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.

>> ^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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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'.

>> ^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.

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'.

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'.

>> ^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

>> ^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.

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.