>> ^ChaosEngine:
Presumably, these "certain groups" are the same people who blew up WTC7.


Presumably, you're a disgusting human being:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^lantern53:
I still prefer a confused right to lifer than a crystal clear abortionist.

Fuck you, I love abortionism. I aborted 15 kids before breakfast.
Too many damn people on the planet anyway, so let's start by deleting anyone we can.
Yeah, that's right I am pro-death. Particularly yours.
Happy now?

And FWIW, a dumb one too. Everyone knows WTC7 blew itself up. *eyeroll*

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
WTF?
As a doctor, you decide which procedures to perform and which to recommend to another physician. Where on earth do you get your information?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, he did a poor job clarifying his personal beliefs, versus beliefs about what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
Of course, compared to the Kenyawaiian narcissist, Cain is a genius many times over, with actual business and life experience.

I don't understand what you mean by "what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do." Remember the government isn't forcing abortions onto people...it's saying that it cannot make them illegal. Isn't that what you want? Less government intervention into our personal lives?

Not true. There is a push by certain groups to force doctors to perform abortions even if they morally object to them on a personal level.


Don't bother trying to comprehend what you quote. Notice I said "a push by certain groups".
So are you just ignorant, or are you ignorant and inept at actually researching the issue I brought up?


Presumably, these "certain groups" are the same people who blew up WTC7.

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?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BBC, 7WTC, 911 Truth, demolition, Barry Jennings, explosions, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas' to 'BBC, 7WTC, 911 Truth, demolition, Barry Jennings, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas, WTC7' - edited by marinara

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?

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.

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.

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.

>> ^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.

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.

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

... Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay.

In fact, 5 war games were scheduled for 9/11, including games that included the insertion of false radar blips onto air traffic contollers’ screens. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm">video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html">official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that on 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft posing as hijacked airliners.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that “Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens”. This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were moved up to September 11th by persons unknown.

Now here’s where it gets interesting … Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y]

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn’t foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney – who had been attacking democracy for nearly 40 years – as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

"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.

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

>> ^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.