The below comment is from another video post regarding the collapse of WT7. It looks as if someone did hear something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess destroying support beams, drilling holes into the ones that remain, and then sneaking loads of a top secret new explosives(that doesn't make any noise when they go off) into the building, without ANYONE noticing, is a "perfeckkly logickal" explanation isn't it??

written by dbalsdon | 6 months 1 week ago | CH | profile reply
▲ 4 ▼ | flag spam (0) | ignore

http://www.videosift.com/video/911-WTC-7-Collapse-Is-it-a-controlled-demolition

Another comment from the video post regarding the collapse of WT7.
It looks as if the WT7 was heavily damaged before the collapse of the towers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BULLSHIT!

WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from the collapse of the Towers. Also, the fires were NOT almost all out by the time of the collapse. In fact, they'd spread across multiple floors and were increasing. City engineers examined the structure a half-hour before it collapsed and said it was dangerously unstable. In the middle of the biggest rescue operation in New York history, they had the emergency personnel pull out of the area. Finally, seeing endless replays of building implosions on TV doesn't make you an expert on structural engineering any more than seeing the stars every night makes you an expert on astronomy.


written by StukaFox | 6 months 1 week ago | CH | profile reply
▲ 9 ▼ | flag spam (0) | ignore

http://www.videosift.com/video/911-WTC-7-Collapse-Is-it-a-controlled-demolition

This has been explained to death already but the conspiracy nuts just won't let it die. WTC 7 was one of the most unusually constructed buildings ever in NY. In addition to the 12,000 gallons of oil that were coursing through the building's heating system and likely feeding the fires that raged throughout the building all day, its structural integrity depended upon a limited number of support columns--many of which were damaged by debris from the falling twin towers nearby. When you add together the fires and the damage from the plane strikes and subsequent building falls you get the structural collapse shown. E

Sorry, I have to downvote this nonsense. So this guy heard explosions? Great. Explosions occur all the time in building fires. I would wager even more so in building fires where 12,000 gallons of oil are coursing through the building. This conspiracy theory and the ignorant people who promote it need to just disappear.

Yes and we've heard a thousand people also parrot the NIST report. Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that. What would help would be something as simple as, uh, I don't know, maybe some smoke?

...When you add together the fires and the damage from the plane strikes and subsequent building falls you get the structural collapse shown..

We are talking about WTC7 here, right?

There are different explosions.

I could grasp if one tower hit the other tower, but things aren't so nice are they. We will never ever know the full truth, because we didn't scientifically document structure as it fell.

So there is still something fishy going on here, whether we like it or not. Conspiracy or not.

I could care less about conspiracies, I want the truth.

The truth is they had intelligence that the United States was under immediate threat of attack and did little to nothing about it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

>> ^schmawy:
Yes and we've heard a thousand people also parrot the NIST report. Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that. What would help would be something as simple as, uh, I don't know, maybe some smoke?
...When you add together the fires and the damage from the plane strikes and subsequent building falls you get the structural collapse shown..
We are talking about WTC7 here, right?


Yes, let's ignore a report that actually looked at the evidence and drew on the collective expertise of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York. Instead we'll just focus on this guy who claims he heard explosions. Oh, it must be a conspiracy then!

And there are TONS of videos where you can see WTC 7 burning on YouTube if you're looking for smoke. EDIT: (Such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U)

Please let the insanity die. Or at least back it up with some shred of evidence.

Okay, I see some smoke, and fire on a couple of floors. The conspicuous voice on the video that says "just look at the size of the hole in that building" (which can't be seen) makes me cinch down my tinfoil hat even tighter.
I concede that due to the "unusual constuction" of the Solomon Brothers building, these isolated fires could had led to the complete and symmetrical collapse of the building in less than ten seconds. Never happened before as it has been said many times, hope it never happens again.

I'll defer to the hordes of "experts" that say that it was perfectly natural structural failure because the fuel lines for the emergency generators were severed and pumping diesel fuel into the blaze.

I will overlook the BBC broadcast that reported that the building had collapsed twenty minutes before it did. I will disregard the fact that the buildings were occupied by the Secret Service and housed the Mayors emergency management office, Offices for the Department of Defense and the CIA. I will try not to think about the fact that this collapse was never again shown on television, It's rebroadcast seems strictly forbidden. I will put out of my mind the huge insurance policies Silverstien placed on the properties shortly before the attack. And now I must also try to forget this gentleman's statement that he heard explosions from within the building. I will do all these things if you'll do just one thing for me?

If someone has the perfectly natural doubt that buildings don't neatly fall to the ground like a dropped curtain, if they doubt the "official" explanations after being lied to so many times, if they're a little skeptical about a day that is clouded by suspicious coincidences that are too many to innumerate, if they feel that the events of that day are a little too convenient for forwarding the cause of a greedy and malfeasant administration, don't insult them.

They are not stupid, or crazy, or ignorant. They are not wrong for doubting. Many of them are quite intelligent and rational people who know that a populace is not easily driven to war, and history will attest to the methods of inspiring them to do so, and it has always looked like this. We are right to question, and we don't need your snide comments saying ignorant people who promote it need to just disappear. Because we won't.

*Sigh* Think about what you're saying. For this conspiracy to have happened, the ENTIRE NYPD AND NYFD would have to have been in on it. They searched WTC 7. Twice. Didn't find any special ops guys loading explosives. Don't mention any unusual explosions. Nobody reporting that the interior was perfectly fine until the whole building collapsed out of the blue. They weren't surprised at all the thing came down. They saw it leaning and buckling hours before it went and they had previously used. And they all report massive fires on multiple floors, which they were unable to fight because there was no water pressure.

But you're willing to believe one guy who comes out 7 years later and says "Oh actually, now that I think about it, I heard an explosion."

That's not "perfectly natural doubt." That's paranoia. You're not just beating a dead horse here. The horse is gone, they went and turned the remains into glue. There's nothing left to beat, but still you guys refuse to let go. Show me the evidence schmawy. Coincidence is not evidence. And anyone who thinks it is evidence is just plain ignorant in my opinion and deserves public censure.

And please oh please could you come up with a more plausible conspiracy while you're at it? They faked 9-11 so we would go to war... with Afghanistan? Come on now, why not just say Saddam did it and go straight to Iraq if that's your aim? If the architects of 9-11 are as good at this stuff as you guys claim they must be, they could easily have forged some link between Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists that we all would have bought. We barely thought twice about going into Afghanistan, do you really think we would have balked if Bush had come on the news and said Saddam did it?

invading other countries is illegal and wrong. everything else is just fluff.

so what if they lied and blew up WTC7? that would be like a small thing compared to openly invading a sovereign nation on a false pretext. We have the evidence for that one, maybe we should convict them for that instead of chasing ghosts.

I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe.

But no, somehow everyone bought the story that it was Pearl Harbor Part 2.

Oh, Gundam, no need to give us your exasperated sigh. I know full well I have nothing to back up my intuition, I know that there is no evidence to prove my assertions. I know that you are convinced by the NIST report. I entered into this discussion knowing full well that I couldn't back it up and would get my ass handed to me. That's fine. It must be frustrating for you to carry the burden of all this truth and evidence and see that you are close to the only one to believe it. Previous videos that claim conspiracy are routinely voted to the front page with relatively little dissent. You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed, without so much as a hiccup. As was quoted in the previous posts "what are you gonna believe, the truth or your lying eyes".

Thanks to Mink and Farhad for putting the horse before the cart. This is "chasing ghosts".

What annoys me schmawy is not the fact that people dispute the official story. 4 or 5 years ago I was willing to listen to their alternate explanations. But when I started investigating the claims, I realized they were all completely bogus. Take the "WTC falling into its own footprint" claim. I thought, "Hey that's interesting, let's check that out."

Except when I did investigate I found tons of videos up on YouTube clearly showing the building did NOT fall into its footprint and in fact damaged nearby buildings as it crumbled. The more I investigated the conspiracy theory claims, the more I realized they had no evidence at all, just suspicion and conjecture. In fact in most cases they were blatantly ignoring the volumes of counter-evidence and testimony to their claims that already existed.

So now here we are in 2008. The conspiracy theorists have had ample time to come up with something--anything--to support their claims other than conjecture and coincidence. And this is what they come up. The guy in this vid. This is their smoking gun.

That's what annoys me. If they can't back up their claims with some real evidence they just need to shut up. If they want to continue investigating and believing that's fine with me. But until the day comes where they find some credible evidence, they're no better than the callers into this show that keep trying to prove the existence of God:

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Best-Caller-Ever-on-The-Atheist-Experience

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

WHO THE FUCK IS BOTHERIN' MAH KITTTEHZ!!!!!

"This has been explained to death already but the conspiracy nuts just won't let it die."
DUMBASSES!!!!....DEATH IS RIGHT!!!

Well, Gundham, I know your frustration, but from the other side. I still really haven't made my mind up about it, that's why I'm willing to sully my fair reputation in a discourse like this.

We 'tinfoil hatters' and 'troofers' don't have a NIST report to fall back on. But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence. it if were coming from our camp, I don't think you'd accept it as evidence, either. They never actually confirmed that the fuel supplies contributed to the fire (it would seem to be an easy thing to find residue from diesel fuel, no?). They take a pass at linking asymmetrical instability and simultaneous global collapse and although I'm certainly not qualified to critique it, It's only a theory and I think not the evidence you think it is?

The NIST Report:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%2520Part%2520IIC%2520-%2520WTC%25207%2520Collapse%2520Final.pdf&sa=X&oi=ns_cluster&resnum=1&c
t=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNFbfqXglrWPWNVxgXQQXL1xZJtV9Q


Our camp's golden boy, Steven E. Jones, isn't much better, grant you...

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

Yeah, it's been done to death, but me an' GunnyX are gonna do it differently this time. If our patience holds out.

>> ^srd:
Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?


Trouble is, you couldn't set that all up in four hours, in a burning building. It'd have to be ready befroe the surprise attack.

*Truth* has a fairly reliable tendancy to kill conspiracy theories dead, so let's have the truth then. We haven't had it yet.


"If the truth is told in a manner that can be *understood*, it WILL be believed"
Terence McKenna

"I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe."

Exactly what intelligence did they receive? "An attack is going to happen soon", or "4 planes are going to be hijacked and crashed into buildings on 9/11"

"But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence."

This, coming from someone who claims: "Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that." Yep. Except for all the firefighters and people who were actually there, and the photos showing smoke coming from the building.

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

Not WTC7. Some buildings were purposefully demolished/pulled down AFTER 9/11, when "it was clear... blah". Or are you referring to Silverstein's 'pull it' phrase, in which, based on what firefighters on the ground were reporting back to him, he told them to abandon WTC7 because it wasn't safe.

"You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed"

Many? Ha!! Freefall?? Oh, the claim that it collapsed in 9.7(or something like that) seconds. WRONG!! The building took a LOT longer then 9.7 seconds to collapse. First(and the bit that is ALWAYS ignored by truthers) is that the north(east/west) section of wtc7 collapsed about 5 to 10 seconds BEFORE the main collapse started. So, when the main part collapsed, there was already a large part of the building already gone.

Sorry for butting in, but just noticed that the first post here was off me being quoted.

You're not butting in dbalsdon, but your opening there is a typical, tired and boring, and unimaginative cliche used by all those who hate the curious and less-easily convinced. Derision and insult is not the way to, as you say 'debate', so I kindly request that you maintain a civil tone or step off, because I've seen these threads a thousand times, and they never get anywhere because of behavior like that. If you've already got your mind made up, than this might not be the thread for you. You okay with that?

Ok. Just edited my original post and removed the first part of what I said, to help keep this thread civil.

Yep. I have made my mind up, however, i'm willing to change what I believe about 9/11, IF the truth movement anyone ever provides any real evidence that shows there is anything more to 9/11. So far, there's nothing.

The host of this video looks like Ba Ba Booey. just sayin'.

Cool. Your first point, which regards the intelligence. I think "attacks with airliners" was about all we had in the daily security brief. They get warnings of impending attacks all the time. Nothing real special there. But I just want to think about the building for now. Ultimately I'd like to prove that this is all the deliberate doing of a cruel-hearted cabal within the government, but I don't think that's true, just emotional stuff.

Yes there were different sized fires at many points in the building...

Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23

Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;
area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12
moved to east face and progressed to the north

So, floors 6,7,8, 10, 11, 12,and all the floors numbered 20-39(which is how I interpret the third line of that second block) were on fire?

So over half the floors(and not a couple as you have claimed) were on fire, but it wasn't a 'towering inferno'?

1st 3 buildings in History to fall down go boom same way same day, eh?

So, please enlighten us, oh great and knowledgeable one: When was the last time two 747s, flying at speed, still loaded with fuel, crashed into two of the tallest buildings in the world? Also, when was the last time a 100+ storie building collapsed, with a large portion of it falling on to another building??

First time you say? OK.

Choggie Please! That's the same ol' noise these threads always have. Let's take it slow and easy. Please choose the correct durg. I donno, X maybe.

DB (if you don't mind me being informal), Below is page 22 from the NIST Powerpoint. Not a lot of fire, Like I said, standard office fire really...

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/3628/nistwtc72005p22fe0.jpg

Unfortunately, it's of the north face of the building. We don't really have any good pictures of the South face, where all that smoke is coming from.


>> ^dbalsdon:
So, floors 6,7,8, 10, 11, 12,and all the floors numbered 20-39(which is how I interpret the third line of that second block) were on fire?
So over half the floors(and not a couple as you have claimed) were on fire, but it wasn't a 'towering inferno'?

"We don't really have any good pictures of the South face, where all that smoke is coming from."

Really?? http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg

In fact, the whole article with explanation of that image: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Next!

That's a good image? That's the SW corner of the building, completely obscured by smoke. This is an important point. Key to the claim of global collapse is extensive damage of the South face, and the NIST report says on the last page...

Witnesses reported structural
damage to WTC 7 on its south face
and southwest corner from WTC 1
debris.

And the page you linked to me, I've seen it before but will review it again. One thing i noticed was the embed of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

With the caption
" Update:

New video shows the gash on the south side of building 7."

Not that I can see.

[e:] Best image I've ever seen of the South face. From the "Debunkning 9/11" link you've provided above. Incidentally that guy is even more pissed off than you are, sheesh.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7492/wtc7sfacepw9.jpg

Still not sure of what I'm seeing there.

"So, witness testimony is acceptable as this much lauded "evidence"?"

When the witness list is mostly of firefighters, and the officials that were there, then yeah:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

But oh right. I forgot.. they were all in on it, weren't they?

Oh, and in case you're wondering why the bomb claims of other witness(ie, people trying to escape from the wtc1+2 towers) are ignored(except for by the truth movement): http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

"Still not sure of what I'm seeing there." The south face of the tower maybe?

Thanks, db. I actually think the sounds of explosions came from tranformers in the building overheating and exploding. Want to hear a bomb? Check these...

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=transformer%20explodes&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

Pretty easy to think those are bombs.

Look, this whole business is making me sick. I just can't stand discord with my fellow Sifters. I was asked to join this thread by a very prominent member, and I try and do what is asked of me. I must admit that my heart's not in it, but the number of people that vote these up made me think that it was worth finding an even handed open minded adversary and having honest, open debate because there are misconceptions that still need to be addressed. You and Gundam have been great, and this thread doesn't need to end as long as everyone stays open minded and civil. I hope it continues but I can't continue arguing on behalf of others, even if there is so much around 9/11 that is a *mystery to so many people.

So, peace, and thank you. I'll catch you around some cat video later.

This video has been removed from all channels (Wtf, Lies) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by schmawy. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Mystery, Wtf) - requested by schmawy.

I don't get the idea of "misconceptions" or assigning this to the mystery channel. What misconceptions? What mystery? There's perfectly rational and plausible explanations for everything that happened to WTC 7 at this point. Heck, you yourself gave an explanation for the explosions this guy claims he heard (power transformers exploding).

I have to go back to the idea that people who argue that 9-11 was some kind of conspiracy are similar to ultra-conservative religious groups when they talk about evolution. Case in point: the crux of your argument here schmawy is that since we don't know second-by-second every single event that occurred inside WTC 7, it's equally plausible that someone blew the building up as it is that it fell naturally from massive structural damage and fires.

That sounds a lot like the kind of argument creationists make against evolution--since we don't have a fossil record of every single genetic mutation ever made since time began, it's plausible that some unseen Creator is behind the gaps in the fossil record. That kind of argument ignores the mountains of evidence besides fossil records that we have for evolution (such as DNA).

Do we know, second by second, what happened in WTC 7? No. But the overwhelming eyewitness accounts as well as the video and photograph data as well as the expert opinions of numerous groups who studied the collapse as well as the lack of evidence to the contrary (no explosive residue) give overwhelming support to the idea that the collapse was natural and inevitable given the circumstances of the day. It's not a 50-50 proposition or even a debatable one. The only real mystery here is why many people continue to believe that its more plausible for a building to be blown up by government agents in some elaborate insurance/global domination scheme than it is for it to collapse after having another building fall on top of it and set it on fire.

All good points, Gundam. Maybe God did it.

I would claim that there are a lot of mysteries around nine one one in general, and only a few regarding Wtc7. Some of Silverman's behaviors are mysterious to me. Or what was going on in the CIA and DOD offices. What the true condition of the South face? How could the emergency generators on the fifth floor propagate fires on the 12th floor and above? What was the true condition of the South face, was it gouged out to 25% of it's depth? Why did Tucker Carlson refuse to show the video of the collapse when Steven E. Jones was a guest on his show? Why did firefighters tell survivors to flee because there's a "bomb in the building"? The molten metal at the site persisting months after? The claims of atomized spherical iron particles? These are common questions. I can answer some of them quite reasonably, some I can't.

If you prefer the original * lies, please appeal to the original poster or any other ranked member to change it. Or Sift your ass off and do it yourself

I think * mystery is a lot less polarizing than * lies, is all.