There's such a stark contrast between the tone of the early coverage on that day vs what we see with any incident now. While a few of the presenters made mention of the previous bombing at the WTC, there seemed to be a very strong resistance to suggesting it might have been terrorism. I watched another video recently that was a somewhat similar concept, but was longer and bounced from source to source. In that video as in this one it felt like the various people speaking badly wanted the first impact to have been an accident or an explosion from within the tower, rather than a purposeful attack.

Given that the only footage of that first collision didn't come to light until much later and eyewitness reports are frequently unreliable, "we just don't know" was the best they seemed willing to offer. Until the 2nd plane hit, at which point I think the facts spoke for themselves.

How do you know his mom is open to the air? My mom is in a plastic container waiting for us to scatter her remains in a sentimental location. Even if she was alive she would be one average target amongst 400 million. The WTC was one of a half dozen PRIME targets in the US on 9/11. The Hyperloop, on completion would become THE PRIME target in the US, not just for ISIS or Al Quaeda but for every nutjob who wanted to attract attention to himself. Hell, you'd probaly have rednecks out hunting taking potshots at it like it was a stop sign.

That being said, I'm still in favor of doing the research because even if Hyperloop never materializes, the research will inevitably have positive spinoffs. We should always dream big.

This article in the Journal of Metals is one of the best I've seen for clear explanation of what caused the WTC collapses.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

It points out that the weaking of steel from heat was insufficient in itself to cause the collapse but combined with the distortion of structural members due to uneven heating and expansion and the weight of material above the impact sites was the main cause. The weight of the portion of the north tower above the impact site was about 50000T and the south was about 150000T, which explains why the south collapsed so much sooner after impact.

1. I believe all gays should be forced to own guns. No gay marriage without the exchange of revolvers!
2. Gerry Mander deserved better than this.
3. Apparently that's the freedom those muslim terrorists hate. First WTC, now Paris. Go figure.

Had to upvote for my avatar! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Agreed on the WTC clip.

Prefabricated construction has a long history both in China and the west, and to some degree almost every modern building uses the technique. There is a video on here about the construction of the Empire State building for instance, and the WTC twin towers were quite prefabricated too. (*related: Steel erecting on the Empire State Building -1930s, Building the World Trade Center Towers 720p HD)

It was particularly popular in ancient Rome, and combined with the use of cranes and concrete their construction times weren't that different to the modern era (actually sometimes faster, I think the planning process must have been more streamlined).

The standardised look of ancient Chinese buildings is for the same reason, the parts were standardised to make prefabrication easier, certainly by the Ming dynasty if not earlier - see http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/705 for instance.

This particular building just does a particularly good job of it.

Least we forget 911, you'll recall that the headquarters for the Securities and Exchange commission was conveniently eliminated before the hi-jacking of everyone's money when WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint at free-fall speed, not unlike the world's economy is doing now.

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

I don't like this.
(1) There was no escort.
(2) There was no video.
(3) This is a (low quality) advertisement.
(4) The entire thing feels like glurge ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=glurge ). These guys might have killed many enemy airmen. Why show mercy at this point? Did the German fighter pilot make a habit of partially disabling planes and letting the crew fly home to pilot a new plane? Heck, that B-17 might have just gotten done bombing a German city.

War is such a terrible thing. This video makes me uneasy -- it makes it seem like there is honor, mercy, and order in a war in which tens of millions died horrible, anonymous deaths. This event is an exception that is contrary not just to the larger event, but to the morality of the very men involved.

It's like those photos of the happenstance cross in the WTC ruins.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We're not perfect and as was mentioned this is a gray area. There are reasons given in each individual post why the examples you cited were included. Also, we've been around for six years - our culture is a living thing and evolving. With six years worth of video content you are going to find things that support or condemn your position.

We try for consistency and we try to follow the guidelines but citing precedence is my least favourite way of supporting a position on VideoSift. You'll always be able to cherry pick - and it sounds a little too much like "why are you picking on me?"

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.
Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.
I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.
I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.
The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.


Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.

Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.

I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.

I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.

The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'World Trade Center, WTC, Twin Towers, New York City, NYC, CNN' to 'Dan Meth, World Trade Center, WTC, Twin Towers, New York City, NYC, CNN' - edited by Trancecoach

I'm not going to spend more time than this on your conspiracy theories; the link is there, and that's only one of many sources. As for being intellectually disabled... if you can't tell wild conjecture and paranoid delusions from evidence and logic, than that insult coming from you weighs nothing at all.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Oh yeah, the Arab Spring revolts were such a NATO conspiracy. They really had to spread it, topple a couple of other dictators peacefully, all that to be able to... whatever it is they're scheming to do.

Also: "It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission"." --> [citation needed]
As for the WTC, people far more informed than I have debunked the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it (first site Google offers, for some among many examples). But hey, those are all just guv'mint paid shills perpetuating the lies, and the evidence they present is really just very, very elaborate smoke screens, right?




>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
I already gave you links to journals debunking these 911 conspiracies, under one of your other vids. And yes, I did watch the video, although skipping through it, because I've heard all these conjectures before. Nothing new nor convincing has been added to the truther delusions so far.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
The tags are almost right: the claims made in this video are indeed lies and conspiracy theories, that have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Not that I actually believe you watched the video, but care to be more specific on what "claims" you're talking about and cite where they have been "thoroughly debunked over and over again"?


No specifics then? I didn't think so.
Run along now, no time for the intellectually disabled to start thinking on their own.

>> ^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.