>> ^Fade:

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?



Someone made a really good point in the WTC 7 video the other day where they pointed out that just because they're scientists/experts doesn't mean they're immune to a good conspiracy. Surely it's not lost on you that you are taking their word for it and ignoring the "experts" who debunk it?

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.

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.

I wonder if architectural engineers ever saw this footage before and if it would help them more accurately model WTC2's collapse..
---------

I was on R train riding to work, while at the last stop in Brooklyn conductor announced that "due to smoke conditions" at WTC station my train would be skipping that stop. So I got out a stop earlier at 'White Hall' station. I had no idea what was going on. I had my headphones on listening to music. The moment I stepped outside I heard a noise as if a helicopter and then a loud boom. I thought that was just a supersonic boom of a plane. I saw people on the street looking up in the sky and thought to myself why they are looking up in the sky, if that was a supersonic boom that plane was long gone. I still had no idea what was going on. As I got closer to my office, I crossed Wall St and suddenly I felt something like dust/dirt/tiny shards of glass falling on me and large amount of papers flying around. By the time I got to Maiden Ln where my office was I could clearly see what was happening.

If I hadn't gotten off one stop earlier, I think I would have been stuck on that train under WTC....... ;(

>> ^dag:

My parents called me at 3 in the morning (Australia time) and woke me up. I thought someone in our family died, as you always do if you get a call in the middle of the night.
I sat up the rest of the night and watched the live CNN feed downstairs while the kids slept.
I went in to work in the morning and felt kind of weird because everyone wanted to give me their condolences. I was the only American in the office and it really effected everyone here in Australia too, So they wanted to say they were sorry to me.
For weeks afterwords people would ask me if I knew anyone who died in the towers.


Weird. I assume you didn't know anyone in the towers? The closest are my cousins and aunts who live in NY, but had no idea if they worked in/near WTC. They're all alive today so no.

Thanks for the info. Really added depth to the whole situation.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
http://searchmidmarketsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/script-kiddy


above is the inspiration for the people who named themselves "script kiddy"

>> ^quantumushroom:

1) Motive?
2) How does a conspiracy which would no doubt involve 100s of people keep itself a total secret for 10-plus years?


THANK YOU! They can't keep Clintons BJs a secret...how in the HELL are they going to keep this fucking thing a secret. It's absolute bullshit.

...and now a quality! Thank you!

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
*quality

Youn are welcome I have always been a Depeche Mode fan, and this is a great video! Lemme slap some quality on it too to get it back to the front page

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
What a great video to promote today. Thanks! :

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
*promote

>> ^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.

Very well said, and thank you very much for the promote.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
This is a *quality way of remembering those lost in the WTC terrorist attacks (instead of all that conspiracy nonsense).

Peace be with all those who lost family and loved ones.

What a great video to promote today. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
*promote

This is a *quality way of remembering those lost in the WTC terrorist attacks (instead of all that conspiracy nonsense).

Peace be with all those who lost family and loved ones.