Building 7

[Lensanity]

Yet gullible ****s think the government wasn't trying to hide anything :lol

How does a massive building such as that collapsing not even get a mention in a commissions report?

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS

[Akrazotile]

OP will you check your friggin PM's???


;)

[TheGreatDeraj]

Government is 100% without a doubt hiding something. It is factual, not speculation.

Missing 28 pages of 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/politics/sept-11-report-missing-pages/)

[Lensanity]

Government is 100% without a doubt hiding something. It is factual, not speculation.

Missing 28 pages of 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/politics/sept-11-report-missing-pages/)
Yet despite these facts anybody that says it was an inside job is called a tin foil hat wearing nutcase by the people that only know what they know about 9/11 from what they have seen from the mainstream media.

[fiddy]

WW3 started on 9/11. RIP Europe.

[BigBoss]

http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif

[Norcaliblunt]

Stay shilling for the rogue network by constantly bringing up Building 7 and staged demolitions instead of the insider trading and the military drills. Just keep debating about a theory that is the most divisive and unprovable. ****ing shill.

[HitandRun Reggie]

So have conspiracy theorists given up on Flight 77 hitting the pentagon, really being some kind of missile? :lol That used to be the biggest and juiciest 911 conspiracy, then they switched to WTC7 for some reason.

[Lensanity]

So have conspiracy theorists given up on Flight 77 hitting the pentagon, really being some kind of missile? :lol That used to be the biggest and juiciest 911 conspiracy, then they switched to WTC7 for some reason.


There's so much more evidence supporting the WTC 7 conspiracy. Many with engineering and physics degrees are sceptical and the collapse of the building can be studied somewhat. Also, there is enough video of WTC 7 collapsing to actually make something of it while there is only a choppy dog shit video released by the Government of the Pentagon. The rise of YouTube may have something to do with people talking about WTC 7 more often and the Pentagon less.

[daily]

So have conspiracy theorists given up on Flight 77 hitting the pentagon, really being some kind of missile? :lol That used to be the biggest and juiciest 911 conspiracy, then they switched to WTC7 for some reason.The reynolds wrap crowd is a moving target. Once they get shot down enough on one topic they circle around to another one they haven't discussed for a while then move on to the next when they've been exposed on that one.

It's like a revolving door for gullible sheep and the perpetrators just keep stringing them along by tweaking the conspiracy every few months

[dude77]

So have conspiracy theorists given up on Flight 77 hitting the pentagon, really being some kind of missile? :lol That used to be the biggest and juiciest 911 conspiracy, then they switched to WTC7 for some reason.

lol no one gave up on that .. it's just so much bullshit you can't really focus on one thing .. the jumbo jet bullseyeing that small space close to the ground on the pentagon by some idiot who can't even fly a cessna is just one of many bs stories .. there are multiple red flags about '911' .. that's why you have people questioning it .. if it was one thing ok .. but way too many coincidences and weird shit going on

[HitandRun Reggie]

Government is 100% without a doubt hiding something. It is factual, not speculation.

Missing 28 pages of 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/politics/sept-11-report-missing-pages/)


http://www.500.co/backup/glover-2013-12-31-13-14-49.gif

[KevinNYC]

Government is 100% without a doubt hiding something. It is factual, not speculation.

Missing 28 pages of 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/politics/sept-11-report-missing-pages/)
This 28 pages won't satisfy the inside job/controlled demolition folks because the 28 pages are about other possible foreign help for the 19 hijackers. That is to say the 28 pages believe the 19 hijackers were responsible for 9/11.

[KevinNYC]

There's so much more evidence supporting the WTC 7 conspiracy. .Also, there is enough video of WTC 7 collapsing to actually make something of it while there is only a choppy dog shit video released by the Government of the Pentagon.
What do you mean by evidence? There is currently zero evidence that a controlled demolition took down WTC 1, 2 or 7. Also what the tons of video evidence of WTC 1 and 2. News cameras from all over the world were focused on those buildings, why would you need 7 if controlled demolitions also occurred in 1 and 2?


Many with engineering and physics degrees are sceptical and the collapse of the building can be studied somewhat.
Many? Out of how many people with engineering and physics degrees? A lot ? A little?

Or being an engineer or having physics degree is not really enough. You need to be the right kind of engineer, a structural engineer and even among those, very few structural engineers have experience in building large buildings. So first of all, you're making an appeal to authority argument which is a fallacy, secondly, they still ain't got enough authority.

But none of that matters anyway, the data on how these buildings were constructed is out there. If someone wanted to write a paper on how these buildings could not have come down they way they did, they have all the data they need. They could do real science and submit their findings for peer review and see if their claims survive scrutiny by qualified experts.

The Journal of Structural Engineers did peer review and validate the NIST methodologies on WTC 7 three years ago. So anyone who wants to can do so too.

[TheGreatDeraj]

This 28 pages won't satisfy the inside job/controlled demolition folks because the 28 pages are about other possible foreign help for the 19 hijackers. That is to say the 28 pages believe the 19 hijackers were responsible for 9/11.

That's not correct. The 28 pages suggest at least one foreign government is also responsible for 9/11 by providing financial help to the hijackers. Of course all of the information about the situation is not available(to us), so we don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.


“There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America. “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

we do know:

-missing 28 pages link 9/11 to Saudi Arabia
-Saudi Arabia is an US ally in Middle East
-Osama Bin Laden is a part of a wealthy family connected to the Saudi Royal Family
-Osama Bin Laden's connection to the CIA
-Osama Bin Laden's connection the Bush family
-9/11 was used to pass tyrannical new laws, start several wars in the Middle East escalating violence and killing over 1 million people, and to make trillions of Dollars from the oil, defense contracting, nation building, weaponry, banking etc for the top 1%.

Which leads us to ask:

Did the United States government get double crossed by Saudi Arabia and other governments then cover it up while continuing business with the betrayers?

-or-

Did the United States have some knowledge or participation in the attack and use it to promote their own laws, wars and profit?

[nathanjizzle]

any engineer that says a building cant collapse because a commercial plane has crashed into it is a very very bad engineer. Firstly, buildings arent designed to take hits from a commercial plane, so how could anyone say that a building can withstand that kind of destruction? secondly, i dont care if you are some sort of master scientist or engineer, its nearly impossible to accurately calculate the variables in that scenario to determine if the building should have withstood or not.

[BigBoss]

any engineer that says a building cant collapse because a commercial plane has crashed into it is a very very bad engineer. Firstly, buildings arent designed to take hits from a commercial plane, so how could anyone say that a building can withstand that kind of destruction? secondly, i dont care if you are some sort of master scientist or engineer, its nearly impossible to accurately calculate the variables in that scenario to determine if the building should have withstood or not.

Can you explain why buildings are not designed to take hits from a commercial plane using physics, engineering, and architecture language. #factsonly

Can you explain why for the second bolded part? #factsonly

[nathanjizzle]

Can you explain why buildings are not designed to take hits from a commercial plane using physics, engineering, and architecture language.

you dont need to know physics, engineering or architecture to know. how much does a lincoln navigator cost out of the factory? 40k? how much does a bullet proof/bomb proof lincoln navigator cost? 400k? it is not necessary or efficient to bomb proof every car. and it is not necessary or efficient to commercial plane proof every sky rise. But im pretty sure after 9/11, engineers and architects have considered it when designing sky rises.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Firstly, buildings arent designed to take hits from a commercial plane, so how could anyone say that a building can withstand that kind of destruction?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAVd2txjNEc

(43 seconds)

Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management is on record stating the WTC towers were designed to have fully loaded 707s crash into them.

[BigBoss]

you dont need to know physics, engineering or architecture to know. how much does a lincoln navigator cost out of the factory? 40k? how much does a bullet proof/bomb proof lincoln navigator cost? 400k? it is not necessary or efficient to bomb proof every car. and it is not necessary or efficient to commercial plane proof every sky rise. But im pretty sure after 9/11, engineers and architects have considered it when designing sky rises.

I asked for facts. Come back to me when you're ready.

[nathanjizzle]

Can you explain why buildings are not designed to take hits from a commercial plane using physics, engineering, and architecture language. #factsonly

Can you explain why for the second bolded part? #factsonly

yes, exactly, facts. in order to do an accurate calculation, you would need to know facts of each of these categories.
-how much fuel the airplane had
-how heavy the plane is.
-how fast its going
-how the plane crumples in a front end collision against a concrete building
-how the buildings structure is compromised from angle of collision
-how much energy is in a jet engine exploding
-how much energy created from fuel tanks exploding
-tensile strength of the building.
-how much each floor weighs
-tensile strength of each floors supporting frame
-deterioration of buildings structure over the course of its life
-Calculation of substrate that is fueling interior fire including air.
-Calculation of remaining structures compromised strength from burning fire.
-Calculation of compromised structure from fire over a course of time.

all that is bolded is impossible to know. no facts for them, you said it. or do you have the facts for them?

let me know when youre ready.

[KevinNYC]

That's not correct. The 28 pages suggest at least one foreign government is also responsible for 9/11 by providing financial help to the hijackers.
What I meant was this is no help to the controlled demolition conspiracists, because the 28 pages still attribute all the destruction in lower Manhattan to hijackers crashing two planes in the WTC 1 and 2 and those buildings subsequent collapse. The 28 pages DO NOT SUPPORT an inside job, false flag attack by the US government.

[KevinNYC]

How can you quote the author, Lawrence Wright and then post this bit of nonsense?


-Osama Bin Laden's connection to the CIA

you need to read his book.

http://www.sunpostweekly.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/9.11-10-Looming-Tower.jpg

[BigBoss]

yes, exactly, facts. in order to do an accurate calculation, you would need to know facts of each of these categories.
-how much fuel the airplane had
-how heavy the plane is.
-how fast its going
-how the plane crumples in a front end collision against a concrete building
-how the buildings structure is compromised from angle of collision
-how much energy is in a jet engine exploding
-how much energy created from fuel tanks exploding
-tensile strength of the building.
-how much each floor weighs
-tensile strength of each floors supporting frame
-deterioration of buildings structure over the course of its life
-Calculation of substrate that is fueling interior fire including air.
-Calculation of remaining structures compromised strength from burning fire.
-Calculation of compromised structure from fire over a course of time.

all that is bolded is impossible to know. no facts for them, you said it. or do you have the facts for them?

let me know when youre ready.

What an arbitrary list you just came up with out of thin air as if you have any real expertise to study the WTC collapse. Two things:

1) Your list is incomplete.
2) Everything you listed is either known or may be reasonably calculated.

You still haven't mentioned nothing from a physics, engineering, and architectural standpoint to explain why the three buildings went down like a demolition. More specifically, I want Building 7's collapse explained as I mentioned in the other thread because a plane did NOT hit it.

Your just throwing $hit against the wall with hope that some of it will stick. I don't want conjecture because that's all your doing.

Come back with #factsonly when your ready.

[KevinNYC]

WTC 1 and 2 did stand after the initial impacts. The planes severed core columns at the site of impact and many outer columns, but the weight was redistributed. The outer columns were now overloaded with the weight of the upper floors as were other structural elements such such as the connectors to the floors
Eventually there was floors failure which became an avalanche and once that started the dymanic load was far too great to stop. So the building did withstand a plane much bigger than a 707 crashing into it and thousands of people were able to escape. However they never thought to model for a fire on the now weakened building.

[BigBoss]

WTC 1 and 2 did stand after the initial impacts. The planes severed core columns at the site of impact and many outer columns, but the weight was redistributed. The outer columns were now overloaded with the weight of the upper floors as were other structural elements such such as the connectors to the floors
Eventually there was floors failure which became an avalanche and once that started the dymanic load was far too great to stop. So the building did withstand a plane much bigger than a 707 crashing into it and thousands of people were able to escape. However they never thought to model for a fire on the now weakened building.

Now explain building 7.

http://d38zt8ehae1tnt.cloudfront.net/images/news/700_bd4918705794f8404db19a92c998b98a.jpg

http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif

[ThePhantomCreep]

Conspiracy theorists never acknowledge severe structural damage on the other side of WTC 7. It's pointless debating with them.

[KevinNYC]

http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif[/IMG]
As explained in the other thread you are using a gif that dishonestly only shows the end of a progress collapse sequence. There was an interior collapse that occurs several seconds before the sequence you show.

There was an interior collapse before the exterior shell fell, so the very beginning of the collapse and indeed most of the collapse is hidden from view.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-7-Explosion.gif

Notice how the structure on the left side of the roof collapses before the outside of building goes down.

If you want to know the details of the collapse, I suggest you look at January 2012 Journal of Structural Engineers for this article (http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398): Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse

It's basically the article NIST produced in 2009. But it was independently peer-reviewed an accepted by the Journal of Structural Engineers in 2011 and published in 2012. You have to have credentials to read it at the above link, but you can read the pre-copyedited version here. (http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=902588)

WTC 7 had long span floors where beams could go for up to 60 feet before another supporting connection. Floor sections of these type have never been tested in building safety furnace tests, because the largest furnace could only accomodate 17 foot sections.

Oh and still to this day, there has no been a single piece of evidence that WTC 1, 2 or 7 were brought down via controlled demolition.

[BigBoss]

As explained in the other thread you are using a gif that dishonestly only shows the end of a progress collapse sequence. There was an interior collapse that occurs several seconds before the sequence you show.


If you want to know the details of the collapse, I suggest you look at January 2012 Journal of Structural Engineers for this article (http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398): Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse

It's basically the article NIST produced in 2009. But it was independently peer-reviewed an accepted by the Journal of Structural Engineers in 2011 and published in 2012. You have to have credentials to read it at the above link, but you can read the pre-copyedited version here. (http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=902588)

WTC 7 had long span floors where beams could go for up to 60 feet before another supporting connection. Floor sections of these type have never been tested in building safety furnace tests, because the largest furnace could only accomodate 17 foot sections.

Oh and still to this day, there has no been a single piece of evidence that WTC 1, 2 or 7 were brought down via controlled demolition.


I'm not qualified and educated in that field to read that article so don't come at me at that angle as if you are. You have a confirmation bias so you seek out these articles as if, due to the fact it's scholarly, it gives it any validity. Who are the sources? The government, through the FBI, confiscated surveillance videos of nearby shops to the Pentagons on 9/11, is it really surprising that these articles are being put out to the ether to further distract? It seems to have explained building 7 for you. ( that's all it takes for it to collapse?)

I think people, like you, are afraid to admit the possibility that the government may have played a role in this. Take Operation Northwoods for example when the DoD were making proposals to the CIA to commit acts of Terrorism on Americans in Cuba to blame it on their government so they would be able to go to war against them. This rhetoric inside the government has been happening for a VERY long time both in the US and internationally throughout history. The CIA armed Bin Laden against the Soviet's in Afghanistan. There are too many holes and a trail that just feels like a cover-up by big business and powerful people who would gain by this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.*************.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1003711_557949774273001_122091260_n-273x320.jpg


I know over time information will leak when people with a guilty conscious are on their death beds. I doubt it's as straight forward and dramatic as the Bush administration was behind it, but I think people on all sides were given a little nudge and push in the right direction with proxy back channel BS and a lot of people turned a blind eye. Bill Clinton's administration left Bush a detailed report on Bin Laden/Al-Qaida and he didn't do anything about it and did not focus on Afghanistan, not even after 9/11. The man behind the report was fired with the administration transition. Some terrorists training on monkey bars in Afghanistan and sleeping in caves could not have pulled this off on this scale alone.

I want to reiterate that my position on 9/11 is I just don't know. United 93 seems like propaganda 101. The Pentagon looks like a missile strike. Building 7 looks like a demolition. I was at Ground Zero of the world trade centre 3 months after the buildings collapse and I cried when I saw the debris and smoke continuing to raise in the air because I knew a lot of people died there. I was 13 years old and i'll never forget it. Its injustice to those who lost their lives to NOT ask questions. I need more facts, but when you raise your voice and demand those facts your labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist and unpatriotic so why bother. History will answer all questions. It always does ( for the most part).

[warriorfan]

WTC 1 and 2 did stand after the initial impacts. The planes severed core columns at the site of impact and many outer columns, but the weight was redistributed. The outer columns were now overloaded with the weight of the upper floors as were other structural elements such such as the connectors to the floors
Eventually there was floors failure which became an avalanche and once that started the dymanic load was far too great to stop. So the building did withstand a plane much bigger than a 707 crashing into it and thousands of people were able to escape. However they never thought to model for a fire on the now weakened building.


So every single engineer that designed the buildings to withstand a crash from a 707 just forgot that planes contain fuel and could start a fire? Sounds legit.








:biggums:

[Lensanity]

Large buildings have caught on fire before but none of them have ****ing collapsed with WTC 7 because of it. Combine that with the suspicious Pentagon attack and you would have to be a ****ing moron to not even think there is a chance that the Government could have been involved.

[ThePhantomCreep]

I'm not qualified and educated in that field to read that article so don't come at me at that angle as if you are. You have a confirmation bias so you seek out these articles as if, due to the fact it's scholarly, it gives it any validity. Who are the sources? The government, through the FBI, confiscated surveillance videos of nearby shops to the Pentagons on 9/11, is it really surprising that these articles are being put out to the ether to further distract? It seems to have explained building 7 for you. ( that's all it takes for it to collapse?)

I think people, like you, are afraid to admit the possibility that the government may have played a role in this. Take Operation Northwoods for example when the DoD were making proposals to the CIA to commit acts of Terrorism on Americans in Cuba to blame it on their government so they would be able to go to war against them. This rhetoric inside the government has been happening for a VERY long time both in the US and internationally throughout history. The CIA armed Bin Laden against the Soviet's in Afghanistan. There are too many holes and a trail that just feels like a cover-up by big business and powerful people who would gain by this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.*************.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1003711_557949774273001_122091260_n-273x320.jpg


I know over time information will leak when people with a guilty conscious are on their death beds. I doubt it's as straight forward and dramatic as the Bush administration was behind it, but I think people on all sides were given a little nudge and push in the right direction with proxy back channel BS and a lot of people turned a blind eye. Bill Clinton's administration left Bush a detailed report on Bin Laden/Al-Qaida and he didn't do anything about it and did not focus on Afghanistan, not even after 9/11. The man behind the report was fired with the administration transition. Some terrorists training on monkey bars in Afghanistan and sleeping in caves could not have pulled this off on this scale alone.

I want to reiterate that my position on 9/11 is I just don't know. United 93 seems like propaganda 101. The Pentagon looks like a missile strike. Building 7 looks like a demolition. I was at Ground Zero of the world trade centre 3 months after the buildings collapse and I cried when I saw the debris and smoke continuing to raise in the air because I knew a lot of people died there. I was 13 years old and i'll never forget it. Its injustice to those who lost their lives to NOT ask questions. I need more facts, but when you raise your voice and demand those facts your labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist and unpatriotic so why bother. History will answer all questions. It always does ( for the most part).

Silverstein purchased an insurance policy that covered terrorism? I can't imagine why:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

[ThePhantomCreep]

Large buildings have caught on fire before but none of them have ****ing collapsed with WTC 7 because of it. Combine that with the suspicious Pentagon attack and you would have to be a ****ing moron to not even think there is a chance that the Government could have been involved.

Those building weren't bombarded with debris from a collapsing 1200ft tower. By all accounts, the structural damage was significant, and it shows:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/ZafarWTC7.jpg

[KevinNYC]

So every single engineer that designed the buildings to withstand a crash from a 707 just forgot that planes contain fuel and could start a fire? Sounds legit.
:biggums:

There were not modelling a deliberate attack. They were thinking about something similiar to what happened in 1945 where a pilot lost in the fog crashed into the Empire State Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash) and it appears they were only thinking about load at the time not fire resistance.

This is very different from a larger plane going as fast as possible and intending to cause as much damage as possible. People in the building said they felt the building move back and forth for quite awhile after the impact. And the buildings stood.

Also, I don't know if you know this but :biggums: doesn't actually constitute evidence. As for "every single" you have two main guys the architect and the structural engineer.

[KevinNYC]

I'm not qualified and educated in that field to read that article so don't come at me at that angle as if you are.
A. You don't need to be educated in a particular scientific field to understand how science works and what peer review is.

B. You don't need to be an engineer to read that paper.

C. When a paper is peer-reviewed it means other qualified experts and have reviewed the science and validated the methods. Papers often change during peer review.


You have a confirmation bias so you seek out these articles as if, due to the fact it's scholarly, it gives it any validity. Who are the sources?
I think people, like you, are afraid to admit the possibility that the government may have played a role in this. Take Operation Northwoods for example when the DoD were making proposals to the CIA to commit acts of Terrorism on Americans in Cuba to blame it on their government so they would be able to go to war against them.
Accusation of confirmation bias followed by your own example of it. Somebody once proposed Operation Northwoods (An event that did not actually take place), therefore controlled demolition.

It's pretty funny to be accused of confirmation bias where there still is not one single bit of evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 were deliberately demolished. Zero. It's not skepticism at all to argue for the controlled demolition theory. It's belief. Extraordinary claims require Extraoridnary evidence and you and the truth movement haven't produced any other than, "They are part of the conspiracy!" See below


Who are the sources? The government, through the FBI ....There are too many holes and a trail that just feels like a cover-up by big business and powerful people who would gain by this.

I doubt it's as straight forward and dramatic as the Bush administration was behind it, but I think people on all sides were given a little nudge and push in the right direction with proxy back channel BS and a lot of people turned a blind eye. Its injustice to those who lost their lives to NOT ask questions. I need more facts, but when you raise your voice and demand those facts your labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist and unpatriotic so why bother. History will answer all questions. It always does ( for the most part).

This is just one conspiratorial thought after another. You asking for facts, but are quite happy to simply disregard the facts that you don't like.

So you Big Business and Powerful People were behind this but not the Bush Adminstration? So rigged the buildings for demolition? They were smooth enough to avoid all detection by the NYPD, FBI, CIA, etc, etc, etc? All it took was a little nudge and push and you can rig a working building for demolition and nobody noticed? Even after the building felt they didn't connect the dots on any suspicious activity?

Do yourself a favor and look at the actual facts of the event. The "official story has been investigated and confirmed over and over and over again.
http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

[KevinNYC]

Also the CIA did not work with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. In fact, it didn't work with Arab fighting groups at all. They worked with Afghans. You can criticize the CIA saying that the blowback from working with Jihadis outweighed taking down the Soviet empire without stretching the truth.

Arab groups in Afghanistan did not influence the war. The CIA was working with the real players through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden's group was a small fish swimming below the radar back then.

[~primetime~]

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/images/articles/911-images/wtc7-side-damage1.jpg

^^^ why would that fall? who knows...probably Hans Gruber going after insurance money, that's my guess...no way it would just fall...buildings don't fall no matter what, everyone knows that.

[HitandRun Reggie]

Silverstein purchased an insurance policy that covered terrorism? I can't imagine why:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

:oldlol:

I'm curious as to what's the general consensus of conspiracy theorists. That the first attempt to take down the WTC was connected to 911 or if they think it made a convenient excuse for the someone to attack it a 2nd time? And who's supposed to be the culprit? Silverstein? I thought it was supposed to be George Bush, or the CIA?

These conspiracy theories create more questions about the motive and the realistic execution behind them than they do answers.

[Nanners]

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/images/articles/911-images/wtc7-side-damage1.jpg

^^^ why would that fall? who knows...probably Hans Gruber going after insurance money, that's my guess...no way it would just fall...buildings don't fall no matter what, everyone knows that.

:roll:

[Yoda]

"Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them" Once said a great ally.

[Dizzle-2k7]

KevinNYC.. explain operation northwoods

ill wait...

:crazysam:

[KevinNYC]

KevinNYC.. explain operation northwoods

ill wait...

:crazysam:
A rejected proposal that occurred when our current secretary of Defense was 8 years old. It was also not in the 9/11 Commission report. Also, not in this report was the Sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor.

It's still not evidence.

[KevinNYC]

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/images/articles/911-images/wtc7-side-damage1.jpg

^^^ why would that fall? who knows...probably Hans Gruber going after insurance money, that's my guess...no way it would just fall...buildings don't fall no matter what, everyone knows that.
This was not determined to be a factor in the cause of the collapse. It was, however a factor in how the collapse occurred. If this corner was not damaged that side would have fallen inwards more rather than straight down.

[Derka]

:oldlol:

I'm curious as to what's the general consensus of conspiracy theorists. That the first attempt to take down the WTC was connected to 911 or if they think it made a convenient excuse for the someone to attack it a 2nd time? And who's supposed to be the culprit? Silverstein? I thought it was supposed to be George Bush, or the CIA?

These conspiracy theories create more questions about the motive and the realistic execution behind them than they do answers.

That's entirely the point behind them. "Buy my shitty book, watch my shitty documentary, read my shitty blog, subscribe to my shitty YouTube channel" is the name of the game. Just keep asking nonsense questions enough and eventually people forget that there were supposed to be answers to begin with. Not one of these people cares a whit for truth or whatever; just feeding on a gullible America that will readily believe this shit. They call anyone who disagrees with them "sheep" and then rely on an entire herd of other sheep for their business.

[warriorfan]

There were not modelling a deliberate attack. They were thinking about something similiar to what happened in 1945 where a pilot lost in the fog crashed into the Empire State Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash) and it appears they were only thinking about load at the time not fire resistance.

This is very different from a larger plane going as fast as possible and intending to cause as much damage as possible. People in the building said they felt the building move back and forth for quite awhile after the impact. And the buildings stood.

Also, I don't know if you know this but :biggums: doesn't actually constitute evidence. As for "every single" you have two main guys the architect and the structural engineer.



So you are gonna tell me only 2 men oversaw the whole structural design of the trade center? You have some evidence on that?


Regardless even if there was only the Architect and Structural Engineer, are you telling me that both of these extremely smart men completely neglected the fact that airplanes have fuel during their design process?


Sounds legit.




:biggums:

[KevinNYC]

So you are gonna tell me only 2 men oversaw the whole structural design of the trade center? You have some evidence on that?

Regardless even if there was only the Architect and Structural Engineer, are you telling me that both of these extremely smart men completely neglected the fact that airplanes have fuel during their design process?

Sounds legit.

:biggums:2 men oversaw it, yes. The were the leads. Minoru Yamasaki was the architect and Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer. They would have delegated tasks. Yamasaki died in 1986, but Robertson is still alive. If you google Robertson's name and "plane" or "707," you can see what he said about running calculations on a plane crash. There's a video clip here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPqxJpykW00) and he also wrote this article (https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringandHomelandSecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx) for an engineering publication.

You're basically engaging in hindsight bias: now that we know planes crashed into the building and they were brought down after the subsequent fires, you're asking why didn't they model for that. The reality is, there was absolutely no building code requirement AT ALL to consider a plane crash into the building design in 1966 and it's still not a part of the building code for the reason that engineering buildings to that level of over-protection for an exceeding rare event would be tremendously wasetful. This was an extra check he personally did to check his numbers to see if the building could handle a vertical load like that. Robertson has claimed that at the time there would be no way to model such a fire. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/the_world_trade_center_work_of.html)


The World Trade Center project marked the first time that computer modeling was used to forecast how a structure would perform, according to Robertson, leading to more precise design specifications of materials and construction. And Robertson used this technology to confirm his structures could withstand a hit by the largest plane of the time — a Boeing 707. (The planes that hit the towers were more fuel-laden Boeing 767s.)

Testing such a horrific hypothesis comes down to two basic conditions: removing a series of adjacent columns and floor trusses and seeing how the buildings absorb the energy of the jet. Robertson says tests revealed that if a plane was flying at approach speed when it struck one of the towers, it would remain standing.

However, the impact that a jet-fuel-accelerated fire would have on the integrity of the structures was never projected. The reason, according to Robertson: No one knew how to model such a fire.

In his paper Robertson used this example of the kinetic energy they considered, a 707 looking for an airfield to land in fog, that is to say an accidental impact. As opposed to using a 767 full speed as a missile.

http://www.beachymon.com/photo/707energy.jpg

Most likely they ran these numbers after their initial design and started asking...Did we account for this? What about this?

Bottom line is the buildings had planes smash through their core columns and were redundant enough and robust enough to have 25,000 people on the lower floors to get to safety.

[KevinNYC]

If you want some fun, look up when they found out the Citicorp building could be toppled a category 1 hurricane if the wind came a certain angle.

It was basically a total fluke situation that led them to test their numbers again.
They only found out a couple of months before hurricane season too.

[kNicKz]

http://www.*************.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1003711_557949774273001_122091260_n-273x320.jpg





Considering that there was already a terrorist attack on the WTC in the 90's this really doesn't mean anything....The world trade center was bombed in 1993 by terrorists so obviously an insurance policy would address that.

[warriorfan]

You're basically engaging in hindsight bias: now that we know planes crashed into the building and they were brought down after the subsequent fires, you're asking why didn't they model for that.


It's hindsight bias for brilliant engineers to realize that airplanes use fuel and fuel is combustible?

:biggums:

[Doomsday Dallas]

KevinNYC... respect for you,

but in my mind, there is no way to defend the collapse of Building 7.

Debunkers can win go ahead win every other debate (except that 93 actually nose dived in that field)....

But Building 7 is like the 8th wonder of the world... you can't even begin to explain how.

Now........ moving on to Sandy Hook.

[Out_In_Utah]

Considering that there was already a terrorist attack on the WTC in the 90's this really doesn't mean anything....The world trade center was bombed in 1993 by terrorists so obviously an insurance policy would address that.

This. If I owned that building, the first thing I would have done was get insurance, including for terrorist attacks.

[KevinNYC]

KevinNYC... respect for you,

but in my mind, there is no way to defend the collapse of Building 7.

Debunkers can win go ahead win every other debate (except that 93 actually nose dived in that field)....

But Building 7 is like the 8th wonder of the world... you can't even begin to explain how.

Now........ moving on to Sandy Hook.
Dooms, let's be honest that your starting point is the government is involved in multiple and ongoing and overlapping conspiracies all the time and all of the media is a part of these. Am I right?

But just for laughs, here's a layout of the structural supports in WTC 7. You see that column 79 supports a larger area that any other in the building.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ryp1EMI-0uo/SK3WbjT_bsI/AAAAAAAAAxM/2A-OdzTpJok/s400/wtc082108.jpg

Column 79 is also under the Penthouse Structure on the Left top of this building, i.e. there was an interior collapse right around the area that column 79 was supporting.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-7-Explosion.gif

Also notice the the roof itself doesn't stay straight across as the building goes down, a deformation appears. This deformation also appears right close to the area over Column 79. Note also that is where smoke is pouring out of the building, so that side of the building must be on fire.

So I think something happened with Column 79.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Dooms, let's be honest that your starting point is the government is involved in multiple and ongoing and overlapping conspiracies all the time and all of the media is a part of these. Am I right?




Well first off,...

I don't even argue 9/11 anymore... because my thoughts on how those buildings came down is so far outside the box that even you're average conspiracy theorist would think I'm crazy.

Directed Energy Weapons: it's the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Again, I don't even like discussing it.

Sorry, but the cameras don't lie:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/46_wtc1spiretodustjg4.jpg






So again,... it's a waist of my time to even talk about where I stand.


But you guys can carry on: I enjoy reading these debates.

[Doomsday Dallas]

All I'm saying is that a steel beam evaporated on live TV that day... that's all.

[Knicks101]

I got a theory on this myself. Two words, lasers.

[Doomsday Dallas]

I got a theory on this myself. Two words, lasers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qejuEfbmM50
(38 seconds)

That's what I've been saying...

[gts]

:roll: :roll: :roll: Dooms is drinking again....

[Rose]

Well first off,...

I don't even argue 9/11 anymore... because my thoughts on how those buildings came down is so far outside the box that even you're average conspiracy theorist would think I'm crazy.

Directed Energy Weapons: it's the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Again, I don't even like discussing it.

Sorry, but the cameras don't lie:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/46_wtc1spiretodustjg4.jpg






So again,... it's a waist of my time to even talk about where I stand.


But you guys can carry on: I enjoy reading these debates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3VOhVjg8EA So basically this gives a good overview of the theory?

[Knicks101]

Magic is also a strong possibility.

[Doomsday Dallas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3VOhVjg8EA So basically this gives a good overview of the theory?


Dr. Judy Wood is like the Micheal Jordan of the directed energy weapon theory... but I really don't give a shit about her...

or Jessie Ventura...

That show is a joke... which is probably why they put the truth there: so it can be laughed at.

[Rose]

Dr. Judy Wood is like the Micheal Jordan of the directed energy weapon theory... but I really don't give a shit about her...

or Jessie Ventura...

That show is a joke... which is probably why they put the truth there: so it can be laughed at.
Well I just wanted to know if that was the basics of the theory. I'm not a conspiracist about 9/11, but I definitely found that one at least interesting from an entertainment standpoint.

[Doomsday Dallas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3VOhVjg8EA So basically this gives a good overview of the theory?




Basically... let's talk about Directed Energy Weapons:

Let's ask Donald Rumsfeld in this short 1:41 video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr6Gl2zxm8w


Technology you don't know shit about... but they do.

[Doomsday Dallas]

:roll: :roll: :roll: Dooms is drinking again....

Good to see you too gts... no relapse here...

just a small "conspiracy-relapse"

[KevinNYC]

Sorry, but the cameras don't lie:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/46_wtc1spiretodustjg4.jpg

Dude. Cameras lie all the time. Especially by the time it gets to youtube.

For one thing when you watch a second of film or video, you are seeing individual images. Between each image there is basically nothing recorded. In a film camera, this would be when the shutter closed in a video camera this would be when the charge is built up on the image sensor. If something that lasted only a tiny period of time occurred between frames we would not be aware of it at all when viewing the footage. For super fast events, it very much depends on the frames per second the video/film is shot at.

To put this another way, if Abraham Zapruder were using the Vision Phantom Ultra there would be no debate about the bullet that killed JFK
https://youtu.be/IcU-i7j0uYs?t=162

When video is uploaded to youtube information is tossed out to save space. This compression happens within a frame and across several frames. Even given the low quality compress images you posted it's clear they show

1. A core column before its collapse
2. Just as it begins to move and the accumlated dust on it falls off
3. The core column sinking out of view.....see the dark line in the dust above the water tower.
4. The core column has accelerated out of frame, but the dust hangs in the air.

[Rose]

Basically... let's talk about Directed Energy Weapons:

Let's ask Donald Rumsfeld in this short 1:41 video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr6Gl2zxm8w


Technology you don't know shit about... but they do.
Hmm..so would the navy's railgun be an example of a directed energy weapon?

[Doomsday Dallas]

Dude. Cameras lie all the time. Especially by the time it gets to youtube.

For one thing when you watch a second of film or video, you are seeing individual images. Between each image there is basically nothing recorded. In a film camera, this would be when the shutter closed in a video camera this would be when the charge is built up on the image sensor. If something that lasted only a tiny period of time occurred between frames we would not be aware of it at all when viewing the footage. For super fast events, it very much depends on the frames per second the video/film is shot at.
https://youtu.be/IcU-i7j0uYs?t=162


Look I understand... but there are two angles filming that steel beam falling and they both show the same thing..... THAT STEEL BEAM EVAPORATES.

But you're right cameras do lie all the time.

Hey man... some folks believe in scientology... I just believe that there was technology used on 9/11 that the public isn't fully aware of.

I know it's not the popular opinion... and neither are my thoughts on Sandy Hook.... All I've learned is I should no longer share my opinions on this subject matter.

[KevinNYC]

https://youtu.be/3ccrSEHWWOs?t=66
Better quality footage of the WTC 1 "Spire" collapse has been released. It's quite clear that

It remains standing for many seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed.
It then falls away intact leaving a cloud of dust.

[Doomsday Dallas]

https://youtu.be/3ccrSEHWWOs?t=66
Better quality footage of the WTC 1 "Spire" collapse has been released. It's quite clear that

It remains standing for many seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed.
It then falls away intact leaving a cloud of dust.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_kqJSLzFmo

There is another video saying it's debunked^.... but it doesn't matter, because the whole "pancake collapse" doesn't work either... basically most of the building turned to dust... there wasn't very much ruble, and an unexplainable lake of molten fire while they cleaned it up.

[KevinNYC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_kqJSLzFmo

There is another video saying it's debunked^.... but it doesn't matter, because the whole "pancake collapse" doesn't work either... basically most of the building turned to dust... there wasn't very much ruble, and an unexplainable lake of molten fire while they cleaned it up.
You're just all over the place tonight. Yes, let's go with debunked, and you don't need any video effects turned on to see it either.

Lots of things in the building turned to dust. Hell, the walls were made of drywall aka plasterboard.

However, there was an enormous pile of rubble afterwards.

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://www.mercuryrapids.co.uk/movie_moments/IndependenceDay-Animation1.gif

I'm telling you guys... This $hit really happened.

[Lensanity]

http://www.mercuryrapids.co.uk/movie_moments/IndependenceDay-Animation1.gif

I'm telling you guys... This $hit really happened.


If the Government claimed that this happened most of the non-conspiracy theorists would believe it. Just a bunch of pathetic, useless, gullible sheep that deserve to die.

[BigBoss]

Accusation of confirmation bias followed by your own example of it. Somebody once proposed Operation Northwoods (An event that did not actually take place), therefore controlled demolition.







So you Big Business and Powerful People were behind this but not the Bush Adminstration? So rigged the buildings for demolition? They were smooth enough to avoid all detection by the NYPD, FBI, CIA, etc, etc, etc? All it took was a little nudge and push and you can rig a working building for demolition and nobody noticed? Even after the building felt they didn't connect the dots on any suspicious activity?

Do yourself a favor and look at the actual facts of the event. The "official story has been investigated and confirmed over and over and over again.
http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

I'm on my phone so i'll keep this brief.

If you read my post I said my position on 9/11 and building 7 is I do not know and that I need more facts. The points I presented--Operation Northwoods as an example--is just an example of the B side of the debate to show you that your only looking at things from the A side hence your confirmation bias. I hear your side loud and clear--it's sort of force fed down our throat by mainstream media--now take some time to do your homework and look at it from the other side because it sounds like you aren't doing much of that. To reiterate, my position is I do not know. I'm neutral.

I have a question for you: Do you there is a possibility that 9/11 may have been an inside job? Or is your answer a resounding no? If it's a no then good luck with life. Be skeptical to everything because big business and government has their hands on everything. I'm not saying thats what happened with 9/11--again my position is i don't know and would like more facts. Don't kid yourself into thinking that everything about 9/11 has been disclosed to us. Could I be wrong? Sure. The point is just that I am looking to see what's on the other side.


Lastly, stop the presses! Planting explosives in the WTC is mission: impossible, yet terrorists training on monkey bars in Afghanistan pulling off a plan as elaborate as 9/11 and alluding the FBI, CIA ( who they have relations too), etc is no problem. Literally SMH right now.

We won't see eye to eye on this because our worldview is different. We approach these issues at different angles. That is the point of this debate to begin with. One thing I've learned in my life is that you cannot trust people 100% because we're all humans prone to error from the simplest things to the 9/11 story.

[KevinNYC]

I'm on my phone so i'll keep this brief.

If you read my post I said my position on 9/11 and building 7 is I do not know and that I need more facts. The points I presented--Operation Northwoods as an example--is just an example of the B side of the debate to show you that your only looking at things from the A side hence your confirmation bias. I hear your side loud and clear--it's sort of force fed down our throat by mainstream media--now take some time to do your homework and look at it from the other side because it sounds like you aren't doing much of that. To reiterate, my position is I do not know. I'm neutral.

I have a question for you: Do you there is a possibility that 9/11 may have been an inside job? Or is your answer a resounding no? If it's a no then good luck with life. be skeptical to everything because big business and government has their hands on everything.


Lastly, stop the presses! Planting explosives in the WTC is mission: impossible, yet terrorists training on monkey bars in Afghanistan pulling off a plan as elaborate as 9/11 and alluding the FBI, CIA ( who they have relations too), etc is no problem. Literally SMH right now.
Shaking your head or :biggums: or:coleman: or :rant or :facepalm or :confusedshrug: is not evidence. In fact, in logic there is a name for this. It's called arguing from ignorance or arguing from incredulity or arguing from lack of imagination. Here's an example of this in action from before the Iraq invasion[QUOTE]Wolfowitz: But some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. First, [B]it