*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 5th, 2011 8:54am PDT - promote requested by shuac.

And remember, building 7 was the third tower, the one that wasn't even hit by a plane and yet still collapsed into its own footprint like the other two.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Fade.

The Aliens did it.

the symmetry of the building 7 collapse still bothers me...

Great slow motion clip of building 7 collapsing:
http://videosift.com/video/Office-Fires-How-do-they-work

Newly released video (Jan 2011) by NIST following FOIA lawsuit by International Center for 9/11 Studies.

Thank you internet...you are a supreme waste of time.

>> ^Yogi:

Thank you internet...you are a supreme waste of time.


I agree.

http://videosift.com/video/Sick-School-DJ-Steve-Porter-Community-Remix

Curiously, given all the Wall Street scandals later in the year, Building 7 housed the SEC files related to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Some were backed up in other places, but many were not, especially those classified as confidential

This is really getting a) old and b) laughable.

We are expected to believe that some elite group (who are these people btw? CIA? NSA? the illuminati?) managed to sneak tonnes of explosive into a building that was used daily by hundreds (thousands?) of people and no-one noticed or said anything?

Also if you've ever seen a controlled demolition site, it's covered in wires and cables and the explosives are strapped directly to the support columns. There isn't a single witness to this?

Finally, we're supposed to believe these same ninja demomen (presumably one-eyed black scots) are awesome enough to do all this but phenomenally stupid enough to make the whole thing look like a controlled explosion? They couldn't have detonated one side first and let it fall in a more chaotic and "believable" way?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Yogi:
Thank you internet...you are a supreme waste of time.

I agree.
http://videosift.com/video/Sick-School-DJ-Steve-Porter-Community-Remix



Thanks for the link...at least mine was entertaining

dear dude @1:20,

if you want to ruin your credibility, wear that tie. then wear it like that. jussayin

oh and...

Building number 7 descended in free-fall...


Why repeat this kind of easily and thoroughly debunked crap? And if you can debunk the debunking, do that. Focus on one thing, and actually make a case for it. Don't just throw out crap like this and pretend there isn't plenty of well researched answers that are a Google search away for anyone.

But, then again, don't bother. Aside from any particular physical evidence, even more clear is the fact that the "alternate" story doesn't make any sense. You want to start a war with Iraq or Afghanistan? How about you find some terrorists from one of those places instead of the random Saudis? Or do a reasonable job planting some WMDs (not memos or hearsay but real bloody stuff that you can bring back hard evidence of) in Iraq (which would have been a hell of a lot easier and better, surer motivation for war). Another idea: find a terrorist plot that would work on its own, instead of a weird compound plot where you fly in some planes, but then also have explosives. It makes no sense.

And why the hell would you bother with tower 7? It just increases your risk of detection without anyone giving a single crap. How many people were going to say, "well, the terrorists got the big towers... but they didn't hurt tower 7, so we don't need to go to war". It's just so very dumb, and it's the kind of mistake not compatible with an otherwise apparently magical, omniscient, undetectable operation.

I can scarcely imagine a bizarre universe where any of this makes sense. If I'm some Illuminati type who can pull of 9/11 the way these guys describe, I could have come up with a million cheaper, easier, surer plans - or even just simple variations that would have decreased risk of detection, funneled American reaction better, and generally been not batshit insane.

Sure people have profited from 9/11 - a lot of varied, disconnected people have probably got moderately rich. But if they needed money and had this kind of skill and willingness to kill thousands, they could have got it a lot of easier ways. Again, if you want to go to war with Iraq, launch a few missiles out of Baghdad into Israel. Boom. Easy (comparatively at least). Or just find a few Iraqis and blow them up somewhere sensitive (and maybe, again, plant some good evidence). Again, just put enough explosive (or, hell, a nuke) in their semi truck to blow up the building - no synchronized controlled demolition required. Or millions other easier, more foolproof plans.

It's like the fantastic idiots who believe Russians surgically modified children and crashed them in experimental aircraft by Roswell (or whatever). Yeah, sure, whatever... I guess it's possible (as in doesn't contravene laws of physics) and I suppose it is an explanation for certain people's claims of experiences. But it's also complete nonsense. It's not a plan that makes sense to work towards any possible goal. And, like these WTC conspiracies, it's trivial to come up with much better plans that don't require nearly the work or risk and accomplish goals easier and better.

Conspiracy theories are like religion. There is absolutely NOTHING you can say to someone that wears a tin-foil hat to disprove what they believe. Even when faced with evidence to the contrary, they just believe it is part of a massive "cover-up" that is so laughably impractical and illogical it rivals turning water into wine...

@marbles

Can you please get obsessed with this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/roswell-ufo-russia-plane_n_865710.html

Hear hear.

>> ^ponceleon:

Conspiracy theories are like religion.

I never was satisfied with the NTSB's report on the super pancaking explanation for the speed of the towers collapse. Perhaps it is emotional, but it is less convincing than many other of their findings from plane crashes and the like. What always puzzled me is why the building was so quick to be disposed of instead of what they do on planes; reconstruct it and examine. Perhaps the scale was to great or the fall and subsequent stack of it made reconstruction impossible, but it always left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps all the misgivings that I have they share as well, and instead of letting that foster a share of doubt and mystery, they have gone the other direction and made positive assertions of conspiracy. My guess is people don't like doubt, at all. It drives the theist to make claims of a God, it drives some atheists to make the claim of no God. People can't say, "I don't know and I don't know that the truth is ever knowable" doesn't sit well with the bulk of humanity, even those who would consider themselves the elite of intellectuals, perhaps even them the most.

At any rate, I would watch this once. Depending on the tone of the first 20 mins would determine if I watched it the whole way through. I was forced to watch that Ben Stine movie about creationism, and I hated it, but not nearly as much as I hated the show by Bill Maher (see elite of intellectuals above) about how dumb people that don't think like him are.

Will this be our generations Gulf of Tonkin, doubtful. Will it contain some meaningful doubts on a hasty and politically mired investigation, hopefully. Will there be more crazies than you can tolerate in one sitting, time will tell.

>> ^hpqp:

Hear hear.
>> ^ponceleon:
Conspiracy theories are like religion.



Except that some have been proven as fact, unlike religion.

Not to mention, after all of that going off without a hitch, every one of the hundreds of ninja demomen involved kept their mouths shut and never told anyone.

The average person can't keep their mouth shut about office rumors and surprise parties; there's no way you could keep the thousands of people in on the plan all quiet.
>> ^ChaosEngine:

This is really getting a) old and b) laughable.
We are expected to believe that some elite group (who are these people btw? CIA? NSA? the illuminati?) managed to sneak tonnes of explosive into a building that was used daily by hundreds (thousands?) of people and no-one noticed or said anything?
Also if you've ever seen a controlled demolition site, it's covered in wires and cables and the explosives are strapped directly to the support columns. There isn't a single witness to this?
Finally, we're supposed to believe these same ninja demomen (presumably one-eyed black scots) are awesome enough to do all this but phenomenally stupid enough to make the whole thing look like a controlled explosion? They couldn't have detonated one side first and let it fall in a more chaotic and "believable" way?

ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN AMPLY, WELL AND TRULY, COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.

This is utter dribble.

This bullshit mindset of 'It looked like a demolition, therefore it is' is STUPID.

Many things LOOK like other things and are not.

And all this shit about inability of things being able to get that hot is also bullshit.

It's utter, utter shit.

And oooh, scary music... scary... ooooh.

'Most likely'... really? Your most likely hypothesis is that it was a secretly planned and carried out demolition.

With no explosive noise.

Well done.

I've lost count of how many times I've linked this video to someone.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Blueprint-for-Truth-Compelling-Presentation
Same organization, but a two hour lecture without ominous music gets the point across a bit more professionally and more believable than this little video.

http://videosift.com/video/Apollo-Moon-Landing-Site-Photographed-HD

The conspiracy continues!!!

Alright, fine. You got me. I did it.

I love how all the scientist on the sift downvote this crap.

>> ^ponceleon:

http://videosift.com/video/Apollo-Moon-Landing-Site-Photographed-HD
The conspiracy continues!!!


What does that have to do with 9/11? Only an idiot would think we didn't go to the moon. And sorry to say, not all people who don't fall lock-step in line with what we are told by the media and the government believe everything is a conspiracy. You are just as bad as the atheist idiots that lump all religious people in with Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. that have extremist views. News flash: NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME! How many times do people have to be reminded of this?

P.S. http://videosift.com/video/Interview-The-Passionate-Attachment-George-Ball-1993

Watch that and tell me there's nothing fishy going on here.

>> ^thumpa28:

...and yet this still makes the top 15, which shows how a small bunch of retards can elevate their retarded views on conspiracies (tinfoil hat wearing 'I believe anything said by anoyone who has the caption 'scientist' underneath their idiocy' retards) and religion (tedious 'nobody fucking cares how you came to the conclusion that god doesn't exist, youre sounding more preachy than the average fucking religious nutjob' retards) to the point that it actually seems a popular topic of conversation.


This.

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.

http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE

I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?

>> ^Fade:

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.
http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE
I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?


No, you're completely ass backwards.

The burden is not on people to prove that the fires brought down the buildings. Two aeroplanes flew into the towers, they fell down.

The burden is on those that continue to wail that there was a secret conspiracy to plant explosives in the buildings and bring them down... AFTER some planes were flown into them.

The burden is ON YOU.

And any 'evidence' that the conspiracy theorists have brought up have been TIME AND AGAIN shown to be bullshit.

So, sorry, but you're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle.

Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the one... we SAW the planes hit the towers, WTC7 was right next to them, sustained damage, fell down. Simplest explanation.

Add the planes being flown into the buildings on TOP of all the conspiracy bullshit and you've just made it FAR more complicated, FAR more unbelievable, and FAR more implausible.

And the facts do NOT support any of it.

s/experts/dipshits/g

Full documentary:
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out