Yay, "firefoxes"!
...But it looks like a dupe for this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hungry-red-pandas-playing
(Shouldn't that page's link be fixed instead of creating a new one?)

Also, red panda being an endangered species, they wouldn't be used as pets in Japan. This looks like some sort of reality show, the woman is most likely a veterinarian or something.

eric3579:
I have one question. Are you fucking serious? Did you read it? Out of all the material out there you chose this to reference. Is it just me?

Yes, I guess I am "fucking serious". Yes, I read it (and you didn't, see bellow). Yes I chose to reference it and...wait...what is you argument again ? Ho, that's right, you have none. You're just dismissing a source because you don't like it. Care to come up with an actual reason?


eric3579:
and where is the info for the 30 second collapse?

You ask me if I read it and you can't spot that sentence located *three lines* bellow the pictures I linked to? Can I ask you if you are "fucking serious", please? Here's the quote:

"The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in"

So the internal structure started to collapse 30 seconds before the building caved in. That's quite different from "Explosives sent the building down in 6.5 seconds tops".
Also thanks for your link which, again, shows you didn't read the websites I pointed to, as mister Jones's arguments are discussed at length there...

* * *

blankfist:
Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

A few points first:
* Being suspicious of a government who has in the past started things like the Phoenix Program or MK Ultra is completely understandable. I do not question that.
* The 911 Report is an unconvincing (I would say "incomplete") piece of work on some points. Namely if you ask me, the guys who wrote down that finding out where the terrorists funds came from was "not important" should be thrown down into a pit full of hungry talibans.

That being said:
The most vocal "Conspiracy Theorists", and more specifically those giving themselves names like "911 Truth Movement" do focus on stuff that is, frankly, preposterous. Imagine you are the government and DO cause the 9/11 attacks...why in hell would you, on top of that, sneak in several tons of explosives in buildings occupied by several tenth of thousands employees? Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of doing this? Seriously, why do it? And if you do, why make it a (supposedly) "clean" controlled demolition? Why hide the result and not say the terrorists placed the explosives too?
None of this makes sense, but still a few nutjobs broadcast long-debunked claims. Cellphones don't work in airplanes: Lies. Building free-falling into their own footprint: Lies. Signs of explosions and use of thermite during the collapse (erm, I thought thermite did not explode?): Lies. It's all been proven wrong, but they still repeat it. Each and every "evidence" I have looked at has been debunked, and none has been actually PROVED.
Again, if you have any "real research", with actual solid evidence, please provide it. I doubt you will, because if any hard evidence was found (and by hard I mean which cannot be refuted), here's what would happen:
* Governments hostile to the US would use it and put it under scrutinity.
* Neutral media (independent or foreign media) would report it.
* Eventually mainstream media would have to report it, if only to downplay it.
Do you see any of this happening?

Meanwhile, the real issues (like "where did the money come from", "how did the terrorists operate" or "why did the administration repeatedly ignore warnings from its allies prior to 9/11") remain unanswered. I guess they don't sell as many books.

I am not dismissing any and all dissent toward the official 911 explanation, but in regard to those making claims about "the 911 physics", I do stand by my statement and think it is them who are baseless: they're all talk and no proof.

Notice how all these clips always show the same edited segment of the WTC7 collapse, from the same convenient location? That's because:
* The building was very much on fire at that time.
* As noted above, there was no detonation or explosion.
* It actually took 30 seconds for the building to collapse.
* It actually spread debris over 150 meters.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile?

While we're at it, here's some actually researched information on the subject (as opposed to edited clips of footage found on Youtube):
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
(This is not the first time these two websites are brought up on Videosift. Apparently some are much more comfortable with having an opinion than with having the actual facts)

The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it. And then you'll have to start all over again. With them, everything is about beliefs and dogma, nothing is about facts. Reminds you of another kind of people? That's right, they're behaving just like creationists.