message board fail to qualify as "productive" topics? I mean, this is all speculation and I doubt anyone here is someone who will be an activist for their beliefs on what happened that day (if they are, then criticizing them for pointlessly arguing in favor/against a conspiracy theory would be understandable). In the end, this is a message board, and I don't think anyone is losing sleep over threads such as these or letting it interfere too much with their personal lives (at least I hope not).

Sure, it's probably why I'm not around very often. But here's the issue; both sides have the the ability to construct a valid argument. Yet, those valid arguments can be presented in two posts; (If this, then this could have happened). However, topics, like most on ISH, seem to turn into a series of pathos appeals and thus disguise what could underneath be a valid argument. In turn, the critic will quickly be critiqued in the same, overly sensational contrived manner, giving confirmation bias to either side before they analyze what was said(eg: who is going to objectively read your PDF and give a researched, detailed response? They'll likely, instead, find their own PDF from their biased selection of experts and say "PROVE HIM WRONG". So though information was presented, nothing was absorbed past their "ego shield"

Thus, the lack of ability to actually learn from each other's criticism on topics like these is troubling.

[ILLsmak]

Let me tell ya....9/11 was an eye opening event in a lot of ways. And not only about the gov't and their agendas, etc. But I learned more about people, how easy it is to basically fool people, and how no one really wants to think, and how easy it is to control people's thoughts and perceptions. It's been fascinating and I guess not in a good way. You feel the same way?

bagel growd up dat day.

The reason that I think people don't believe such things could be allowed or that the ones in power could have anything but the best intentions for them is because it's scary as **** to imagine that the people who are running the world, the ones you put your trust in, are not good people!

It's similar to figuring out that santa doesn't exist except for the fact that you are an adult and this has real-world implications.

I don't think it's that easy to control people. It's more like the government is like "we got dis" and everyone is so busy with their lives that they are just like OK.

Anyone who wants to believe that terrible propaganda happens in other countries and they are all corrupt but NOT America is laughably naive.

-Smak

[zizozain]

from 911 Firefighter's tape

skip through to 39:00 and begin listening to the following:

9:25 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Go ahead, Irons."

Ladder 15 Irons: "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. Seventy-eight seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four Scott. What, what floor are you on?"

Ladder 15 Irons: "Forty-eight right now."

Ladder 15: "Alright, we're coming up behind you."

Now skip another six minutes to 45:52 and listen:

9:31 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Battalion Seven, you want me to relay?"

Ladder 15: "Yeah, Steve tell Chief Palmer they got reports that there's more planes in the area, we may have to back down here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Ten-four."

"Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Steve. Seven to Seven Alpha."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof."

"Fifteen Roof."

Ladder 15: "We got reports of another incoming plane. We may have to take cover. Stay in the stairwell."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof. That plane's ours. I repeat. It's ours. What floor are you on, Scotty?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifty-four."

Ladder 15: "Alright. Keep making your way up. We're behind you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

The officers then describe where they are headed, where they believe the fires to be...

Now skip to 54:02...

9:37 a.m.
Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Tommy, listen carefully. I'm sending all the injured down to you on 40. You're going to have to get'em down to the elevator. There's about 10 to 15 people coming down to you."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Okay."

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Ten civilians coming down. Fifteen to OV."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Got that, I'm on 40 right now, Lieu."

9:39 a.m.

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Alright Tommy, when you take people down to the lobby, try to get an EMS crew back."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Definitely."
Now skip to 57:20...
9:43 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what's your progress?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Sixty-three, Battalion."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."

Battaltion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go ahead Battaltion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I couldn't find a bank to bring you up any highter. I'm on the 40th floor, what can I do for you?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "We're going to have to hoof it. I'm on 69 now, but we need a higher bank, kay."

Battalion Nine Chief: "What stairway you in Orio?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "The center of the building, boy, boy."

"Tac One to Tac One Alpha."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what floor?"

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I'm going to try and get a couple of CFRD engines on the 40th floor so send any victims down here, I'll start up a staging area."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...find a fireman service elevator close to 40, if we get some more cars in that bank, we'll be alright."

Now skip to 01:02:40. This is where the fires are discovered and described as "two isolated pockets"

9:48 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."

Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."

9:49 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 OV. Fifteen to 15 OV.

"Fifteen OV."

Ladder 15: "Tommy, have you made it back down to the lobbby yet?"

Ladder 15 OV: "The elevator's screwed up."

Ladder 15: "You can't move it?"

Ladder 15 OV: "I don't want to get stuck in the shaft."

9:50 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Alright Tommy. It's imperative that you go down to the lobby command post and get some people up to 40. We got injured people up here on 70. If you make it to the lobby command post see if they can somehow get elevators past the 40th floor. We got people injured all the way up here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Battaltion Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go Steve."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Yeah Chief, I'm on 55, I got to rest. I'll try to get up there as soon as possible."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."


9:50 a.m.
"Anybody see the highway one car? Highway one car we need it for an escort to the hospital for a fireman."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

"15 Irons."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof and Irons."

Battalion Six Chief: "Battalion Six to command post."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."


9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

"Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."

Now skip to 01:11:22...

9:57 a.m.
"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."

Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."

Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."

9:58 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

(END OF TAPE)


These tapes reveal the fact that the firefighters were not overly concerned with the strength of the fires and believed they could control them. They were not raging infernos that could melt steel. These tapes alone prove that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Towers is a complete and total lie. Why have the rest of the tapes been classified? Because they reveal the truth, that 's why.

[Norcaliblunt]

I don't get why Muslim dudes chilling in the states, kicking it with strippers, doing coke, living the good life would wanna do it. They just up and decide to fly themselves into buildings, these fools a were crazy.

[Norcaliblunt]

Screw the airplanes, jet fuel and office fire non sense, *** the controlled demolition disinformation, it's all about Dr. Judy Woods directed free energy technology theory. All the so called truthers never mention this one.

[niko]

from 911 Firefighter's tape

skip through to 39:00 and begin listening to the following:

9:25 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Go ahead, Irons."

Ladder 15 Irons: "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. Seventy-eight seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four Scott. What, what floor are you on?"

Ladder 15 Irons: "Forty-eight right now."

Ladder 15: "Alright, we're coming up behind you."

Now skip another six minutes to 45:52 and listen:

9:31 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Battalion Seven, you want me to relay?"

Ladder 15: "Yeah, Steve tell Chief Palmer they got reports that there's more planes in the area, we may have to back down here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Ten-four."

"Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Steve. Seven to Seven Alpha."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof."

"Fifteen Roof."

Ladder 15: "We got reports of another incoming plane. We may have to take cover. Stay in the stairwell."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof. That plane's ours. I repeat. It's ours. What floor are you on, Scotty?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifty-four."

Ladder 15: "Alright. Keep making your way up. We're behind you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

The officers then describe where they are headed, where they believe the fires to be...

Now skip to 54:02...

9:37 a.m.
Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Tommy, listen carefully. I'm sending all the injured down to you on 40. You're going to have to get'em down to the elevator. There's about 10 to 15 people coming down to you."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Okay."

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Ten civilians coming down. Fifteen to OV."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Got that, I'm on 40 right now, Lieu."

9:39 a.m.

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Alright Tommy, when you take people down to the lobby, try to get an EMS crew back."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Definitely."
Now skip to 57:20...
9:43 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what's your progress?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Sixty-three, Battalion."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."

Battaltion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go ahead Battaltion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I couldn't find a bank to bring you up any highter. I'm on the 40th floor, what can I do for you?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "We're going to have to hoof it. I'm on 69 now, but we need a higher bank, kay."

Battalion Nine Chief: "What stairway you in Orio?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "The center of the building, boy, boy."

"Tac One to Tac One Alpha."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what floor?"

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I'm going to try and get a couple of CFRD engines on the 40th floor so send any victims down here, I'll start up a staging area."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...find a fireman service elevator close to 40, if we get some more cars in that bank, we'll be alright."

Now skip to 01:02:40. This is where the fires are discovered and described as "two isolated pockets"

9:48 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."

Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."

9:49 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 OV. Fifteen to 15 OV.

"Fifteen OV."

Ladder 15: "Tommy, have you made it back down to the lobbby yet?"

Ladder 15 OV: "The elevator's screwed up."

Ladder 15: "You can't move it?"

Ladder 15 OV: "I don't want to get stuck in the shaft."

9:50 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Alright Tommy. It's imperative that you go down to the lobby command post and get some people up to 40. We got injured people up here on 70. If you make it to the lobby command post see if they can somehow get elevators past the 40th floor. We got people injured all the way up here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Battaltion Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go Steve."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Yeah Chief, I'm on 55, I got to rest. I'll try to get up there as soon as possible."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."


9:50 a.m.
"Anybody see the highway one car? Highway one car we need it for an escort to the hospital for a fireman."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

"15 Irons."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof and Irons."

Battalion Six Chief: "Battalion Six to command post."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."


9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

"Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."

Now skip to 01:11:22...

9:57 a.m.
"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."

Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."

Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."

9:58 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

(END OF TAPE)


These tapes reveal the fact that the firefighters were not overly concerned with the strength of the fires and believed they could control them. They were not raging infernos that could melt steel. These tapes alone prove that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Towers is a complete and total lie. Why have the rest of the tapes been classified? Because they reveal the truth, that 's why.

What exactly do you think firefighters do? You run in to save people, not stand outside and ascertain if u let everyone die. This is ten levels of stupid, your logic, that you think its proof, on and on.

[bagelred]

bagel growd up dat day.



Well, not that day. At least a few years later....Somtime around 2004/2005.

[dr.hee]

from 911 Firefighter's tape

skip through to 39:00 and begin listening to the following:

9:25 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Go ahead, Irons."

Ladder 15 Irons: "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. Seventy-eight seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four Scott. What, what floor are you on?"

Ladder 15 Irons: "Forty-eight right now."

Ladder 15: "Alright, we're coming up behind you."

Now skip another six minutes to 45:52 and listen:

9:31 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Battalion Seven, you want me to relay?"

Ladder 15: "Yeah, Steve tell Chief Palmer they got reports that there's more planes in the area, we may have to back down here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Ten-four."

"Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Steve. Seven to Seven Alpha."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof."

"Fifteen Roof."

Ladder 15: "We got reports of another incoming plane. We may have to take cover. Stay in the stairwell."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof. That plane's ours. I repeat. It's ours. What floor are you on, Scotty?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifty-four."

Ladder 15: "Alright. Keep making your way up. We're behind you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

The officers then describe where they are headed, where they believe the fires to be...

Now skip to 54:02...

9:37 a.m.
Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Tommy, listen carefully. I'm sending all the injured down to you on 40. You're going to have to get'em down to the elevator. There's about 10 to 15 people coming down to you."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Okay."

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Ten civilians coming down. Fifteen to OV."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Got that, I'm on 40 right now, Lieu."

9:39 a.m.

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Alright Tommy, when you take people down to the lobby, try to get an EMS crew back."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Definitely."
Now skip to 57:20...
9:43 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what's your progress?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Sixty-three, Battalion."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."

Battaltion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go ahead Battaltion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I couldn't find a bank to bring you up any highter. I'm on the 40th floor, what can I do for you?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "We're going to have to hoof it. I'm on 69 now, but we need a higher bank, kay."

Battalion Nine Chief: "What stairway you in Orio?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "The center of the building, boy, boy."

"Tac One to Tac One Alpha."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what floor?"

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I'm going to try and get a couple of CFRD engines on the 40th floor so send any victims down here, I'll start up a staging area."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...find a fireman service elevator close to 40, if we get some more cars in that bank, we'll be alright."

Now skip to 01:02:40. This is where the fires are discovered and described as "two isolated pockets"

9:48 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."

Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."

9:49 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 OV. Fifteen to 15 OV.

"Fifteen OV."

Ladder 15: "Tommy, have you made it back down to the lobbby yet?"

Ladder 15 OV: "The elevator's screwed up."

Ladder 15: "You can't move it?"

Ladder 15 OV: "I don't want to get stuck in the shaft."

9:50 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Alright Tommy. It's imperative that you go down to the lobby command post and get some people up to 40. We got injured people up here on 70. If you make it to the lobby command post see if they can somehow get elevators past the 40th floor. We got people injured all the way up here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Battaltion Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go Steve."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Yeah Chief, I'm on 55, I got to rest. I'll try to get up there as soon as possible."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."


9:50 a.m.
"Anybody see the highway one car? Highway one car we need it for an escort to the hospital for a fireman."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

"15 Irons."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof and Irons."

Battalion Six Chief: "Battalion Six to command post."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."


9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

"Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."

Now skip to 01:11:22...

9:57 a.m.
"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."

Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."

Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."

9:58 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

(END OF TAPE)


These tapes reveal the fact that the firefighters were not overly concerned with the strength of the fires and believed they could control them. They were not raging infernos that could melt steel. These tapes alone prove that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Towers is a complete and total lie. Why have the rest of the tapes been classified? Because they reveal the truth, that 's why.

http://img.pandawhale.com/29490-Picard-applause-clapping-gif-s5nz.gif

[niko]

Essentially some of you think because buildings HIT BY PLANES fell down and that firefighters ran toward and not away from a fire (because when there's a fire they don't run in to rescue people unless it's safe somehow) that everyone knew was in on a conspiracy.

That's too stupid for me. I don't do stupid. Continue on your own.

[dr.hee]

http://www.outdoorseiten.net/fotos/data/44/TinFoilHatArea.jpg

[gts]

from 911 Firefighter's tape




These tapes reveal the fact that the firefighters were not overly concerned with the strength of the fires and believed they could control them. They were not raging infernos that could melt steel. These tapes alone prove that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Towers is a complete and total lie. Why have the rest of the tapes been classified? Because they reveal the truth, that 's why.

That discussion takes place between firefighters that were several floors below the main impact level on the other side of the building. A side of the building that was also protected by multiple elevator shafts, The fire fighters even discuss that when you read an unedited script. You'd know that but the website you copied that from decided you didn't need to hear all the details so they "skip ahead" to the parts they want you to read.

[KevinNYC]

They died in 1 and 2 because they along with the NYPD were in there trying to get civilians out. They knew it was dangerous, but that's what firemen do, they go into building everyone else is trying to leave. They'll knowingly take that risk. Yes they'd even take that risk to save your pathetic life

They didn't die in WTC7 because the building had been cleared for several hours there was no reason to be in a building they knew was going to fail

There's big difference between the two scenarios and the fact you can't tell the difference comes as no surprise.

The reason they knew WTC7 was going to come down was there was a visible bulge in one corners about 7-14 floors up. That's a very bad sign in a building. A building that starts to bulge is a very bad sign, it means there has been a loss of structural integrity and certain columns are supporting more than the expected weight.

Loss of structural integrity was also noticed in the North Tower before it collapsed. However, this was at the very top of the building and was noticed by police helicopter pilots. The building was bowing inwards and glowing red. The cops recommended evacuating everyone including the firefighters, but those reports never reach the Fire Department whose radios are incompatible with the police radios.

The bulge in WTC7 was visible from the street level. So yeah, that's how the fire department knew. Considering two building had just collapsed due to fire, it's a pretty common sense opinion.

There's nothing associated with a controlled demolition that would cause loss of structural integrity hours before the decision to bring the building down. In fact, you would want to keep the building structurally intact until the moment of detonation, because you are still going to be working around the building.

[KevinNYC]

watch this full documentary and then tell me if you still believe it was 19 dudes with box cutters guided by a dude in a cave managed to destroy the most heavily protected air space in the world...

I've always loved this nonsense about "the dude in the cave." He didn't grow up in the cave, he moved there. Bin Laden was a very rich guy who ran a construction company and interacted with the highest levels of Saudi society. If you put Steve Jobs in a Cave, would he suddenly would know nothing about computers. If Einstein went camping, would he suddenly know less about Physics? Completely dumb.

Also the "most heavily protected air space in the world" is nonsense.

[Lebron23]

http://www.abload.de/img/igot5years2sjk8f.gif

[AllenIverson3]

I already told you about the electrical transformers being a likely cause for people hearing "explosions". You are very silent on the issue of the 130-140 decibel sound levels that would accompany a series of explosions necessary to bring down WTC7. Shocking.

Also, of course I will address your question about the demolition vs. the collapse of WTC7. In fact, while you are stuck trying to prove a point by simply looking at a demolition and saying "herpidyderpidy, dat dere looks like a demolition to meee!", I have a source that includes scientific reasoning as to why the building collapsed. Here's your answer. You can't disprove anything that is brought up in this article. Instead, you will once again run back to dismissing it as some "government misinformation ish".

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Electrical transformers ? That's what they call it these days? Pretty sure people can distinguish if its a bomb or something else.... So electrical transformers blew up the whole lobby in the south tower before the plane actually hit? Give me a ****en break. Did electrical transformers also blow out the lobby in tower 7 and that's why Barry Jennings was stepping over dead bodies when he was getting out? :oldlol:

[AllenIverson3]

I've always loved this nonsense about "the dude in the cave." He didn't grow up in the cave, he moved there. Bin Laden was a very rich guy who ran a construction company and interacted with the highest levels of Saudi society. If you put Steve Jobs in a Cave, would he suddenly would know nothing about computers. If Einstein went camping, would he suddenly know less about Physics? Completely dumb.

Also the "most heavily protected air space in the world" is nonsense.
Bin laden was hiding in mountains n caves during that time...

USA claims its the most heavily protected air space in the world.... They spend billions trynna protect their people but on that one day, EVERYTHING fails n they get attacked out of nowhere... Hahah how do ppl believe this nonsense...?

[KevinNYC]

If you put Steve Jobs in a Cave, would he suddenly would know nothing about computers. If Einstein went camping, would he suddenly know less about Physics?


Bin laden was hiding in mountains n caves during that time...

Wow.

So you not only believe in conspiracies you don't understand analogies? :hammerhead:

[KevinNYC]

Steve Jobs is dead dewd
Pssst. Don't anyone tell him about Einstein.

[AllenIverson3]

Wow.

So you not only believe in conspiracies you don't understand analogies? :hammerhead:
That's not the point.... It wasn't mean literally smh... Obviously it went over your head. Osama was listed by the FBI on most wanted list for 98 attacks but not 9/11 bcuz they didn't have evidence to prove be was behind it... So why're we even talking bout him? :facepalm