So explain WTC 7.

When are people going to pull their heads out and face the obvious.

9/11 was an inside job, and those buildings were demo'd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse

You're a religious fundamentalist, sir. Instead of gods and messiahs, you believe in conspiracies.

One of the main reasons that this is not fully convincing that it was just caused by the fires and not thermodetonators plus fires - is the fact that pools of molten metal running through the channels in the basement areas and is clearly visible from other photos where they were pulling steel beams covered with the molten metal.

Also, there are other main factors involved here, such as eyewitness testimony, accound and audio/video recordings that show multiple explosions occurring.

-- At the very moment I'm writing this, I'm viewing on CSPAN a testimony from WTC Janitor William Rodriguez as he and others claimed a major explosion in the basement are occurred about a minute or two before the plane hit the first tower as well as several other explosions throughout the buildings and his personal witness an assistance of a severe burn victim from one of these explosions.
I've heard debunkers claim that some of the multiple explosions were the result of propane canisters in kitchens that were exploding from the heat, however this is not possible because the WTC was a Class A bldg that had electrical kitchens with propane being considered a hazardous chemical that was not allowed in a class A bldg.

CSPAN is replaying this video every other hour today. Rodriguez' testified before the 9/11 commission, however was either ommitted by the commission or redacted by the Bush administration (28 pages redacted by the White House).

This and other questions such as Bldg. 7, the strange crash of flight 93, flight 77's ultra-precision maneuvers by sub-standard pilots (there are photos of an array of antennas that was installed on the roof of the pentagon at that location reportedly just a few months before the attack which could have been used for navigational guidance) and the multiple reports that 5-6 of the 19 reported terrorists that flew the planes are still alive.

I'm not claiming that any of this is true or not... but these are solid enough to warrant a major investigation that is not directed by the White house or influenced by corporate and CIA/FBI directives.

The Keane/Zelikow commission has reported that much information has been withheld and/or stymied from them during their investigation.

(Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission) states: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. ... People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.

Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission states: Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot.

Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 states: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.", "...This investigation is now compromised."

I don't have the patience to answer the same accusations over and over again, but suffice it to say there's a lot of oversimplifications and quotes taken out of context there.

Sorry, but I believe you've got to be mentally ill to believe that planted "thermodetonators" are more plausible than what the vast majority of scientists have agreed upon.

Good for you, Theo. The conspiracists are rather like the religious.

debunk?
what does that even mean?
Is it a sort of jelly?
I'm confused,
is it a lack of spunk?

The horrors of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkum

"As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproval of a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense. The term debunk originated in 1923, when American novelist William Woodward (1874-1950) used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things."

So in effect the goal of any debunker, as a social verifier, is to take the life out of something, his goal isn't truth, it's mortification. How nice that this gross and vulgar term originated in political discourse.
I have no problem with this video, but the overuse of the term and the psychological realities underlying its use make me sick.

You're weird, dude.

and you're...

...not.

Not on this subject, anyway.

bluecliff's breakdown of the word was perfect. The "weird" part comes, perhaps, from some inability of this post's step-child, to engage in responsible discourse.
Why "debunk" when to satisfy all involved, with every possible model, in light of the accusations and the effects of this event, would be the sane and healthy thing to do?
Because it's safer and uses less mental energies, to march in lock-step with those who take for granted that they are being told the truth.

"I don't have the patience to answer the same accusations over and over again"
That's a crock. You have the patience to maintain an opinion because you feel it is important to do so, and, as is easy to observe, not unlike Geraldo Revolto did, on the post you recently discarded of the live broadcast and the protestors in the background....with an uncomfortable tone, halted speech, transitioning to loaded, and devisive words, like the tags you placed on the same post{activist, radical, communist, misfits, nutjobs} when your inability to discredit, becomes obvious to all.

Textbook, passive aggression.

Everyone, meet my obsessed troll.

I'm just waiting for Osama's video. He's leaving it a little late no?

....only when the trollee's head be reared form its dual-cheeked hold, does the troll obsess...always on this subject, and graciously awaiting the vortice created from the twirl.....

As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproval of a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense.

And all this time I thought it meant getting out of bed.

i can't figure out how the sagging would pull the walls in like that. And i can't figure out how the core collapsed. Nothing said in this video about that, no pretty cgi, so I guess there's still some bunk in there somewhere.

Uh, try watching it with your eyes open next time, MINK. Both of your queries were addressed.

deleted.

let's just agree to disagree dude. that video is as convincing as the conspiracy videos to me, i.e. not very.

*solopsism

Give it up, people will always believe there is a conspiracy. No matter WHO conducts the investigation, they will always believe it was a set-up by the government.

If they did a totally independent investigation and find the same things, they will all claim some other BS. I mean, look at the idiotic Face on Mars thing....back when Viking took that picture it looked like a face...but when the Mars Global Surveyor took detailed photos of the area, it was shown to be just a mountain...nothing more. No ancient Martian race or architecture. But to this day, there are still people that STILL believe it's a face and that the government is covering it up with false photos. No matter what, people will believe what they want.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

but what stunts would they pull if they knew nobody was going to ask any questions about it?

fact is, governments have taken the piss out of the citizenry for so long, you really need to shift the burden of proof... prove they are honest, i challenge you. Show me the evidence that the US government don't do this sort of evil thing.

Seeing as governments always lie, I have no idea why people default to believing in them.

I definitely can't listen to someone who says "we have all the results, FEMA say this and that, NIST did some calculations, so go back to sleep, america"

Show you the evidence that the US government doesn't do this sort of thing? Hmmm...have you ever tried proving a negative? Give it a shot...

Also, what's more plausible...20 goofballs highjacking planes and ramming them into buildings, or a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people to pull off with no credible witnesses at all and no physical evidence of any explosives....and then having all those people involved remain totally silent about the whole thing?

This video doesn't do anything for me. Sorry.

Nice, theo. Personally attack everyone that doesn't agree with you. That will help convince them that maybe they are wrong.

"a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people to pull off..."

Why would this require thousands of people?

Rotty -- forgetting for a moment that you come off like a jerk in every thread you post in...pardon me for hoping that adults in this country would act like adults.

This Alex Jones/Ron Paul/9/11/conspiracy nut garbage is clearly for mental midgets who aren't terribly fond of reality. Excuse me for getting a little cranky.

"forgetting for a moment that you come off like a jerk in every thread you post in."....Pot and Kettle.

Meant to mention that the oxi-moronic inclusion of the word "debunked" in this post, is a foot-shot for certain-What do you say about a person, who is convinced they have the answers to the who's and why's behind 9/11.....You have to conclude, that they are morons, and idiots, unless they have inside information, available to the "Your Eyes Only" group.

If you believe that fire brought down those buildings then you are a fucking idiot.

Case closed.

alright irishman, real solid logic in that argument. I'll have to remember that. "F*king idiot" has class no?

choggie, this is not meant as an insult at all, but I'm just wondering if English is like your 3rd or 4th language, because I always have a hard time following what you're trying to say. It's almost like you wrote it out in your native language, translated it via a web translator to Korean, then French, then into English. I'm just wondering.

theo...I come off like a jerk because I disagree with you, right? Well then, there are a bunch of "jerks" posting here.

Actually, you are the one "coming off like a jerk". Did you take your meds today? Perhaps you should double-up?

Really, why does it bother you that others have opinions that differ than yours?

"If you believe that fire brought down those buildings then you are a fucking idiot.

Case closed."

Hmmm..

And if you believe tonnes of explosives were planted in the building's over the space of several weeks and that loads of major support structures inside the buildings were removed, without a single person noticing, then you are a f'ing idiot.

Demolition doesn't just involve a couple of well placed explosives. It requires weeks of work. Work which you couldn't do discreetly.

It was an inside job, and more and more people know this. Look at polls done in the U.S. and abroad.

"If you believe that fire brought down those buildings then you are a fucking idiot."

Well, then I guess I'm an idiot. Funny, I didn't know it until now. Nor did any of my friends, family, or colleagues from my university. But Irishman says so, so I guess it must be true. After all, he has demonstrated clearly that he's mastered logic and rhetoric. Oh, wait...instead he's just engaged in an abusive ad hominem in violation of the norms of critical thinking. To think that such people are on the intertubes!

His comment is a good example of the kind of conceit we often see from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Not only were the attacks an inside job, but the evidence is so overwhelming--so conclusive!--that those who don't agree must be idiots or liars. I hate to break it to you, my conspiracy-oriented friends, but there are lots of smart people who've looked at the same evidence you have, and come to a radically different conclusion. They think that the conspiracy can only be justified by a perversion of abductive inference. They think that the official story is, indeed, the best explanation for the facts at hand. But most of all, they think it's tedious to have to listen to a bunch of folks who are no more qualified to assess the evidence than they are tell them how "obvious" it is that they are wrong.

So, believe what you like. Keep sharing findings, and keep trying to justify your conclusions. If you are able to adduce better reasons, maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking. Until then, please stop being so fucking arrogant.

If you want a great example of how hard it is to reason with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, watch the Popular Mechanics vs. Loose Change debate. Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas blatantly disregard expert opinion, and just act like kids throughout most of it.

For those who haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

Thanks, dbalsdon - that was painful to watch. What a couple of tools those two kids are.

there're a lot of mysteries surrounding 9/11, particularly that the U.S government will not release any information, photos or footage of a whole bunch of things surrounding the event.
a few things i have queries with: no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon, no photos of the wreckage of the other plane that just crashed into the ground. what's that molten metal stuff dripping out of the main buildings, why would all of the buildings fall identically to a controlled demolition?
wasnt there something on the bbc where they reported building 7 was going to fall - half an hour before it did. wasnt some firefighter or some guy in authority recorded sayng 'pull it'? some experts on controlled demolitions are shown the footage of these buildings collapsing and they give the verdict that they must have been 'pulled' with explosives. also no jets/interception was attempted at any point at the planes by the U.S government. there was an attempted bombing of the world trade center years before and there was something suspicious regarding the CIA to do with that. osama was trained by the CIA. there's more i cant think of right now, it might all mean nothing.

basically, i'm not convinced about anything to do with this. it doesnt matter that there's a bunch of people saying it was the U.S government, or even if they were saying it was aliens, what matters is that information is being withheld regarding many aspects of this - which is obviously very suspicious.
the government has that info and wont release it, even though it would result in millions of americans trusting them much more.

if you straight off think there's nothing in any part of this that sounds iffy then i cant help but think that you must be some brainwashed patriot. if you think there's something in 'all' of these conspiracies theories - then you're a nut. there's some middle ground where us 'thinking' people are.

dont you find it hard to trust your govenment when they straight out lie to you. we arent told what's really taking place in the middle east, it's not because they're run by mentalists, that is the number one trick in the orwellian book...
personally i suspect, and this is just a thought, that america and israel and a few other countries govenments are in allegiance and there's a long-term plan of take-over of most of the middle-east, partially for the oil, mostly for world power.

what they tell you 'is the truth' - 'isnt the truth', so what are you supposed to think? ...for yourself!

If you believe that fire brought those buildings down then you are a fucking idiot.

Whether you believe any of the other theories is irrelevant. Fire did not bring them down. It was not fire that brought down the buildings. Fire did not collapse the twin towers.

If you believe it did, then you are a fucking idiot.

You're right -- it was gravity.

Moron.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

We don't know who or what was behind 9/11, but it's pretty clear that the original explanation just doesn't add up.

People want to believe that 9/11 happened according to the original story because, if it didn't, that means we've been bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq for all the wrong reasons.

And the cons can't live with having to admit they were wrong.

It’s so much more fun to self-righteously bomb the shit out of poor people living halfway around the world.

I can buy weakening steel and major structural damage causing collapse but the biggest issue for me is explaining how these 3 buildings fell into their own footprint at near free fall speed. As I understand it's a very complex matter for demolition experts to achieve this, requiring precise placement and timing of explosives.

That the 3 buildings did this on this one day seems to me to defy common sense and all odds. Surely building aren't built such that if you have one part of it fail the whole thing disintegrates and collapses entirely onto itself. This is where I see the burden of proof and if there can be some consensus on this by independent civil engineering groups etc then I'll be satisfied.

Show me the structural sequence of events including ALL parts of the building structure for each building that achieves what we saw happen. So far I've only seen stuff that explains the onset of failure in a small section of the structure. We know controlled demolition can do it, can random uneven damage to a building do it? Hopefully these new investigations can shed more light for me here.

if you think a government wouldn't have something to hide about an event like this, then you really ARE an idiot.

What's more likely, corrupt government allows/helps "terrorist" "attack" in order to launch an oil war? Or sweet innocent president wakes up one day to realise that God chose him to lead a surge of democracy around the world?

Read history, and find out that normally the former option happens, and is dressed up as the latter option. Over and over again.

i mean, if the CIA paid Bin Laden, helped Saddam, and sold weapons to Iran, friendly with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (not democracies btw) and is allied with Israel, how could there NOT be a conspiracy here? you think international diplomacy is all above board and publicly accountable? LOL!

It's not about "proving a negative" it's about the obvious facts staring you in the face... there was a camera pointing at the pentagon, we haven't seen the photos from it, er...... why?

don't you dare try to shout down people who ask why.

if they try to shout you down with some bullshit theory then go ahead, be a jerk to them. but if they are asking the question and looking for an answer, why would you shut down the investigation? what kind of confidence do you have in your beliefs that you need to discourage people from looking further?

people say "oh conspiracy theorists are never satisfied" ... well, what does that prove? nothing.

the animation in this video is not accurate, and the video does not describe the direction of forces in the structure. i wish it did. at the moment i hear someone say "sagging" and i see some cgi, but that is not an explanation and it is certainly not proof.

There was a video released, and on it, you do clearly see something heading towards the pentagon. What sort of photo evidence are you wanting? A clear shot of the plane about to strike the building? The best shot your gonna get is from the video i've just mentioned.

I can almost guarantee you, the last thing on the minds of anyone who saw the plane flying towards the building, was of taking a photo. They would've probably been sh****ng themselves, thinking about friends and family that might've been in the building at the time.

There was a video released, and on it, you do clearly see something heading towards the pentagon.

Please provide a link to such footage. (Actually, that goes for everyone else that says such and such evidence exists without backing it up.)

dbalsdon's right, there is a '1-frame-a-second' video footage from '1' angle of something(?!) flying into the pentagon. all footage was confiscated and that was released later. it shows nothing though.
the hole in the pentagon is too small for a plane - but i can imagine how it would have just kind of disintegrated on impact and left a hole of any random size.
i wonder how easy it is to start a conspiracy over anything and watch it grow, there's like a hundred iffy things about 9/11... i'm still not swayed either way.

There were lots of warnings about an attack occuring. Yet we are lead to believe it was a suprise attack. I still to this day cannot buy that the intelligence community failed in this regard, when it has fought a cold war with the USSR.

The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission – New Jersey’s former Republican Governor Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton, respectively – agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

“The whole story might have been different,” Kean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the “lack of coordination within the FBI” and the FBI’s failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui’s arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.

Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells that would be derived from human embryos.

Scientists complained that the existing lines were too tainted with mouse cells and too limited to be of much value. But the national news media mostly hailed Bush’s split decision as “Solomon-like” and proof that he had greater gravitas than his critics would acknowledge.

CIA Director Tenet said he made one last push to focus Bush on the impending terrorism crisis, but the encounter veered off into meaningless small talk.

“A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.

Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.

On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.

Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Hart was still trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the terrorist threat. Hart met with Condoleezza Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091107.html

we dont know what the bush administration knows, what their priorities are or what they have planned.
al-Qaeda's not a problem, they're small fries,
i'd worry more about what the american govenment has in store...

I wasn't saying any particular evidence does not exist. The point is that a claim is made, and I have no way to evaluate it.

What sunk you in my eyes sir is that when he asked about Building 7 and the explanation behind that you just called him a Conspiracy Theorist. Like it's a dirty word that has more power than reasoned thinking. I would like to see an explanation of Building 7 please. And try not to disparage my name for asking about this.

Just found a great article at snopes.com relating to the pentagon. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm. For those who claim there was no damage from the wings(therefore, it couldn't have been a plane), look at the image about 2/3's of the way down.

ughhh

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Awarding Tymbrwulf with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.