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:
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?

>> ^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.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

>> ^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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

>> ^J-Gaston:

At that distance, there would have been a delay between the flashes and sounds. The 9/11 truthers are so retarded.




"the 9/11 truthers are so retarded" that statement is retarded and counter productive.

I don't neccecerly agree with any of the "conspiracy theories" but I do agree the oficail report is lacking in some areas , and the government handled the entire situation poorly , also the way the government and respective companies are treating people suffering from inhalating dust and asbestos when told it was safe is rediculouse.

piont is just because there are people who believe and try to promote absurd ideas about 911 there are still a good number of legitimate points and questions that should be answered by the government.

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?