I thought that voice sounded familiar.

Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours, and then raise (fireproofed) steel to over 1000 degrees? What we know from other videos of WT7, is many of the fires extinguished themselves (burned themselves out).


I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.

Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

the fires burning at 1:07 min: How do they work? Burning debris flies 120 yards, then goes through the window and starts fires on the 3rd floor, w/o leaving evidence at ground level?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse
gives a detailed analysis of how WT7 supposedly failed. Could one column failure bring down a building? I donno.

Yes

A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:

I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:

A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.

So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.

This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:

I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, September 6th, 2011 1:18pm PDT - promote requested by hpqp.

was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?

These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

Hmmm... I think I sifted this a while back.. <edit> maybe not. I am sure I have seen this before. You should check.

I just came in here to fap.





















Mission accomplished.

/looksatwatch
Where's Marbles?

Anyone who thinks the failure of one beam cannot bring down a building needs to try playing Jenga.

Look lets say some secret organization did this an is controlling everything. We might as well give up because we can't fight them...it's over they've won. Lets get back to our fake world with our fake democracy and let those who know about the matrix be.

>> ^blankfist:

I just came in here to fap.










Mission accomplished.


lol

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

>> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?



I suggest that those engineers and architects wouldn't simply be saying "hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire" and might not come under the scope of people i was referring to I would hope those people have a bit more to say.

The fireproofing that protects the steel is meant to protect it for 2 hours, not 7.

These questions have all been answered, but you conspiracy people are as bad as the fanatically religious; just keep plugging your ears and yelling, "la la la la, I can't hear you!"
>> ^Fade:

Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.

I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.

That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.

Jim Carrey "Fire Marshal Bill" at 1:20

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this crap is the NIST is one the United States most prestigious scientific research institutions.

Ask any physicist; I am not the only one who holds NIST and the scientists there in such high regard. No one tells these people what their findings are, especially not some manager.

The fact of the matter is that NIST did complete and thorough mutliphysics simulations of the entire building, almost completely simulating the entire events from 9/11. They completely recreated the collapse from first principles. I just don't know what more you can want.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go back into my Faraday cage.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, September 8th, 2011 12:36pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

Pointless. Staged or not, the resulting endless war was the same.

It's all just a matter of placing the thermite in the correct position so when the towers fell, they would deposit and then light the excess thermite on key structures in tower 7.

Simple math, really.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.
I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.
That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.


http://www.dykon-blasting.com/faqs.htm#implode
In a controlled demolition, the interior structures are removed first, in order to make the building fall inward. This video frames this fact as being against the theory of controlled demolition. How misleading.

Also this video compares a tanker truck fire to an office fire. Still need for someone to explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel.

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.

If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.

House fires can reach pretty insane temperatures, I don't see why its so unbelievable that a building full of paper might also produce these temperatures.

You don't need the same heat as a tanker with 9000 gallons of fuel. That bridge collapsed in minutes, WT7 collapsed after 7 hours of fire...

As for one column failing...well its the straw that breaks the camels back. You'd expect multiple redundancy, but I imagine the trouble with building huge skyscrapers is the more load bearing structure you put in the more weight the structure beneath that has to hold. It doesn't really surprise me that it wouldn't take many things going wrong for gravity to have its way.

As for the fact the building went down like a controlled demolition...why is that surprising. If you want to bring down a building cleanly and efficiently with minimum explosives you look for the card that holds the rest of the house up. The fire did that job as well as any demo expert, it poked and prodded every single Jenga block in that building, it weakened every support and warped the whole structure and if you end up with just one Atlas of a crossbeam holding more than its fair share of weight and a fire goes through the building testing every single one then ya, its the one holding all the weight thats gonna fail.

Wow theorycraftin is ez.

I didn't miss that memo, but after reading their opinions I decided to put more stock in the opinions of the other 99% of architects and engineers in the US alone who either didn't agree or didn't think the issue was worthy of comment.

You apparently missed the memo about the fallibility of professionals including architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers (especially), and accountants (see Arthur Anderson and Enron). There are just as many people wearing tinfoil hats in the professions as in any other field. >> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

I love how people are like "oh, but the code says buildings have to derpa derp so therefore this could never happen".

Stuff happens. I work in the insurance claims industry - everything goes wrong.

Cars are supposed to behave certain ways in low speed collisions, but they often don't. Sometimes you'll see a car take massive damage from low speed collisions that happen to go a certain way, especially if that car has been on the road for 20 years. In general: batteries explode, nuclear reactors melt down, things break off everything, plumbing is a nightmare, backups fail, bridges fall, and buildings rot and collapse. Inspectors are lazy, plans are varied, builders are cheap, materials are inconsistent and degrade over time, and high temperatures + time messes everything up.

>> ^marinara:

Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours, and then raise (fireproofed) steel to over 1000 degrees? What we know from other videos of WT7, is many of the fires extinguished themselves (burned themselves out).

I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)


Actually, cinder blocks will ignite and burn if hot enough and they make up most people's chimneys in their house. Different materials burn at higher and higher temperatures. The heat from the fire pulls in more air, which causes higher temp things to burn, which pulls in more air, etc. etc.

ANY large fire can burn over 1000 degrees. It just needs oxygen in quantity. If some sweaty bastard with a set of bellows can melt iron and steel in a forge, then air sucked in by a huge, uncontrolled fire can do the same. The whole structure doesn't need to bend, just parts of the bottom.

You can't equate a single-room fire test of material combustion with a fully involved structure fire.

...and yes, you are quite right, most fires, if not brought under control, make highrises into death traps.

True or Not, the important thing to remember is that this video has the most syllables in the channels of any video.

>> ^marinara:

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.


One column?

Do you really believe that the professionals at NIST are suggesting that in WTC7 one column was compromised to the point of failure by the fire, but the other 19 were in pristine normal condition?

Right, anything to hang on to your internal belief system.

The body of professionals across the globe are convinced that the devastation of the lower floors of WTC7 and resulting fires were easily enough to cause the collapse. This was so evident that emergency workers were ordered to abandon the burning building in advance, and news crews were reporting about it's probable collapse before it went down.

Your 'theories' are stupid.

Please, keep parroting things like how house fires can't reach 1000 degrees, it helps people see how stupid your ideas are more quickly. Early steel makers regularly made do with wood fires for their forges, and somehow managed to get the steel to melt. A google scholar search will also quickly show that temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees can be reached by house fires within minutes.

A match burns at around 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, so I have no problems believing thousands of pounds of paper, wood (from furniture) fabrics and plastics (which are made from petroleum) could easily exceed 1000 degrees after burning for 7 hours.

>> ^dannym3141:

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?


It's worse than just "questioning authority" -- questioning authority can be a very positive thing.

We're talking about the people who think Obama was born in Kenya, that global warming is a hoax, that vaccines are dangerous, and that the government is gonna send the army to take away their guns any day now.

America seems to have been totally overrun by a strain of people who have absolute, unshakeable faith in things that aren't supported by even a shred of evidence, or worse, are demonstrably false.

They aren't questioning authority -- they're lashing out at people who question their authority.

@marinara maybe I've just forgotten my 9/11 conspiracy storyline, but to me the problem with the whole "WTC was taken down by demolition" theory is motive.

Why would someone want to do that? It's a lot easier to destroy documents with shredders, and there are much easier ways to commit insurance fraud.

I can see someone making the case that some people in the US wanted 9/11 itself to happen, but I don't really see why those someones would do something as weird as packing the building with explosives, and then hitting it with airplanes.

I mean, there was an Al Qaeda bombing of the WTC some eight years earlier, why mess with the planes if you could've just blown the building up with secret bombs?

@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.

>> ^hpqp:

@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.


But their insanity isn't even that basic. Even a false flag assault theory is MUCH simpler if you just declare the hijackers in the planes were part of the conspiracy, and that's still what took down the towers. The whole controlled demo stuff is just a recruitment tool to draw the insane and paranoid into the fold.

>> ^LordOderus:

A match burns at around 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, so I have no problems believing thousands of pounds of paper, wood (from furniture) fabrics and plastics (which are made from petroleum) could easily exceed 1000 degrees after burning for 7 hours.


Other things that can exceed 1000F:
-The elements on your stove
-Well ventilated cigarettes
-candles(better than 1400F)

Oh, and well ventilated wood can top 3500F.

If marinara takes this to heart I'm sure he'll be back shortly with a newly discovered understanding of the difference between energy and temperature, and some brand new misunderstanding of how to apply that to the problem.

>> ^hpqp:

@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.


Dude, you need to play Deus Ex: Human Revolutions... F'in Illuminati be all up in that shit.

They do like to complicate things, eh. It's like the Christians Trinity; are they three, or one? Argh!!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^hpqp:
@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.

But their insanity isn't even that basic. Even a false flag assault theory is MUCH simpler if you just declare the hijackers in the planes were part of the conspiracy, and that's still what took down the towers. The whole controlled demo stuff is just a recruitment tool to draw the insane and paranoid into the fold.

Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.

That said, there is absolutely no way in hell that our government (present, past or future) is clever enough to pull off some of the absolutely ludicrous shit that these conspiracy nuts are peddling. What pissed me off the most is how many internet "experts" we have on demolitions, engineering, plane debris, etc.

It is the same logic that idiots who think that aliens built the pyramids use: I can't conceive of how to build a pyramid without the use of modern heavy-lifting machinery, therefore ancient societies couldn't have possibly done so and therefore... fucking aliens.

Basically, just because they don't understand something, they go to ANY explanation that is controversial and feeds conspiracy. NWO Ninja Demolitionists, lizard politicians, aliens, impossible conspiracies where hundreds if not thousands of participants have to not only keep quiet, but also cover an inevitable trail of planning, communication and on-the-ground efforts that simply cannot go unnoticed.

Seriously, there is just no way that our government, stupid fucks that they ALL are (dems, reps, libertarians, etc), just no way.


>> ^NetRunner:

@marinara maybe I've just forgotten my 9/11 conspiracy storyline, but to me the problem with the whole "WTC was taken down by demolition" theory is motive.
Why would someone want to do that? It's a lot easier to destroy documents with shredders, and there are much easier ways to commit insurance fraud.
I can see someone making the case that some people in the US wanted 9/11 itself to happen, but I don't really see why those someones would do something as weird as packing the building with explosives, and then hitting it with airplanes.
I mean, there was an Al Qaeda bombing of the WTC some eight years earlier, why mess with the planes if you could've just blown the building up with secret bombs?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'September, 11th, world, trade, center, WTC7, conspiracy, theories, debunking' to 'September 11th, world trade center, WTC7, conspiracy, theories, debunking, 9 11' - edited by lucky760

Well, this video finally gave me a decent explanation. All other explanations I've seen contradicted the footage of the building collapsing (such as the "pancake effect").

Maybe now people will stop calling me crazy for having reasonable questions about a genuine curiosity.

>>Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours...
explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel

Some office furniture? A burning stack of coffee filters? Because... that's all anyone can ever find in any high rise building, right? Typical.

It's simply fascinating the lengths some people will go to keep their death grip on the ideas they want -- need so badly to believe are fact.

It's very similar to the manner in which a religious person will vehemently defend that their god is the one real god, but these conspiracy theorists are exponentially worse. Not only do they not have credible evidence to support their outrageous beliefs (their primary evidence usually seems to be in the form of questions), but they scoff with blissful ignorance in the face of a mountain of proof explaining why they're wrong.

I believe most of these folks, possibly due to psychological and/or personality disorders, just lack the ability or desire or courage to even consider the notion that the likelihood of their theory being reality is profoundly improbable.

Show them a black stone and they'll scream at you why it's white (and that you and everyone else on Earth are in collusion to try convincing them that it's black). That's human nature for you. Not always *quality, but always interesting.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lucky760.

"One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century". "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html


This clip is a pathetic little band-aid against the piles of "weird shit" about 9/11 that still to this day should make any intelligent person think twice.

Such as:

- The alleged masterminds of 9/11 have never been produced and never put to trial, despite having supposedly been captured in 2001/02

- Total failure of the air defense system. The Pentagon was struck One hour and Twenty minutes after the attacks began, yet there was no response from Andrews Air Force base, which is just 10 MILES away and supposed to be in charge of defending the capitol.

- The Bush / Bin Ladin / Saudi families connection was never fully explored or explained.

- According to two first responders, black boxes were found, but later "disappeared" and their existence denied by the 9/11 Commision Report.

- The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. Some fucking co-incidence huh.

- Of all the cameras around the pentagon, including the security tapes taken from local gas stations, only one blurry clip was released.

- The remains of the twin towers were quickly carried off and buried before any forensic investigations could be done.

the list goes on....


9/11 Never Forget??

You're damn right I'll never forget. You can count on it.

Occam asks: Why would the demolitioninjas collapse the building in an orderly manner that would arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and 1500 construction experts)? Why didn't they wire the building so it would fall over?


>> ^marinara:

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.

It's nonsense like this post that causes these kind of discussions to devolve into mudslinging matches. There is no credible evidence that fires caused the collapse either. Sure some fancy physics modelling produces something that could be a scenario for the collapse but please don't expect me to believe that this is proof.
There are no mountains of proof because the evidence was removed from the scene. It's all just theories. You like the official version. I don't buy it. That doesn't make me religious or a conspiracy theorist any more than you.>> ^lucky760:

>> Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours...
explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel
Some office furniture? A burning stack of coffee filters? Because... that's all anyone can ever find in any high rise building, right? Typical.
It's simply fascinating the lengths some people will go to keep their death grip on the ideas they want -- need so badly to believe are fact.
It's very similar to the manner in which a religious person will vehemently defend that their god is the one real god, but these conspiracy theorists are exponentially worse. Not only do they not have credible evidence to support their outrageous beliefs, but they scoff with blissful ignorance in the face of a mountain of proof explaining why they're wrong.
I believe most of these folks, possibly due to psychological and/or personality disorders, just lack the ability or desire or courage to even consider the notion that the likelihood of their theory being reality is profoundly improbable.
Show them a black stone and they'll scream at you why it's white (and that you and everyone else on Earth are in collusion to try convincing them that it's black). That's human nature for you. Not always quality, but always interesting.

Good question. Maybe so that the building wouldn't damage anything else?>> ^quantumushroom:

Occam asks: Why would the demolitioninjas collapse the building in an orderly manner that would arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and 1500 construction experts)? Why didn't they wire the building so it would fall over?

>> ^marinara:
Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.

I've seen too much evidence suggesting the incompetence of mankind to believe in this particular conspiracy theory.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Occam asks: Why would the demolitioninjas collapse the building in an orderly manner that would arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and 1500 construction experts)? Why didn't they wire the building so it would fall over?

>> ^marinara:
Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.



You're mis-wielding the Razor. 1) The construction of T1/T2, and I assume 7-- steel-structured buildings in the old WTC site were such that they *would* impolode in the face of structural failure, not fall over. this limits casualties from outside the buildings. 2) The assumption that there are demoninjas necessitates the sub-assumption of the fact that demonninjas do not care what conspirators think, because conspirators will not be able to prove anything, because the ninjas are ninjas. 3) Because, in theory, the demoninjas are making so much money off of this that risking the ire of 1500+ construction experts, demo experts, engineers, and internet users isn't nearly reason enough to stop them taking the risk.

Can I just say... (I lived a few short blocks away in NYC at the time of the collapse. And I am a truther of sorts.) ...I'd like to stop the idea that conspiracy "nuts" are akin to religious zealots, suffer from some kind of mania, think that Illuminati lizards control the world, etc. The government's official story is BOTH a conspiracy (religious nuts in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to crash two planes into two of the largest structures in the financial capital of the west) and a theory (there has been no trial, there is very little hard evidence, there was no comprehensive official investigation, and both the Commission and NIST reports were produced by government institutions or congressionally appointed committee, and neither were conclusive- both were, in the end, speculative.

You people baffle me. I've always said, and will say it again and again;

I could give a fuck who did it. Dudes in turbans or dudes in suits,

What matters is that the deaths of 3000 Americans was used to justify a war for OIL.




Furthermore, WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs = 104,924 recorded Iraqi deaths, including 92,003 (or 66,081) civilian deaths. -from wiki

and

White flags = Iraqis, and Red flags = Americans

It would always be nice to know who started a fight, but the real question is who will stop it?

I don't care what side your on, just please don't compare Skyscrapers to Jenga Blocks. Jenga blocks are not secured together!!! They are just placed on top of one another. It simply isn't safe to stack wooden blocks that high and have people walking around in and on them. That would be dangerous. No, Skyscrapers are fastened together somehow. Really really tightly.

There is no point in talking about this stuff any more.

9/11 was an inside job. The NIST consists of a bunch of pussy yes men.

They never set out to find out what happened on that day. Instead, they came up with a narrative, and set about skewing all of the data models to justify that narrative.

When they get away with a job like 9/11, what the fuck? What can you do?

It infuriates me, and millions of others.

You know what it means, at the bottom of it all?

Our country is a fucking joke.

WT7 had some government offices in it. CIA, Secret Service, Ongoing SEC investigation against large banks.

False flag attacks happen whether you believe in them or not. The CIA does coup attempts on a regular basis. Hitler planned the Reichstag fire. The burning of the Reichstag was so convenient, the Nazis passed their version of the patriot act, used it as an excuse to increase the power of the executive branch. I don't know who did 9/11, but I know who didn't do it!

I came to see the video..

sorry, that was lame, it's 3:30 am, I'm tired...

>> ^blankfist:

I just came in here to fap.










Mission accomplished.

How cute, you actually believe it was about oil.

For the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could have bought well over a billion barrels of oil at its current price.

Even better, for a minute fraction of the cost, America could have secured deals with oil producing countries to get their oil at lower prices in perpetuity.

Instead, America invaded two countries: one has no oil and the other's oil producing capability was reduced by the war itself. So, America made the price of oil go up, used more per year than ever before in their wars and lowered the amount of oil produced worldwide.

If the WTC attacks were about oil, it was planned by a team of retards.
>> ^Peroxide:

What matters is that the deaths of 3000 Americans was used to justify a war for OIL.

There's nothing anyone can say to convince these people. Stop trying. Let them live in their world of ignorance and move on.

>> ^Skeeve:

How cute, you actually believe it was about oil.
For the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could have bought well over a billion barrels of oil at its current price.
Even better, for a minute fraction of the cost, America could have secured deals with oil producing countries to get their oil at lower prices in perpetuity.
Instead, America invaded two countries: one has no oil and the other's oil producing capability was reduced by the war itself. So, America made the price of oil go up, used more per year than ever before in their wars and lowered the amount of oil produced worldwide.
If the WTC attacks were about oil, it was planned by a team of retards.
>> ^Peroxide:
What matters is that the deaths of 3000 Americans was used to justify a war for OIL.




You thought they wanted to keep prices down? THAT'S no way to make money.

Iraq had exclusive contracts with France (Freedom FRIES!!!) the only way the US could sever those contracts was to declare war on them.

FEMA: "WTC 4, 5, and 6 are eight- and nine-story steel-framed office buildings, located on the north and east sides of the WTC Plaza, that were built circa 1970. ... Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed. as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC I that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred."

So WTC 4, 5, and 6 behave like every other steel-framed building in history, but somehow WTC 7 collapses like a house of cards?

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition:

-The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
-The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
-Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
-The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
-The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

But NIST never tests for any explosive residue. Instead they spend 5+ years perfecting a computer model to blame the collapse on office fires.

And skeptics are the crazy ones? If you don't regurgitate government lies, then you're a conspiracy nut?

Go back to bed America.

>> ^Skeeve:

How cute, you actually believe it was about oil.
For the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could have bought well over a billion barrels of oil at its current price.
Even better, for a minute fraction of the cost, America could have secured deals with oil producing countries to get their oil at lower prices in perpetuity.


How cute, you thought the oil was for America.

Holy crap I really do need to get my friend in here.. you people are a data GOLDMINE

>> ^ponceleon:

/looksatwatch
Where's Marbles?


I kept you waiting. So sorry pal. Maybe you should get out once and while.

Never assume conspiracy for what could be incompetence. EVER.

Occam's razor applies.

@blastido_factor:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.


- The alleged masterminds of 9/11 have never been produced and never put to trial, despite having supposedly been captured in 2001/02

I don't know what you mean by "produced," but here's something I do know: I started a case in small claims court earlier this year (in New York City, nonetheless), and I was told I'd have to wait at least four months to appear before an arbitrator. (It's likely that I'll have to wait longer, if, for example, I opt to appear before a judge.) Simply put, trials take time. Given the complexities of a trial involving the masterminds and perpetrators of 9/11, ten years is hardly cause for conspiracy.


- Total failure of the air defense system. The Pentagon was struck One hour and Twenty minutes after the attacks began, yet there was no response from Andrews Air Force base, which is just 10 MILES away and supposed to be in charge of defending the capitol."

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context, to consider the hijacking of Flight 11 as the beginning of the attack (I assume this is what you meant); it wasn't until the second plane hit the WTC that the nature and the scale of the attacks became evident. Could the communication between the FAA and NORAD have been more prompt, and, thus, more effective? Yes. (Rightly so, this is one of the major criticisms lobbied against the agencies responsible for responding to the attacks.) Is the delay of thirty-four minutes cause for conspiracy, given the lack of precedence in handling such a coordinated attack and the confusion surrounding the events of the attack? No.


- The remains of the twin towers were quickly carried off and buried before any forensic investigations could be done.

Your use of the word forensic is categorically flawed. (The first and third definitions of forensic, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, are as follows: (1) "belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate, and (3) "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems.") NIST's reports are chock-full of forensic analyses; have a look for yourself: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/index.cfm. Forensic investigations also led to the identification of a significant number of victims. According to Wikipedia: "Within a year, medical examiners had identified the remains of 33 victims who had been on board Flight 11. They identified two other Flight 11 victims, including the lead flight attendant Karen Martin, after body fragments were discovered near Ground Zero in 2006. In April 2007, examiners using newer DNA technology identified another Flight 11 victim. The remains of two hijackers, potentially from Flight 11, were also identified and removed from Memorial Park in Manhattan." The methods used to identify these victims (DNA testing, in many cases) were nothing if not forensic.

You're also neglecting the simple fact that the removal of debris was necessary from a health standpoint. Again, according to Wikipedia: "The thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers contained more than 2,500 contaminants, including known carcinogens. Subsequent debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers are said to be linked to exposure to these carcinogens."


- Of all the cameras around the pentagon, including the security tapes taken from local gas stations, only one blurry clip was released.

Three videos, not one, were released. According to Wikipedia: "A nearby Citgo service station also had security cameras installed, but a video released on September 15, 2006, did not show the crash because the camera was pointed away from the crash site. The Doubletree Hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006, the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is 'grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building.'"


I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.

"Forensic" also means to closely study the evidence to better determine who committed the crime, something that was not allowed on any of the 9/11 attack sites.

It is possible to remove debris and still inspect it closely. That was not done for any of the WTC sites.

It would be nice to see a link of that Bingham FOI tape you mentioned. A retired military officer, a colonel I believe, questioned the plane theory on the simple fact that there were no wing marks on the Pentagon building. The official video tape released by the Pentagon is an obvious farce.

Whoever was behind 9/11 is still at large, and it wasn't Al Qaeda.

>> ^ponceleon:

Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.

I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.

What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.

If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.

The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"

You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...

Hey Truthers, I really want to know (and I got a few scotches in me) seriously.

What do you think of scientists? Do you think we fake data? Do you think NIST rigged their multiphysics simulations to get the result they wanted?

I really want to know. Just saying.

Ehhh... who I am kidding I don't give a sh!t.

>> ^rougy:

"Forensic" also means to closely study the evidence to better determine who committed the crime, something that was not allowed on any of the 9/11 attack sites.
It is possible to remove debris and still inspect it closely. That was not done for any of the WTC sites.
It would be nice to see a link of that Bingham FOI tape you mentioned. A retired military officer, a colonel I believe, questioned the plane theory on the simple fact that there were no wing marks on the Pentagon building. The official video tape released by the Pentagon is an obvious farce.
Whoever was behind 9/11 is still at large, and it wasn't Al Qaeda.


Video from the Doubletree Hotel:

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

Where do you get this idea that no one was allowed to study the evidence at any of the attack sites? What does that even mean? Are you objecting to the fact that civilians like you or I weren't allowed to walk up and start poking around in the rubble? And how can you possibly claim that none of the debris was closely inspected? How do you think one finds the body parts of human beings amongst that much rubble without closely inspecting the debris? 184 of 189 of the people who died in the attack at the Pentagon were positively identified by investigators. Yet you claim these investigators didn't exist?

"An obvious farce"? Really? Again, where is your evidence?

The thing I find bizarre about the whole "controlled explosive" conspiracy theory wackiness (and yes, it's fucking retarded theory and if you believe it you were probably dropped on your head as a child)... is that some 50,000 people works in the towers and yet apparently nobody noticed they were being wired to be blowed up.

Key-rist...

Oh man guys...
It has been said for years, and you can also go ask your local firefighters (DO IT!!!!!!!!!): Fires in closed rooms, especially office fires, can easily reach 1000C and far above that. It even gets so hot that the gas thats created from the fire itself will ignite aswell, creating even higher temperatures!!!

Seriously... Its simple physics. I really dont understand why people still question it...

THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT TO COVER UP A CRITICAL BLUNDER THAT WAS MADE BY THE CONSPIRATORS WHEN THEY IMPLOADED THIS STRUCTURE. A CLEAN DOMINO COLLAPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY FIRE BUT BY CALCULATED PLACEMENT OF EXPLOSIVES AND DETONATION IN A TIME CHAIN OF COMMAND.

Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.>> ^coolhund:

Oh man guys...
It has been said for years, and you can also go ask your local firefighters (DO IT!!!!!!!!!): Fires in closed rooms, especially office fires, can easily reach 1000C and far above that. It even gets so hot that the gas thats created from the fire itself will ignite aswell, creating even higher temperatures!!!
Seriously... Its simple physics. I really dont understand why people still question it...

You people are idiots.

>> ^Fade:

Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.

Wait... what? That's not physics at all... simple or otherwise... It's like, history or something.

>> ^Fade:
Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.


And were those other skyscrapers also damaged after being showered in debris from an adjacent building collapse? No? Okay, then.

>> ^aurens:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.
Kinda like a jet plane's black boxes aren't irrecoverable... no wait, they were. FBI: "None of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered." But this defies reason. Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found? Anonymous source at the NTSB: "Off the record, we had the boxes,"
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't know what you mean by "produced,"He means if you have evidence that implicates a suspect of a crime, then you indict that person. You then find and arrest that person, charge them, and follow the rule of law. The FBI admits they have no "hard evidence" that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks, yet he was immediately blamed for it. The Taliban offered extradition if we provided evidence and we refused. Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context...
You're talking about the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside? Never mind the approach the pilot took makes no sense. If your target is the Pentagon, you can cause the most damage and most causalities by doing a nose down crash in the top. Instead the amateur pilot does a high precision 360 degree turn, descending 7,000 feet in the last 2 minutes to impact the Pentagon in the front, the only spot with reinforced steel. He spends an extra 2 and half minutes in the air exposed and ends up hitting the exact spot that has been reinforced and also where the bookkeeping and accountants were. Day before 9/11: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
Conspiracy? I think so. (Bonus: WeAreChange confronts Rumsfeld)
>> ^aurens:

Three videos, not one, were released.
And at least 84 remain classified. Why?
And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens. If you spent anytime at all "thinking" or looking at the evidence, then you would recognize government lies for what they are. You don't have to know the truth to recognize a lie.

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.

And were those other skyscrapers also damaged after being showered in debris from an adjacent building collapse? No? Okay, then.

Let me refer you to my previous comment:
http://videosift.com/video/Building-7-Explained#comment-1290794

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.
I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.
What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.
If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.
The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"
You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...


Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Northwoods was a false-flag operation plan by the CIA in 1962. It called for terrorist attacks like hijacking planes, disguising US fighter jets as Cuban MIG fighters, and killing US citizens.

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."


The plan was on the desk of JFK and he refused. JFK was later assassinated. The following year LBJ used the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war in Vietnam. The people that questioned that incident were called conspiracy nuts. But the truth eventually came out, and it will for 9/11 also.

The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

>> ^Skeeve:

How cute, you actually believe it was about oil.
For the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could have bought well over a billion barrels of oil at its current price.
Even better, for a minute fraction of the cost, America could have secured deals with oil producing countries to get their oil at lower prices in perpetuity.
Instead, America invaded two countries: one has no oil and the other's oil producing capability was reduced by the war itself. So, America made the price of oil go up, used more per year than ever before in their wars and lowered the amount of oil produced worldwide.
If the WTC attacks were about oil, it was planned by a team of retards.
>> ^Peroxide:
What matters is that the deaths of 3000 Americans was used to justify a war for OIL.



Well, it was about the military industrial complex forming an essential part of the make up of the U.S.'s GDP, and their political culture. But I just say oil for simplicity's sake.

WTC 4, 5 and 6 were a lot shorter though. WTC 4 and 5 are only 9 stories tall (and WTC 4 was pretty much destroyed by the debris), and WTC 6 was only 8 stories tall. I don't know if that qualifies them as "skyscrapers". In contrast, WTC 7 was 47 stories tall. Do you know of any other 40+ story buildings initially damaged from debris/collision/etc followed by intense fire for many hours that remained standing?

The onther thing that makes absolutely no sense--aside from the fact that secretly rigging buildings like WTC 1,2, and 4 would be a logistical nightmare--is why WTC 7 would be rigged at all. There is no logical sense to rig it to blow so many hours after the fact. Especially that if by some miracle it wasn't damanged in the WTC 1&2 collapse, what then? Just arbitrarily bring it down?

No, the whole "let's blow up the buildings" argument is just dumb on so many levels it hurts my head to even think about.

>> ^marbles:
Let me refer you to my previous comment:
http://videosift.com/video/Building-7-Explained#comment-1290794

Every theory is a conspiracy theory, including the official US theory. It's really semantics.

the bitter truth is that there is a contraction of resources in the world, due to overuse and growing population. That lack of resources, combined with climate change, will produce a lot of suffering in the world to come.
Whether 9/11 was an inside job or it wasn't...either way the US and many many insanely powerful multinationals used the opportunity to jockey and solidify their positions respective to resources in the world. And a lot of money was made.

Of course, as we're seeing, the US has overplayed it's hand.

>> ^aurens:

>> ^rougy:
"Forensic" also means to closely study the evidence to better determine who committed the crime, something that was not allowed on any of the 9/11 attack sites.
It is possible to remove debris and still inspect it closely. That was not done for any of the WTC sites.
It would be nice to see a link of that Bingham FOI tape you mentioned. A retired military officer, a colonel I believe, questioned the plane theory on the simple fact that there were no wing marks on the Pentagon building. The official video tape released by the Pentagon is an obvious farce.
Whoever was behind 9/11 is still at large, and it wasn't Al Qaeda.

Video from the Doubletree Hotel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQeTdrQhqyc
Where do you get this idea that no one was allowed to study the evidence at any of the attack sites? What does that even mean? Are you objecting to the fact that civilians like you or I weren't allowed to walk up and start poking around in the rubble? And how can you possibly claim that none of the debris was closely inspected? How do you think one finds the body parts of human beings amongst that much rubble without closely inspecting the debris? 184 of 189 of the people who died in the attack at the Pentagon were positively identified by investigators. Yet you claim these investigators didn't exist?
"An obvious farce"? Really? Again, where is your evidence?


Thanks for taking the time to post the video you mentions. I personally found it to be worthless. It shows nothing. It also appears to have been tampered with.

Most of the evidence was summarily destroyed, which is why it's so easy for the people who buy the official 9/11 story to say "Where's the evidence?"

Forgive me for skipping the link, because I can't think of the right keywords for Google, but there was a fire inspector who was very angry at how the WTC cleanup was handled. He said that his team was not allowed to investigate the evidence, and that he was only shown partial examples of the building, offsite, after it had been sifted by the cleanup officials.

I'm done. I know I won't change your mind. Not even gonna try, really, but others will listen.

Whoever attacked America on 9/11 is still out there, and their arrogance will hang them yet.

>> ^rougy:


Whoever attacked America on 9/11 is still out there, and their arrogance will hang them yet.



Actually they'll just die because everyone does. Soo that's that, life goes on.

@marbles:

First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

So are Bigfoot, Nessie and the Roswell aliens...

>> ^rougy:
Whoever attacked America on 9/11 is still out there

When did all this shit happen?

>> ^shponglefan:

So are Bigfoot, Nessie and the Roswell aliens...
>> ^rougy:
Whoever attacked America on 9/11 is still out there


9/11 was not a myth or an urban legend, but the official investigation was.


@Yogi - did you actually take the time to tell me that everybody dies? Wow. Deep.

What's with the talk of explosives? Did the truthers not see the bit where the planes crashed into the tall buildings? And then the tall buildings fell down, damaging the buildings around them? You don't need explosives when Islamic terrorists fly jet planes into buildings. Stop anomaly hunting: it only highlights the areas in which you're ignorant.

The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.

If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.

This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist

So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:

The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?

I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down and edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.

>> ^Fade:

Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.

Those "explosions" are the sounds of the towers collapsing. You'd kinda expect 100+ stories of building to make a lot of noise as it comes down. Go watch some real demolition videos if you want to hear what a real demo actually sounds like.

Also, a lot of what so-called 9/11 "truthers" point to as video evidence of explosions--the ejected smoke/air as the tower collapses--occurs after the tower has started collapsing. This is the opposite of the way normal demolitions work: explosions go off, then building comes down (usually starting at the bottom). The WTC towers collapsed from the top down; again opposite a normal demo.

And all of this still begs the question:

1) How would the towers be rigged in the first place, keeping in mind that rigging 250+ collective stories worth of skyscraper is no simple task?
And, 2) Why even bother rigging them at all since if this was a so-called "false flag" event, this just uncessarily complicates the whole thing by a factor of 100?

Of course, if you want to keep living in a Tom Clancy-esque spy thriller novel, all of this is irrelevant.

Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab. In the case of 9/11 it could be millions of people - journalists, politicians, scientists, firefighters, demolitions companies, the military, the police, the CIA and FBI, TV news reporters, office workers, cleaning staff, maintenance crews, NIST, eyewitnesses, plane pilots, camera crews, sound and video editors, the President and his staff, ambulance workers, the Pentagon staff, air-traffic control, explosives suppliers, airport ground crews... There'd almost be more people on the "inside" of the conspiracy than the outside.

>> ^Spacedog79:

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?
I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.
>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

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

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab.


But that misses the point: it's fun to imagine a crazy, wacky conspiracy with layer upon layer of complexity. Because really, it's not about the "truth"; it's about imagining the world really is like a crazy political/spy thriller. Then you get to imagine all sorts of crazy things:

- missiles being shot into the Pentagon
- remote controlled jetliners hitting building
- secret explosives planted to bring down skyscrapers

etc etc.

That page refers to the unedited version of the videos that were finally released after the truth movement FOI'd NIST. Try reading the post and you might come across a little better informed. At any rate eye-witnesses claimed they heard explosives so through a simple process of due diligence NIST should have tested for explosive residue to rule that scenario out.

>> ^Spacedog79:

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?
I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down and edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.
>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

Argument from ignorance.

Just because you can't believe something is possible doesn't mean it isn't.

If you think we aren't living in a 'Tom Clancy-esque' world then you are sadly deluded.

I don't care about the conspiracy theories anyway. What I care about is that I am not convinced that wtc7 was brought down by fire. It looks like a controlled demo so why wasn't it investigated as such?

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
Those "explosions" are the sounds of the towers collapsing. You'd kinda expect 100+ stories of building to make a lot of noise as it comes down. Go watch some real demolition videos if you want to hear what a real demo actually sounds like.
Also, a lot of what so-called 9/11 "truthers" point to as video evidence of explosions--the ejected smoke/air as the tower collapses--occurs after the tower has started collapsing. This is the opposite of the way normal demolitions work: explosions go off, then building comes down (usually starting at the bottom). The WTC towers collapsed from the top down; again opposite a normal demo.
And all of this still begs the question:
1) How would the towers be rigged in the first place, keeping in mind that rigging 250+ collective stories worth of skyscraper is no simple task?
And, 2) Why even bother rigging them at all since if this was a so-called "false flag" event, this just uncessarily complicates the whole thing by a factor of 100?
Of course, if you want to keep living in a Tom Clancy-esque spy thriller novel, all of this is irrelevant.

>> ^Fade:
Just because you can't believe something is possible doesn't mean it isn't.
If you think we aren't living in a 'Tom Clancy-esque' world then you are sadly deluded.
I don't care about the conspiracy theories anyway. What I care about is that I am not convinced that wtc7 was brought down by fire. It looks like a controlled demo so why wasn't it investigated as such?


Well, I happen to think it was brought down by the Death Star. So maybe they should investigate that too?

The reason it wasn't investigated as a controlled demo is because the controlled demo theory is what it is: a wacky conspiracy theory based on extremely flimsy evidence and full of giant gaping holes.

>> ^marbles:

Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Never heard of it before.

>> ^marbles:
The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

It's not "our government" it's "rich and powerful people acting ruthlessly to gain more riches and power," and it's not just since the 60's, it's since civilization began.

So yeah, I think it's possible someone who's ostensibly "on our side" could've allowed/funded/ordered the 9/11 attacks for their own nefarious, selfish purposes.

I'm just saying even if you assume it was an inside job, it doesn't make sense that they'd use secret explosives and planes. Using both just increases their risk of being exposed, without increasing the impact of the plot.

Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Just because you can't believe something is possible doesn't mean it isn't.
If you think we aren't living in a 'Tom Clancy-esque' world then you are sadly deluded.
I don't care about the conspiracy theories anyway. What I care about is that I am not convinced that wtc7 was brought down by fire. It looks like a controlled demo so why wasn't it investigated as such?

Well, I happen to think it was brought down by the Death Star. So maybe they should investigate that too?
The reason it wasn't investigated as a controlled demo is because the controlled demo theory is what it is: a wacky conspiracy theory based on extremely flimsy evidence and full of giant gaping holes.

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:

1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?

Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.

>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?

your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.

The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

>> ^shponglefan:

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:
1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?
Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.
>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

First of all, I never said the collapse was due to falling debris. I said that the facts we have are that the building sustained initial damage (which according to NIST may have included structural damage) followed by a 7 hour fire leading to eventual structural failure. So please don't misread what I write. It's about pointing out known facts (damage + fire) versus unknown speculation (secret bombs).

Second, There is no real substantial evidence that WTC 7 was demo'd. It's mostly based on a superficial account of the video of the collapse, which in itself doesn't suggest anything other than the building was damaged, then on fire, then eventually fell down.

Third, saying that "none of that shit is relevant" when you are proposing an idea that would involve an extremely complex undertaking makes it relevant. When exploring ideas, it helps to step back sometime and do a "sanity" check. That you don't seem to want to with respect to the controlled demo idea suggests you know it's pretty insane idea, you just don't want to admit it.
>> ^Fade:
None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?
your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.
The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up.>> ^shponglefan:

First of all, I never said the collapse was due to falling debris. I said that the facts we have are that the building sustained initial damage (which according to NIST may have included structural damage) followed by a 7 hour fire leading to eventual structural failure. So please don't misread what I write. It's about pointing out known facts (damage + fire) versus unknown speculation (secret bombs).
Second, There is no real substantial evidence that WTC 7 was demo'd. It's mostly based on a superficial account of the video of the collapse, which in itself doesn't suggest anything other than the building was damaged, then on fire, then eventually fell down.
Third, saying that "none of that shit is relevant" when you are proposing an idea that would involve an extremely complex undertaking makes it relevant. When exploring ideas, it helps to step back sometime and do a "sanity" check. That you don't seem to want to with respect to the controlled demo idea suggests you know it's pretty insane idea, you just don't want to admit it.
>> ^Fade:
None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?
your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.
The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

Yes, it is an insane idea. I've already outlined the extremely complex logistics in bringing WTC 7 down as part of a secret plot on 9/11. Am I being incredulous? You betcha! You're suggesting a secret conspiracy with little more than flimsiest of "evidence"; so what do you expect?

For example, you say "Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions"**. So what? There probably were some explosions. Many things can explode, especially in the presence of a large seven hour fire: fuel storage containers, electrical transformers, etc. Plus other loud noises like falling debris may be misconstrued for explosions. To jump from "people heard explosions" to "secret plot to wire up WTC 7 for a controlled demo" is leaping several football fields worth of logic.

If you want to go the more complicated route, you need evidence of why that route is a more probable explanation and why it supercedes the more obvious explanation: that a debris damaged building burned for seven hours and then collapsed due to structural failure.

And if we're going to start trading things to look up, now you can look up Occam's razor.

** You may also want to re-read the NIST report on WTC 7. They specifically mention that there is no evidence of a "blast event" capable of destroying a singular column in WTC 7. They discuss that such an event would be extremely loud (130 to 140 dB) and be heard from at least a half mile away, and that there were no witness reports of such an event nor such audio heard in any recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.

>> ^Fade:
It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up

Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.>> ^shponglefan:

Yes, it is an insane idea. I've already outlined the extremely complex logistics in bringing WTC 7 down as part of a secret plot on 9/11. Am I being incredulous? You betcha! You're suggesting a secret conspiracy with little more than flimsiest of "evidence"; so what do you expect?
For example, you say "Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions" . So what? There probably were some explosions. Many things can explode, especially in the presence of a large seven hour fire: fuel storage containers, electrical transformers, etc. Plus other loud noises like falling debris may be misconstrued for explosions. To jump from "people heard explosions" to "secret plot to wire up WTC 7 for a controlled demo" is leaping several football fields worth of logic.
If you want to go the more complicated route, you need evidence of why that route is a more probable explanation and why it supercedes the more obvious explanation: that a debris damaged building burned for seven hours and then collapsed due to structural failure.
And if we're going to start trading things to look up, now you can look up Occam's razor.
You may also want to re-read the NIST report on WTC 7. They specifically mention that there is no evidence of a "blast event" capable of destroying a singular column in WTC 7. They discuss that such an event would be extremely loud (130 to 140 dB) and be heard from at least a half mile away, and that there were no witness reports of such an event nor such audio heard in any recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
>> ^Fade:
It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up

We have two 'theories'

1 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to office furnishings burning for roughly 7 hours
2 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to controlled demolition

Problems with theories.

theory 1 - No steel skyscraper has ever suffered a complete collapse due to fire.
theory 2 - It looks like demolition but demolition implies conspiracy.

My opinion is that theory 2 is the simplest theory that explains the evidence I have seen. However Occam's razor isn't much use in this scenario since all the evidence was destroyed before the investigation took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Overview

The principle was often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

No, the NIST report claims there is no blast sound within certain parameters (i.e. loud enough to indicate a charge capable of destroying a column). I've watched various videos of the WTC 7 collapse and the sounds in them, whether explosions or not, do not sound like any controlled demo blast.

So again, where's the evidence of a controlled demo? "Loud noises" isn't good enough.

>> ^Fade:
Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.

The problem with theory 1 isn't a problem at all. In fact, it's largely irrelevant because what happened to WTC 7 (debris damaged followed by 7 hour fire) was a larely unique event, and that's ignoring other factors (i.e. building design, mitigating circumstances like lack of fire suppression) which may make comparisons even more unwarranted. And furthermore, even if other buildings had not collapsed under similar conditions doesn't mean it couldn't happen to WTC 7 or another building in the future. This appears to be the fallacy affirming the consequent.

The second issue is that WTC 7 doesn't look like a controlled demo other than the building fell down due to structural failure and gravity. To make that comparison based on the most superficial view is completely illogical, not to mention incredibly weak evidence for a controlled demo. Controlled demo would imply, as I said earlier, much pre-planning and logictical difficulties in setting it up. This makes theory #2 considerably more complex (since it involves many unknown factors) han theory #1.

Occam's Razor certainly applies here. It's not about the strictly simplist theory. It's about the theory with the same explanatory power but the fewest elements (complications). Theory #2 is by far a more complex theory than #1 as it involves not only the known facts from 9/11 (debris damage, fire), but also many more unknown speculations. As a result, it doesn't add anything unless you rule out theory #1 first. And if your best answer to that is "other buildings on fire didn't fall down" then it shows how weak your argument really is.

>> ^Fade:
We have two 'theories'
1 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to office furnishings burning for roughly 7 hours
2 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to controlled demolition
Problems with theories.
theory 1 - No steel skyscraper has ever suffered a complete collapse due to fire.
theory 2 - It looks like demolition but demolition implies conspiracy.

A skyscraper falling into its own footprint at freefall speed. If you can provide evidence of this happening that wasn't the result of controlled demolotion then you might have a valid point. Until then you are arguing from incredulity which we have already established is a fallacy.>> ^shponglefan:

No, the NIST report claims there is no blast sound within certain parameters (i.e. loud enough to indicate a charge capable of destroying a column). I've watched various videos of the WTC 7 collapse and the sounds in them, whether explosions or not, do not sound like any controlled demo blast.
So again, where's the evidence of a controlled demo? "Loud noises" isn't good enough.
>> ^Fade:
Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.

You say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Fine, I think it does. How will we come to a consensus?>> ^shponglefan:

The problem with theory 1 isn't a problem at all. In fact, it's largely irrelevant because what happened to WTC 7 (debris damaged followed by 7 hour fire) was a larely unique event, and that's ignoring other factors (i.e. building design, mitigating circumstances like lack of fire suppression) which may make comparisons even more unwarranted. And furthermore, even if other buildings had not collapsed under similar conditions doesn't mean it couldn't happen to WTC 7 or another building in the future. This appears to be the fallacy affirming the consequent.
The second issue is that WTC 7 doesn't look like a controlled demo other than the building fell down due to structural failure and gravity. To make that comparison based on the most superficial view is completely illogical, not to mention incredibly weak evidence for a controlled demo. Controlled demo would imply, as I said earlier, much pre-planning and logictical difficulties in setting it up. This makes theory #2 considerably more complex (since it involves many unknown factors) han theory #1.
Occam's Razor certainly applies here. It's not about the strictly simplist theory. It's about the theory with the same explanatory power but the fewest elements (complications). Theory #2 is by far a more complex theory than #1 as it involves not only the known facts from 9/11 (debris damage, fire), but also many more unknown speculations. As a result, it doesn't add anything unless you rule out theory #1 first. And if your best answer to that is "other buildings on fire didn't fall down" then it shows how weak your argument really is.
>> ^Fade:
We have two 'theories'
1 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to office furnishings burning for roughly 7 hours
2 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to controlled demolition
Problems with theories.
theory 1 - No steel skyscraper has ever suffered a complete collapse due to fire.
theory 2 - It looks like demolition but demolition implies conspiracy.

When the cops come across a dead body the first thing they do is establish whether it was murder, they worry about the motive once they've established the facts.

You're not making any sense.

First, the building falling into "into its own footprint at freefall speed" is indication of a) structual failure, and b) that gravity was working that day. In both cases, the building collapse wouldn't necessarily be any different. So this is not evidence in your favor.

Second, it's not my job to disprove your point. You're making the positive claim for a controlled demo; therefore it's your job to provide evidence for that claim. And so far, your evidence amounts to: a) the building fell down (which is irrelevant as it applies to both scenarios), and b) there were explosions (which based on my viewing of the videos sound nothing like controlled demo blasts, plus NIST also concluded there were no indications of blasts capable of destroying a structural column). So really, you don't have any real evidence of a controlled demo. At all. And claiming the lack of evidence is part of a cover-up is just a cop-out.

Incidently, I'm not making an argument from incredulity. An argument from incredulity (look it up) is "I can't imagine X, therefore X is impossible". I've never suggested a controlled demo is impossible. Rather that it's incredibly far-fetched given the complications of such an event and that you need some real evidence to support that claim in lieu of the more reasonable explanation. You haven't done that.

>> ^Fade:
A skyscraper falling into its own footprint at freefall speed. If you can provide evidence of this happening that wasn't the result of controlled demolotion then you might have a valid point. Until then you are arguing from incredulity which we have already established is a fallacy.

Now you're resorting to analogies? Besides a better one would be:

Cops establish a dead body was the result of an accident, but a bunch of random internet people want them to turn it into a murder case based on nothing more than speculation.

>> ^Fade:
When the cops come across a dead body the first thing they do is establish whether it was murder, they worry about the motive once they've established the facts.

You need to provide some real evidence to support your claim. You've heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claiming a pre-planned controlled demo and a resulting cover-up conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. So where's the extraordinary evidence to support it?

>> ^Fade:
You say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Fine, I think it does. How will we come to a consensus?

The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.

Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.>> ^shponglefan:

You need to provide some real evidence to support your claim. You've heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claiming a pre-planned controlled demo and a resulting cover-up conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. So where's the extraordinary evidence to support it?
>> ^Fade:
You say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Fine, I think it does. How will we come to a consensus?

Like I already said, the WTC 7 collapse is a relatively unique event. You can't go with historical prescedent because AFAIK, there is no other case of a similar building being hit by debris then burning for 7 hours. And even if there was, another building not collapsing does not prove that buildings can't collapse from these types of events. No two events are completely identical. Your entire line reasoning here is one giant fallacy.

Second, the controlled demo, as I've also already said, is considerably more complex as you are adding many speculative, unknown factors. That's what makes it more complicated. If you don't understand that, then I suggest looking up "complex" vs "simple" in the dictionary, because I think you have those terms confused.

Third, "governments lie about everything" is just a cop-out to ignore things you don't like (like the NIST report). And this is what conspiracy theoriests do. Whenever the evidence doesn't support you, claim it's a conspiracy. In fact, if there was a 3rd party who did the investigation and concluded the same thing as NIST, you'd just turn around and claim it's still part of the conspiracy. Basically, facts are irrelevant to you.

So yeah, you got nothing.

>> ^Fade:
The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.
Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.

You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial ) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.

So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?>> ^shponglefan:

Like I already said, the WTC 7 collapse is a relatively unique event. You can't go with historical prescedent because AFAIK, there is no other case of a similar building being hit by debris then burning for 7 hours. And even if there was, another building not collapsing does not prove that buildings can't collapse from these types of events. No two events are completely identical. Your entire line reasoning here is one giant fallacy.
Second, the controlled demo, as I've also already said, is considerably more complex as you are adding many speculative, unknown factors. That's what makes it more complicated. If you don't understand that, then I suggest looking up "complex" vs "simple" in the dictionary, because I think you have those terms confused.
Third, "governments lie about everything" is just a cop-out to ignore things you don't like (like the NIST report). And this is what conspiracy theoriests do. Whenever the evidence doesn't support you, claim it's a conspiracy. In fact, if there was a 3rd party who did the investigation and concluded the same thing as NIST, you'd just turn around and claim it's still part of the conspiracy. Basically, facts are irrelevant to you.
So yeah, you got nothing.
>> ^Fade:
The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.
Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm

How the explosives may have been planted.

>> ^Fade:
You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.
So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're certainly do a good impression of one.

As far as another investigation, the issue there is funding. Investigations aren't free, especially if you want a "more thorough" one. So who pays for it? It doesn't make sense to have another taxpayer funded one, especially since I'm sure people will still cry conspiracy any time the government is involved. OTOH, if people want to privately fund one, sure, go nuts. But is/was there actually any funding for such an investigation? If not, then the whole point is moot.

As to claiming there is no evidence for fire collapse, the NIST report is there for all to read. If you choose to reject it on conspiratorial grounds (which you are admittedly doing) then that's your perogrative. Not sure what else to say about that really.

>> ^Fade:
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm
How the explosives may have been planted.


I looked at the site and a few comments:

1) The linked video didn't work, so maybe I'm missing something important.
2) There isn't really any discussion on the site of anything specific to planting explosives; just allusions to maintenance or evacutions with no details. It reads more like speculative storytelling than anything factual.
3) Not really sure what the hubbub about Marvin Bush being on the BoD is suppose to be. The author seems to think this is Earth-shattering news, but I don't understand why? Also, looking up Wirt Walker III, couldn't find any verification he is related to the Bush family at all. And even if he were, again, I fail to see the significance.
4) From further research, WTC security is actually provided through multiple agencies. Securacom/Stratesec had a contract to provide electronic security, although from what I can gather than contract mainly took place during the mid/late 90's.

So yeah, not really seeing anything of significance.

re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.
So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?
If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're certainly do a good impression of one.
As far as another investigation, the issue there is funding. Investigations aren't free, especially if you want a "more thorough" one. So who pays for it? It doesn't make sense to have another taxpayer funded one, especially since I'm sure people will still cry conspiracy any time the government is involved. OTOH, if people want to privately fund one, sure, go nuts. But is/was there actually any funding for such an investigation? If not, then the whole point is moot.
As to claiming there is no evidence for fire collapse, the NIST report is there for all to read. If you choose to reject it on conspiratorial grounds (which you are admittedly doing) then that's your perogrative. Not sure what else to say about that really.

Re. your point about funding. A 47 story skyscraper collapsing is a worrying event. Since the new york skyline is dominated by many such buildings, all at risk of fire you would think that funding for an investigation would be readily available.

The NIST report basically says that every building in New York is going to have to be rebuilt. That's hard to swallow since no building before or since has collapsed due to fire, therefore a rational conclusion would be that the investigation was potentially flawed and should be rerun.

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.


First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.

Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).

Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

>> ^Fade:
Re. your point about funding. A 47 story skyscraper collapsing is a worrying event. Since the new york skyline is dominated by many such buildings, all at risk of fire you would think that funding for an investigation would be readily available.
The NIST report basically says that every building in New York is going to have to be rebuilt. That's hard to swallow since no building before or since has collapsed due to fire, therefore a rational conclusion would be that the investigation was potentially flawed and should be rerun.


Funding for an investigation was available; it's what NIST did. The government funding yet another investigation doesn't make much sense, especially since the NIST report was supposed to be a more thorough investigation after FEMA already made their preliminary investigation. And so far you haven't really given any good reasons to do so. There's no real evidence of controlled demos. And arguing via precedent (i.e. "other buildings didn't fall down!") is a fallacy and concluding their investigation was flawed on those grounds is illogical.

The alternative is a privately-funded investigation, but that means individuals have to cough up the cash. The NIST investigation cost about $16 million; I imagine just for WTC 7 probably ran a few million alone, so who is going to pay for it? Would you be willing to chip in a few thousand dollars of your own money to help fund such an investigation? How important is this to you really? Enough to cough up some real cash?

Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.

fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.

First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.
Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).
Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

>> ^Fade:
Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.
fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.


Wait, what? You're claiming, "I have read the full report, everything that is public", but also "If there is evidence then why isn't it public?". Uh, dude, most of the evidence *is* public.

There are 3 reports specifically related to the WTC 7 investigation. The one I assume you've read is probably the NCSTAR 1A report. But I already pointed out, there are two others, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. The NIST NCSTAR 1-9 report is ~800 pages containing loads of photographs and stills from video clips on which they based on the investigation. On top of that, videos and photos from their collection they used for the investigation are also available on their web site.

The only thing I can't find are the interviews. I don't know if that means they are not public (although there could be any number of reasons for that, not necessarily "ZOMG it's a conspiracy!"), or if I just can't find them.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. You don't buy it, that's your choice. You want another investigation, go help fund one then.

The columns dont buckle so easily... the beams could be but not the columns. All the columns are imploding, its bullshit. They have to be imploded to buckle under those conditions, its obvious.