So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[The_Worlds_finest]

Odds are you wont watch before you post ignorant rantings, but this video pretty much leaves nothing in debate....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM

[clambake]

So, firemen claim to know that bombs are in the building, and yet, they go in anyway.

I'm convinced. Or.......do any of the cars in the parking garage have gas tanks?

[mookie2001]

Or.......do any of the cars in the parking garage have gas tanks?thats the stupidest stuff ive ever heard. Its not just firemen, witnesses and workers of all sorts describing bombs and explosions. There were no kitchens/car tanks to explain it

[The_Worlds_finest]

So, firemen claim to know that bombs are in the building, and yet, they go in anyway.

I'm convinced. Or.......do any of the cars in the parking garage have gas tanks?


Think bud...for one second...how could the gas tanks blow up when the fires were in the tops of the buildings....things that make you go hmmm :dramaquee

[whottt]

SO basically, flying the planes into the WTC wasn't enough for the Govt to mobilize the people for war....

Much better to risk all sorts of shit and leave all sorts of evidence to needlesly bring the buildings totally to the ground.



What was gained by dropping the buildings completely to the ground?

[clambake]

The firemen were already covered in dust. Pretty sure it had a parking garage since I've parked there before. My car had a gas tank. The car I have now has a gas tank. Good to know the fire was contained to only the tops of both buildings. Doesn't explain why the fires burned for weeks, however.

[clambake]

Maybe the democrats were trying to frame the white house staff.

Diabolical.

[papsmirnoff]

since terrorists flew the plane into the buildings it's not possible that they also planted bombs inside the building as well?????

[The_Worlds_finest]

"What was gained by dropping the buildings completely to the ground?"
First the guy who owned the buildings tripled up in the value of the buildings on insurance claims.(btw wtc 7 was owned by the same guy)
2nd the buildings were going to need to be renovated to meet NYC building code pertaining to asbestos city standards.
3rd make room for the new "freedom center"( ever read 1984)

Clambake I know there was parking in the basement and yes cars tanks can explode but you really think it would be that loud under the mass of the towers? And yeah the fires burning for weeks is another tell tell sign...check this out too, BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it even happened...wanna see the clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEtqN04Hl7w

It brings lots to the table but its not like the media has reported Inaccurately before

[mookie2001]

since terrorists flew the plane into the buildings it's not possible that they also planted bombs inside the building as well?????yes. Of course, what a great post

[jochhejaam]

In its section examining the attack on the World Trade Center, Loose Change includes several statements by people who say they heard secondary explosions in the buildings, which the video interprets as evidence that the buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition.
But this ignores the commonsense explanation that secondary explosions could have been caused by vaporized fuel or electrical short-circuits in the severely damaged buildings. Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the towers that day would have been impossible.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=182874

[The_Worlds_finest]

In its section examining the attack on the World Trade Center, Loose Change includes several statements by people who say they heard secondary explosions in the buildings, which the video interprets as evidence that the buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition.
But this ignores the commonsense explanation that secondary explosions could have been caused by vaporized fuel or electrical short-circuits in the severely damaged buildings. Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the towers that day would have been impossible.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=182874

oh god so now my eyes are lying to me too?
"the common sense explanation"
heres one for your common sense explanation
Why was all the remains shipped off and recycled before any true investigation could be done....

[Spurminator]

First the guy who owned the buildings tripled up in the value of the buildings on insurance claims.(btw wtc 7 was owned by the same guy)
2nd the buildings were going to need to be renovated to meet NYC building code pertaining to asbestos city standards.
3rd make room for the new "freedom center"( ever read 1984)

Then why bow them up during work hours? Could these ends have been accomplished with a conveniently-timed Saturday night terrorist attack?

[whottt]

Well it's just good to know that Jets flying into building won't collpase them....


Boy Bush is stupid...think of how much time and energy we could have saved if'd we just framed Saddam instead of Usama...

Come to think of it...since Usama is on our payroll and doing Bush's bidding...why didn't he just implicate Saddam?



Oh whatever...as long as Bush=Bad who cares whether or not it's logical...right?

See any good bumper stickers lately? I've heard that's the #1 way Libs expand their political knowledge these days.

[whottt]

Then why bow them up during work hours? Could these ends have been accomplished with a conveniently-timed Saturday night terrorist attack?


Nah...Bush likes flirting with danger...he wanted to set himself up to be worse than Hitler, just so the guy that owned the WTC could get paid. And if we'd gone straight into Iraq the public would have villified him and accused him of all sorts of evil conspiracies...


Possible Treason and execution = because sometimes, 2 jets aren't enough.

[mookie2001]

nobody said anything about bush?

[jochhejaam]

oh god so now my eyes are lying to me too?
"the common sense explanation"
heres one for your common sense explanation
Why was all the remains shipped off and recycled before any true investigation could be done....
No refuting the "commonsense explanations"?
Surprise...

[The_Worlds_finest]

let me guess since im questioning the american government "I must hate freedom and democracy!" and if not for the bush and the government "I would rather wear a turban then fight!" anything else you want to parrot from the media?

[whottt]

Clinton? They tried it when he was Pres too.

[whottt]

let me guess since im questioning the american government "I must hate freedom and democracy!" and if not for the bush and the government "I would rather wear a turban then fight!" anything else you want to parrot from the media?



You aren't questioning the American Govt...

You are indicting it...based on youtube.

Trial by Youtube
based on evidence contaiend in catchy bumperstickers...
And oh yeah...there is that picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam back then...that proves something, every single time.



Shit even Moore has more credibility than that...at least he admits he lies.

[jochhejaam]

let me guess since im questioning the american government "I must hate freedom and democracy!" and if not for the bush and the government "I would rather wear a turban then fight!" anything else you want to parrot from the media?
Paranoia setting in...

[clambake]

This could explain the youtube lawsuit. It's brilliant!

[ChumpDumper]

Do the producers of 24 know their music is being used for this?

[PixelPusher]

Do the producers of 24 know their music is being used for this?
How do you know the producers of 24 weren't on the 9/11 attack to begin with? Is is coincindence their show is so much more popular after 9/11? Think about it, man!!!!! [/CONSPIRATORIAL RANT]

[mookie2001]

still cant figure out why foxnews and cnn will talk about charlie sheen, rosie odonnell non-stop, call them crazy, slander them in multiple segments across all their programming but STILL will not mention one thing about building 7

[whottt]

still cant figure out why foxnews and cnn will talk about charlie sheen, rosie odonnell non-stop, call them crazy, slander them in multiple segments across all their programming but STILL will not mention one thing about building 7

Because 911 conspiracies are a tough sell to the American public and do not generated ratings.


Honestly...I think the consensus of the American Public is that if the Bush admin was that smart...they deserve to be running hte country.

[PixelPusher]

still cant figure out why foxnews and cnn will talk about charlie sheen, rosie odonnell non-stop, call them crazy, slander them in multiple segments across all their programming but STILL will not mention one thing about building 7
Rosie O'Donnell talked about Building 7 on "The View" a couple of weeks ago. That didn't go well for her.

[whottt]

Anything that involves public viewing of Rosie's swine like face is going to go bad for her...

I swear...between her and Moore, is it any wonder the Crats are struggling for relevance...

Try getting some figure heads that symbolize something other than the FAT and UGLY, American.


A basic truth of American politics...ugly doesn't get elected.

[whottt]

I'll tell you right now...if the Republicans give the nomination to Hitler...and I have to look at Rosie at the DNC? I'm voting for Adolph. Yes Rosie is that ugly.

[ChumpDumper]

still cant figure out why foxnews and cnn will talk about charlie sheen, rosie odonnell non-stop, call them crazy, slander them in multiple segments across all their programming but STILL will not mention one thing about building 7Because Building 7 had its south face clobbered by the North Tower, then it burned all day before it collapsed. What else is there to mention?

[Spurminator]

Why hasn't anyone answered my question?

[ChumpDumper]

Why hasn't anyone answered my question?That's easy. The owner had beefs with multiple tenants. You know, clogging up the toilets with paper towels, throwing pens into the ceiling panels, slinky races down the emergency stairs -- that kind of stuff. Taking them out with the towers made sure that kind of hijinks wouldn't happen in the new freedom building.

[mookie2001]

Because Building 7 had its south face clobbered by the North Tower, then it burned all day before it collapsed. What else is there to mention?ok if thats true, then why hasnt it been reported on like 1 and 2 were?, too boring of a subject for the countrys most tragic day ever?

[ChumpDumper]

It's not as tall and nobody died when it collapsed.

[Spurminator]

:lol

[mookie2001]

well I wouldnt say "nobody" died when it collapsed

how many news stories have you seen in last couple of years about september 11th?, not about the firemens wifes, the heroes of ladder 4765, charlie sheen questioning september 11th, rudy gulianis leadership on sep 11th, the 911 commission report (gospel)

actual stories about the planes hitting, the structure, the collapse, the hijackers, the hijackers history, the fires

zero to 1?



sa express?

zero to 1?



THIS WAS THE WORST DAY IN AMERICAN HISTORY, one of the worst crimes of all time

and when do ever hear about any of things?????????????




most people have no fucking clue what wtc 7 is. that is a fact


and the minute anyone starts talking about those things, ON THE INTERNET, someone chimes in about Bush this, Bush that

we are never going to get anywhere because necons wont quit that shit

exactly like during Hurricaine Katrina, when we would talk about the blatent problems with response, state, fed delays and mismanagement, someone would bust out the ol---BUSH cant make hurricaines!, dam hes not god, he cant control the weather!

but then again you already said you believe the 911 commission report

[ChumpDumper]

well I wouldnt say "nobody" died when it collapsed I would. It was completely evacuated because they were pretty sure it was going to collapse. Perhaps i should have said no one died because of its collapse.
but then again you already said you believe the 911 commission reportThe broad strokes, yes -- but no congressional commission will ever quash a nice conspiracy.

At least I believe SOMETHING. I can't get a straight answer out of any conspiracy theorist when I ask them what they believe happened. I would go so far as to not even argue with someone if they just came out and said what they thought actually happened.

[mookie2001]

I can't get a straight answer out of any conspiracy theorist when I ask them what they believe happened. I would go so far as to not even argue with someone if they just came out and said what they thought actually happened.that doesnt prove anything???, do you actually think thats a good arguement? what the fuck does that mean??, i want someone to explain to me what i am supposed to think about a statement like that? I would go so far as to not even argue anymore- what is a "conspiracy theorist", someone who doesnt believe the 911 commission report?




how many news stories have you seen in last couple of years about september 11th?, not about the firemens wifes, the heroes of ladder 4765, charlie sheen questioning september 11th, rudy gulianis leadership on sep 11th, the 911 commission report (gospel)

actual stories about the planes hitting, the structure, the collapse, the hijackers, the hijackers history, the fires

zero to 1?



sa express?

zero to 1?



THIS WAS THE WORST DAY IN AMERICAN HISTORY, one of the worst crimes of all time

and when do ever hear about any of things?????????????




most people have no fucking clue what wtc 7 is. that is a fact


and the minute anyone starts talking about those things, ON THE INTERNET, someone chimes in about Bush this, Bush that

we are never going to get anywhere because necons wont quit that shit

exactly like during Hurricaine Katrina, when we would talk about the blatent problems with response, state, fed delays and mismanagement, someone would bust out the ol---BUSH cant make hurricaines!, dam hes not god, he cant control the weather!you agree with all this then brah?http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/meeting.gif

[ChumpDumper]

that doesnt prove anything???, do you actually think thats a good arguement? what the fuck does that mean??, i want someone to explain to me what i am supposed to think about a statement like that?, I would go so far as to not even argue anymore what is a "conspiracy theorist", someone who doesnt believe the 911 commission report?Does the language bother you. Would you like it prettied up so your feelings aren't hurt? I simply want to know what the folks who don't accept the convetional story of 9/11 really think. It hasn't happened in this forum yet.
you argree eith all this then brah?I agree that the neocons and Bush supporters will always say stuff like that, but I don't know why you would find that so intimidating.

[mookie2001]

I simply want to know what the folks who don't accept the convetional story of 9/11 really thinkdude answer my question

[ChumpDumper]

Which one?

[mookie2001]

i'll ask it again like you do

what is you asking people what they really think, or to give you a theory, or telling me that nobody will tell you what they think happened supposed to make me feel or think?

[mookie2001]

what does that mean??, your argument that youve made a hundred times in sep11th threads

[ChumpDumper]

i'll ask it again like you do

what is you asking people what they really think, or to give you a theory, or telling me that nobody will tell you what they think happened supposed to make me feel or think?
Pathos?

[mookie2001]

chump is intimidated by the 911 commission report, look what happens when I capitalize it, bold it and make it big




The 911 Commission Report

ill even tell people to read it the 911 commission report

research the conclusions of the 911 commission report

talk to others about the 911 commission report


you know there are holes a mile wide, you know they left out even more, you know they never report on any aspects of the actual terrorism, you know bbc reported wtc 7 collapsed before it collapsed

you think and hope youre right, great

[ChumpDumper]

It was expected to collapse for hours, so a premature report of the expected wouldn't be impossible on such a confused day.

What would be the purpose of releasing such information to a foreign news service before the event. If there was an explanation for that which made sense, it could trump a simple mistake. I'd love to hear one but that would be asking too much.

[Sec24Row7]

sept 11th was FAR from the worst day in American History...

[FromWayDowntown]

It must be a fairly miserable experience to go through life believing that the government is conspiring to kill its own civilian population.

[ChumpDumper]

Just thinking that they could pull it off so expertly and keep it a secret is a leap of faith greater than any religion.

But I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings....

[FromWayDowntown]

It was expected to collapse for hours, so a premature report of the expected wouldn't be impossible on such a confused day.

What would be the purpose of releasing such information to a foreign news service before the event. If there was an explanation for that which made sense, it could trump a simple mistake. I'd love to hear one but that would be asking too much.

That's one of the things that I haven't ever understood about the Building 7 crowd. I taped 24 consecutive hours of news broadcasts starting immediately after WTC 1 collapsed. I have actually bothered on a couple of occasions to wend my way back through those broadcasts in the years that have since passed. To this day, watching that coverage as it happened is quite frightening.

But what's most striking to me, in retrospect, about watching those reports in their original context, is just how much misinformation and confusion there was that morning and afternoon. There were reports all day long expressing concerns that other buildings in and around the WTC complex -- and particularly WTC 7 -- were on the verge of collapse. That would be remarkably prescient reporting if the sole basis for WTC 7's demise was a controlled demolition. Unbelievably prescient reporting.

[ChumpDumper]

Some of it may stem from the fact there weren't alot of pictures taken of the south side WTC7 after the North tower collapse. I've seen pictures of the SW corner of it that had huge chunks taken out about seven floors high IIRC, and there is one video on the internet that shows the top of the south face before it was obscured by smoke -- and there was an enormous hole visible right below the top of the building. Those images and the eyewitness accounts of firemen describing the rest of the south face have convinced me more than any alternative explanation.

[FromWayDowntown]

Some of it may stem from the fact there weren't alot of pictures taken of the south side WTC7 after the North tower collapse. I've seen pictures of the SW corner of it that had huge chunks taken out about seven floors high IIRC, and there is one video on the internet that shows the top of the south face before it was obscured by smoke -- and there was an enormous hole visible right below the top of the building. Those images and the eyewitness accounts of firemen describing the rest of the south face have convinced me more than any alternative explanation.

You mean like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U), which shows Building 7 in flames but still standing, with people nearby commenting that the building had sustained extensive damage and was likely to collapse at some point that day?

Remarkable that whomever decided to pull the string on Building 7 had the foresight to set fires throughout the building before detonating whatever explosives had been set for the purpose of demolishing the building. Truly remarkable choreography.

[SRJ]

oh god so now my eyes are lying to me too?
"the common sense explanation"
heres one for your common sense explanation
Why was all the remains shipped off and recycled before any true investigation could be done....

Please diclose your expertise in these matters. I'd like to know that your eyes know what to look for.

Common sense from a demolitions expert is one thing. Common sense from a Sbarro employee is quite another.

[ChumpDumper]

The picture of the damage to the corner is on page 17 of the NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

And here's the video showing some of the damage to the south end of the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

There's also a clip of Aaron Brown of CNN saying WTC7 "has either collapsed or is collapsing" and he turns around to see WTC7 still standing. No cut from the live feed, just a simple clarification saying it is on fire and in danger of collapsing, obviously given to him by his producer or whoever else might be talking into his earpiece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

And when WTC7 did collapse, Ashley Banfield was in the street north of the site and Brian Williams told her to get out of there then said "What we have been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened." and that they had been watching WTC7 all day.

http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v

Why would they be watching it all day and fearing its collapse?

Because someone told them it could collapse.

Is there another way to interpret these that makes more sense than what I have said?

[xrayzebra]

Okay, I am convinced. The towers were brought down by the
US Government and the Pentagon was also destroyed by the
US Government and the hole in PA was created by the US
Government. I guess we can look forward to seeing all those
passengers back in no time at all. All safe and sound. Damn
Bush, he will do anything, right boutons? I am quite sure
we will have a whistle blower pop up at any minute with all
the details.

[xrayzebra]

Oh, and I forgot, did you know we really didn't go to the moon.
It was all staged on a Hollywood set. I read that somewhere and
I just know it is true.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's funny how the conspiracy cacophony becomes silent when faced with irrefutable fact.

[DarkReign]

9-11 was not a government conspiracy. The fact that people actually took time and resource to DISprove this assertion is depressing.

[Extra Stout]

I think after you smoke weed the conspiracy theory makes sense.

[thispego]

Okay, I am convinced. The towers were brought down by the
US Government and the Pentagon was also destroyed by the
US Government and the hole in PA was created by the US
Government. I guess we can look forward to seeing all those
passengers back in no time at all. All safe and sound. Damn
Bush, he will do anything, right boutons? I am quite sure
we will have a whistle blower pop up at any minute with all
the details.how did you become convinced of that?

[mookie2001]

^/mookie
It's funny how the conspiracy cacophony becomes silent when faced with irrefutable fact.what facts?

it was 4 oclock in the morning

[Spurminator]

So why did the building owner want the planes to hit the towers with people in them if he was going to reap huge insurance rewards either way?

[mookie2001]

these questions were answered with cacophony


how many news stories have you seen in last couple of years about september 11th?, not about the firemens wifes, the heroes of ladder 4765, charlie sheen questioning september 11th, rudy gulianis leadership on sep 11th, the 911 commission report (gospel)

actual stories about the planes hitting, the structure, the collapse, the hijackers, the hijackers history, the fires

zero to 1?



sa express?

zero to 1?



THIS WAS THE WORST DAY IN AMERICAN HISTORY, one of the worst crimes of all time

and when do ever hear about any of things?????????????

[mookie2001]

I never said one thing about the goddam building owner

[Spurminator]

So if it's not about Bush/Neocons and if it's not about the owner, what's it about?

And I don't know WTF you're talking about with regards to news stories. 9/11 documentaries are played and replayed ad nauseum on cable, and every year in September there's a new prime time special or two.

Maybe no one answered because those questions are ludicrous to anyone who has watched television in the last 5 years.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't get the E-N, but there are always stories and documentaries about 9/11 on tv, especially around the aniiversaries. This is how historical events are handled.

What level of news coverage do you expect for an event that happened over five years ago?

Do you think every news agency and media outlet in the US is conciously ignoring stories that should be made public? Or could it be that nothing deemed important by the 9/11 "truth" movement hasn't passed even a preliminary journalistic smell test.

[mookie2001]

its about that nobody knows what the fuck happened, and the investigation, especially publicaly, was a complete joke, no rational person can be satisfied with the 911 commission report




and what 911 cable documentaries are you talking about??????
do you think our newspapers and news networks have better stories than 911 to report on? more important stories?




compare

heroes of ladder 489 vs actual terrorism

rudy guliani vs actual terrorism

rosie odonnell vs actual terrorism

charlie sheen vs actual terrorism





i want to know why I never hear anything about the worst crime in american history

[Spurminator]

i want to know why I never hear anything about the worst crime in american history

Because you don't have a television?

[mookie2001]

What level of news coverage do you expect for an event that happened over five years ago?hundreds and hundreds % more than i get now

[mookie2001]

what tv are you talking about spurm?

[mookie2001]

to catch a predator or anna nicole?

[ChumpDumper]

its about that nobody knows what the fuck happened, and the investigation, especially publicaly, was a complete joke, no rational person can be satisfied with the 911 commission reportWhat specifically are you talking about?
and what 911 cable documentaries are you talking about

compare

heroes of ladder 489 vs actual terrorism

rudy guliani vs actual terrorism

rosie odonnell vs actual terrorism

charlie sheen vs actual terrorism





i want to know why I never hear anything about the worst crime in american historyBecause you don't have cable? I don't know how you are missing all these shows about actual terrorism. Entire nights are dedicated to it with a fair amount of frequency. Discovery/Times, A&E, the History Channel and the news channels all show them.

Again, I have to ask how often you need to be hearing about it in the regular newscasts since it's over five years old.

[Spurminator]

to catch a predator or anna nicole?

Change the channel from CNN to Discovery or the History Channel or National Geographic or any of those other networks some time.

I couldn't possibly list every cable documentary aired on 9/11, but this one was good: http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Inside-11-Commemorative/dp/B000FUF6QI

[xrayzebra]

how did you become convinced of that?

By the compelling and overwhelming evidence present
on this forum. The very brilliance of the evidence
presented. Besides everyone knows the Government
lies about everything.

[mookie2001]

alright watch cable as much as you can then whenever you see a 911 documentary not about guliani, the heroes of ladder 44, pm me, email me, spam the forum.


it might take a while because shit it happened 5 years ago

[Spurminator]

I just gave you one.

[ChumpDumper]

Discovery/Times program note for Mookie.

Friday:

6:00 pm Attack on the Pentagon (TVPG, CC, STEREO) Terrorists deliberately crash Flight 77 into one of the most famous buildings in the world.

7:00 pm Flight 175: As the World Watched (TVPG, CC, STEREO) On Sept. 11, 2001, Flight 175 is the second plane to hit the World Trade Center.

Saturday:

8:00 pm Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb? (TVPG, CC, STEREO) Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan establishes the largest nuclear black market.

9:00 pm Al Qaeda 2.0 (TVPG, CC, STEREO) Recent attacks demonstrate the continuing threat of the terrorist group.

10:00 pm Osama bin Laden: Prophet of Terror (TVPG, CC, STEREO) A history of Osama bin Laden.

That's five hours of terror coverage in two nights on just one channel.

[mookie2001]

yeah xray the government does lie about nearly everything

does the us government have along history of transparency?, always telling the truth? what have they ever done to earn anyones trust on anything?

[mookie2001]

2 hours but thanks keep it up

[ChumpDumper]

Let me know what you think of those shows. I've seen the Flight 175 show.

[Spurminator]

Here, this was on the History Channel:

The World Trade Center: Rise And Fall Of An American Icon DVD

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=76683


There had never been a complex like it. There may never be again. For thirty years, the twin towers of the World Trade Center stood sentinel over downtown Manhattan. But they were toppled in the deadliest attack ever perpetrated on American soil, the opening salvo of the War on Terror.

This comprehensive, feature-length DVD tells the complete story of the World Trade Center, from the obstacles that the architects and engineers overcame in building the massive center to the daunting task of cleaning up the 16-acre disaster site after September 11th. Footage shows every aspect of the recovery work at Ground Zero, following US Army robots as they search for human remains wreckage and revealing how 2 million tons of debris were removed. Engineers detail what they discovered in their autopsy of the buildings, and we'll see how the disaster site was been transformed into sacred ground as the recovery work progressed.

Col. John O'Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Governor George Pataki, and Rudy Giuliani are among the many people interviewed for this unforgettable look at the WORLD TRADE CENTER: RISE AND FALL OF AN AMERICAN ICON.

[ChumpDumper]

2 hours but thanks keep it upYou said you wanted to know about actual terrorism, and trying to pretend Al Qaeda and Osama specials would have nothing to do with 9/11 is completely disingenuous.

That's five.

[mookie2001]

eehhh, well those arent fires, structure, the hijackers, hijacker history, fire, planes, collapse

but it seems so easy, shit 5 hours on one day!, that should be like at least 20 hours a week



thanks for giving me the sites where i can purchase these, without being for sale i wouldnt have believed they were real

[Spurminator]

eehhh, well those arent fires, structure, the hijackers, hijacker history, fire, planes, collapse


I gave you 6 hours worth of fires, structure, hijackers, hijacker history, fire, planes, collapse.

I even linked them for you so you'd believe they were real.

[mookie2001]

I'll keep an eye out for it

[ChumpDumper]

eehhh, well those arent fires, structure, the hijackers, hijacker history, fire, planes, collapseTwo are specifically about planes, and the Flight 175 show actually had a fair amount of hijacker background information. Are you even reading this thread?
but it seems so easy, shit 5 hours on one day!Two days. You aren't reading. And I just checked one channel. I'm not going to search the whole lineup for you. If you really wanted to know about these things, you would already have been looking.

[mookie2001]

Two are specifically about planes, and the Flight 175 show actually had a fair amount of hijacker background information. Are you even reading this thread?yes thats why i said two hours!!!!!!!!!!
correct chump

but ok youre right if its 5 hours on two days then it should be close to 20 hours a week

[mookie2001]

yall should totally discredit me by the 20th hour

[ChumpDumper]

So you're going to watch those shows, right?

[Spurminator]

I'll keep an eye out for it


Why wait?

WTC Rise and Fall of an American Icon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhrt4G3dxzI&mode=related&search=)


It even has the History Channel watermark logo on the bottom right corner so you know it was actually on TV!

[mookie2001]

I'll plan on it, im sure it will drop some science on me

[mookie2001]

do you realize how ironic it is that youre posting youtube links?

[ChumpDumper]

Flight 175: As the World Watched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKeCl_dIEo)

[Spurminator]

Perhaps, but no more ironic than you questioning whether we are informed enough about 9/11 based on how much air time the topic has gotten from the Mainstream Media.

The video I linked was broadcast on television, which is what you were asking for.

[ChumpDumper]

do you realize how ironic it is that youre posting youtube links?It's the message, not the medium. Just making your quest for the truth a little more convenient for you.

[ChumpDumper]

And to be fair, I think there are several shows about 9/11 and the war on terror that need to be made. The books upon which they would be largely based are fantastic, but not everyone can or will read and it is important to reach as many people as possible.

Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott. Biographies of all the 9/11 hijackers.

Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. A history of mideast based anti-American terror from Reagan to W, written by the counterterrorism official who worked for four different presidents. Includes a firsthand account of the White House handling of the 9/11 crisis by the man who was in charge of it.

Some comprehesive history of the first three years of the Iraq War based on the books written by the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward (Plan of Attack, State of Denial), Tom Ricks (Fiasco) and Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Imperial Life in the Emerald City) would be monumental and eye-opening for many folks out there.

Those are the things I want to see. Not more of the same out of context news footage set to slightly different ominous synth music by slightly different college students who don't want to know the truth because it would eliminate the market for their cottage industry.

[johnsmith]

So you gonna watch Mookie? Or are you just going to check out "loose change" for the sixth time?

[ChumpDumper]

So you gonna watch Mookie? Or are you just going to check out "loose change" for the sixth time?I hear the new cut has an alternate ending where they conclude Al Qaeda did it.

[johnsmith]

I hear the new cut has an alternate ending where they conclude Al Qaeda did it.


:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[whottt]

See mook...I told you Chump was the narc.


Apology Accepted.

[whottt]

Bet you a dollar he drives a Tahoe too.

[whottt]

And he probably went to A&M.

[mookie2001]

ROFL never did i say one thing about loose change

[gtownspur]

ROFL never did i say one thing about loose change

Rawfl Rawfl Rawfl. Vince Young. Rawfl Rawfl.

[Nbadan]

It's funny how the conspiracy cacophony becomes silent when faced with irrefutable fact.

Don't confuse fact with opinion. I watched your video of the WT7 fires, now watch this video of the Oklahoma City bombing. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMXMo3Z0qms) Massive structural damage, massive fire, but yet most of the building stood. Now rewatch your video again, and ask yourself, even if the front of the building was structurally compromised by impact of falling debris or fire, would WTC tower collapsed like this? 911 Eyewitness (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HCSMBlVw2Qg)

I realize your not a structural engineer, but watch this complete video, if you can find a copy, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.

[whottt]

Awesome...I was wondering when the voice of sanity would chime in...

[Nbadan]

Awesome...I was wondering when the voice of sanity would chime in...

It certainly didn't before you, whoot.

[ChumpDumper]

WTC7 and the Murrah building were constructed using completely different techniques.

The Murrah building did not burn uncontrolled as long as WTC7.

Take a look at this video (http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion).

Now imagine twelve of them sitting on the second most critical structural component of WTC7. Now throw in another ten on the ground floor for good measure.

I realize you are not a structural engineer, but you should take this into account, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

[waits for dan to say he is indeed a structural engineer]

[Nbadan]

WTC7 and the Murrah building were constructed using completely different techniques.

The Murrah building did not burn uncontrolled as long as WTC7.

Take a look at this video (http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion).

Now imagine twelve of them sitting on the second most critical structural component of WTC7. Now throw in another ten on the ground floor for good measure.

I realize you are not a structural engineer, but you should take this into account, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.


You still haven't told me how critical structural columns in WTC7 were compromised by fascade damage or fire, but I forgive you. Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building. Apparently, it was trapped in the southern side of the building. Yet this fire raged so furiously that it warped the steel in the southern side of the building to the point where the whole building collapsed. To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known fires, had a dividing wall that ran across the building. This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it. And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition.

[mookie2001]

come on now dan

have you even ordered the 7 dvd set from discoverychannel.com?

[Nbadan]

Exhibit A:


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-19.jpg

Fires on floors 10 and above, but little to no fire on lower floors.

[ChumpDumper]

You still haven't told me how critical structural columns in WTC7 were compromised by fascade damage or fire, but I forgive you.The substation is the area I'm talking about. It was on the south side of the building where the debris from the North Tower hit. I didn't think I would have to explain something so obvious.
During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building.Sure it did. In fact, the ONLY pictures of WTC7 fires most conspiracy videos show are those on the north side. This too wide to be the west or east sides:

http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/bd7.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7_nypd2001.jpg

This is one of the narrower sides.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpg

Either you are the worst 9/11 expert ever or you are attempting to distort the facts.


To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known firesIs there a report that claims to state the location of every fire in WTC7?

Could you tell me precisely which floors are on fire in this photo?

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg


And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition.
I love that one. It fell to the south, in the direction of the weakened part of the building. I guess you only choose to see videos of the collapse directly from the north.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

[RighteousBoy]

There is actually some rare footage of:.......CHUBAKA, ELVIS, AND THE ELEPHANT MAN PLANTING HIGH YIELD EXPLOSIVES IN THE WTC!!!!

I think it was a, "napalm plasmod pulverizing pulsed projectile", designed and build by Halliburton out of the gizzards of the last existing dodo birds.....honestly, this is all true.

[Phenomanul]

Don't confuse fact with opinion. I watched your video of the WT7 fires, now watch this video of the Oklahoma City bombing. Massive structural damage, massive fire, but yet most of the building stood. Now rewatch your video again, and ask yourself, even if the front of the building was structurally compromised by impact of falling debris or fire, would WTC tower collapsed like this? 911 Eyewitness

I realize your not a structural engineer, but watch this complete video, if you can find a copy, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.




WTC7 and the Murrah building were constructed using completely different techniques.

The Murrah building did not burn uncontrolled as long as WTC7.

Take a look at this video (http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion).

Now imagine twelve of them sitting on the second most critical structural component of WTC7. Now throw in another ten on the ground floor for good measure.

I realize you are not a structural engineer, but you should take this into account, then try and remake your original claim using scientific fact, not opinion.

The other major and rather glaring difference between the buildings, is that the critical stress distribution from a tall building like WTC7 is much more demanding than the demands required by a shorter much stouter building like the Murrah building. Why? Because the center of gravity for the Murrah building was so much lower than the center of gravity for WTC7.

It's not entirely implausible to think that if we had subjected the Murrah building to a fire scenario similar to the one that ravaged WTC7 that it would still manage to remain 'standing' - despite the fires, and inspite of its own explosion-created damage.

[ChumpDumper]

That's just the kind of common sense argument that has no place here.

[Nbadan]

The substation is the area I'm talking about. It was on the south side of the building where the debris from the North Tower hit. I didn't think I would have to explain something so obvious.

So it obliterated a underground subway sub-station, but semisograph readings of the collapse of both Towers where less than a 2 (i believe). Either way, certainly well within the level it necessary to compromise the structural integrity of the building.

[Nbadan]

Sure it did. In fact, the ONLY pictures of WTC7 fires most conspiracy videos show are those on the north side. This too wide to be the west or east sides:

No, that's my point. Unless the building collapsed as a random consequence of incredible chance, and I can't even calculate those odds, then the building should have collapsed much like a tree, but it didn't it collapsed largely in it's own footprint.

Look, as I've posted before, I don't have a dog either-way in this fight, if WTC7 came down as a random act of almost impossible consequences by fire, as has been asserted by the intial FEMA report on the collapse, then lets talk about those chances and see who comes out as the 'conspiracy theorists', but don't tell me that WTC7 was completely compromised by the destruction of a underground sub-station in Towers 1 and 2, or fascade damage to the building by falling debris. That ship don't fly here.

[Nbadan]

The other major and rather glaring difference between the buildings, is that the critical stress distribution from a tall building like WTC7 is much more demanding than the demands required by a shorter much stouter building like the Murrah building. Why? Because the center of gravity for the Murrah building was so much lower than the center of gravity for WTC7.

It's not entirely implausible to think that if we had subjected the Murrah building to a fire scenario similar to the one that ravaged WTC7 that it would still manage to remain 'standing' - despite the fires, and inspite of its own explosion-created damage.

That's assuming that you believe that fire can bring down a steel and motar building, which I don't. My real point was that the Murrah building blast compromised 1 or 2 columns on one side of the building, and predictably, half the building came down, but as even Chumpy's pics have shown, there was no fire on the North side of WTC7, so why did the whole building collapse?

[FromWayDowntown]

No, that's my point. Unless the building collapsed as a random consequence of incredible chance, and I can't even calculate those odds, then the building should have collapsed much like a tree, but it didn't it collapsed largely in it's own footprint.

You mean the same random chance by which the terrorist-attacked twin towers collapsed largely in their own footprints?

Yes, that would be a remarkable coincidence.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's assuming that you believe that fire can bring down a steel and motar building, which I don't. My real point was that the Murrah building blast compromised 1 or 2 columns on one side of the building, and predictably, half the building came down, but as even Chumpy's pics have shown, there was no fire on the North side of WTC7, so why did the whole building collapse?

As I understand the physics and engineering -- and that is not an effort I've undertaken lightly -- there has never been a claim that fire was the sole cause of the collapse of any building in the WTC complex.

As I understand the engineers' autopsy, the fire within the building caused internal structures, which eased the loads carried by the steel and mortar framework of the buildings, to fail. It was the failure of those internal structures, coupled with the catostrophic damage to the load-bearing elements in the superstructures that caused the steel and mortar components of the buildings to fail, which brought about their collapses.

That makes perfect sense.

And, by the way, Chump's pictures quite clearly show fires burning on the North face of WTC 7.

http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/bd7.jpg

That image cannot be of the South face of WTC 7, because such a view from that distance would have necessarily included views of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 debris fields, which were located to the south of WTC 7.

Frankly, I'm not sure how one can look at that picture and still claim that there were no fires on the north side of WTC 7.

[Nbadan]

You mean the same random chance by which the terrorist-attacked twin towers collapsed largely in their own footprints?

Yes, that would be a remarkable coincidence.

Yes, yes.... but don't jump ahead of yourself though because of personal bias. The way I see it, the case for almost all conspiracy theories surrounding 911 revolve around what happened to WTC7.

[mookie2001]

wait what does the 600 page official story of 9/11, the 9/11 Commision Report say on building 7?


and even if it is the first steel building in world history to collapse from fire, even if it had "structural damage", why would in collapse in the physical manner it did?

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, yes.... but don't jump ahead of yourself though because of personal bias. The way I see it, the case for almost all conspiracy theories surrounding 911 revolve around what happened to WTC7.

Of course you do. Luckily for me, I'm not at all bound by your refusal to acknowledge the widely-held scientific beliefs about what happened, from an engineering standpoint, in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.

I bring no personal bias to this at all.

I'm not the one here with an axe to grind.

[mookie2001]

surely the government would give us an official story
surely the liberal media would give us a theory

[Nbadan]

The NIST report on WTC7 collapse has yet to be released, unless Chumpy has it.

:hat

[Nbadan]

Of course you do. Luckily for me, I'm not at all bound by your refusal to acknowledge the widely-held scientific beliefs about what happened, from an engineering standpoint, in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.

What engineering report?

[FromWayDowntown]

wait what does the 600 page official story of 9/11, the 9/11 Commision Report say on building 7?


and even if it is the first steel building in world history to collapse from fire, even if it had "structural damage", why would in collapse in the physical manner it did?

What do you expect? Did you think that any of these buildings would simply fall over on their sides? I know that I did on the morning of September 11. But I've taken the time to listen to a significant number of engineers explain the physics of what took place that morning. In listening to those explanations, I'm struck by the consistency with which those learned professionals conclude that the failures within the building exacerbated the structural damage to the framework of the building and caused the columns, which held the building upright while carrying virtually all of the substantial vertical loads that such a building exerts. When the frame couldn't hold the upper floors in place any longer, those floors began to collapse downward, one on top of the next. The reaction was more like a zipper being undone, which readily explains why the sides of the building appeared to peel away as its inner structure fell straight downward.

I'm not a structural engineer. As noted, I'm struck by the consistency of that explanation -- and the implausibility of a conspiracy being able to convince the larger engineering community to devise and promote an explanation that is anything other than the truth.

[FromWayDowntown]

What engineering report?

The oft-repeated and mostly universally expressed explanations for the mode of collapse of the WTC buildings.

[Nbadan]

As I understand the physics and engineering -- and that is not an effort I've undertaken lightly -- there has never been a claim that fire was the sole cause of the collapse of any building in the WTC complex.

As I understand the engineers' autopsy, the fire within the building caused internal structures, which eased the loads carried by the steel and mortar framework of the buildings, to fail. It was the failure of those internal structures, coupled with the catostrophic damage to the load-bearing elements in the superstructures that caused the steel and mortar components of the buildings to fail, which brought about their collapses.

That makes perfect sense.

And, by the way, Chump's pictures quite clearly show fires burning on the North face of WTC 7.

...

That image cannot be of the South face of WTC 7, because such a view from that distance would have necessarily included views of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 debris fields, which were located to the south of WTC 7.

Frankly, I'm not sure how one can look at that picture and still claim that there were no fires on the north side of WTC 7.

Look, even if you believe that fire brought down WTC7, the speed in which the structure collapsed was free-fall, that means that there was a total and complete and simultaneous collapse of all the support columns and all at the same time.

[FromWayDowntown]

Now's the part where dan calls me a sheep but refuses to offer any opinion about what actually happened on 9/11 or to debunk the science that establishes the widely-held view of the collapses that day.

[Nbadan]

The oft-repeated and mostly universally expressed explanations for the mode of collapse of the WTC buildings.

The POP science article? Please, that been debunked so often even Anna Nicole is envious.

[FromWayDowntown]

Look, even if you believe that fire brought down WTC7, the speed in which the structure collapsed was free-fall, that means that there was a total and complete and simultaneous collapse of all the support columns and all at the same time.

I didn't say that fire brought down WTC 7. I'm not sure that I've heard anyone ever try to explain it -- which I suspect is true because most of the sane, non-conspiratorial world thinks of the collapse of WTC 7 as an historical footnote that isn't particularly relevant to anything that occurred on 9/11.

Frankly, it would stand to reason -- from my perspective -- that the same pathology that existed with regard to WTC 1 and 2 made some impact on the ultimate demise of WTC 7. Fires damaged internal structures, which, in turn, placed greater loads on the weight-bearing elements of the building, which were already damaged and ultimately failed when the loads became too great. And, in that scenario, the notion of a free-fall would, indeed, be perfectly consistent with the mode of failure in WTC 1 and 2. Remarkably enough.

[FromWayDowntown]

The POP science article? Please, that been debunked so often even Anna Nicole is envious.

I'm not talking about any article. I'm talking about the multiple engineers who've appeared on television in the aftermath of 9/11 to diagnose the structural failures of those buildings and explain their collapses.

Moreover, the mere fact that your conspiratorially-inclined mind is willing to accept the views of those who disagree with the engineering mainstream on this issue doesn't convince me that the conclusions have in any way been "debunked."

If you could find an author willing to say that the literature concerning the moon landings was somehow inaccurate, that statement would hardly convince me (or most sane people, I suspect) that there were no moon landings.

[Nbadan]

Now's the part where dan calls me a sheep but refuses to offer any opinion about what actually happened on 9/11 or to debunk the science that establishes the widely-held view of the collapses that day.

At first we couldn't explain a lot of thing FWDT, but as time has shown, secrets don't last forever. For now, it would be help-ful if the Bush administration declassified all of it's information regarding the collapse of WTC7.

[mookie2001]

well there are many ways it can collapse besides "falling over its side"


a few questions

Can you imagine wtc 7 collapsing in a "cleaner", "quicker", more efficient way?

I would say thats the cleanest, quickest, most controlled, most efficient way I could possibly imagine a building collapsing from fire and "structural damage"

Would not the government give us an official story?, would not the liberal media give us a theory?, would not it get mentioned ONCE on cablenews, network news after september 12th 2001 until now?

[Nbadan]

I'm not talking about any article. I'm talking about the multiple engineers who've appeared on television in the aftermath of 9/11 to diagnose the structural failures of those buildings and explain their collapses.

Bet I can match you engineer for engineer. There were many global scientists, many who supported the govt. position, who denied the existence of global climate change too.

[FromWayDowntown]

At first we couldn't explain a lot of thing FWDT, but as time has shown, secrets don't last forever. For now, it would be help-ful if the Bush administration declassified all of it's information regarding the collapse of WTC7.

It seems from this thread that those who oppose the mainstream view of the events of 9/11 can't (or won't) explain what actually happened to those of us who have taken the time and effort to try to understand those occurrences.

The unwillingness (or inablility) to explain what actually happened is a rather striking flaw in the conspiracy-oriented arguments.

[johnsmith]

Does anyone here know what goes into a controlled demolition of a building? I already know the answer as I've been involved first hand with the controlled demolition of a building, but I'm just curious if Dan and his little brother Mookie know.

[Nbadan]

Moreover, the mere fact that your conspiratorially-inclined mind is willing to accept the views of those who disagree with the engineering mainstream on this issue doesn't convince me that the conclusions have in any way been "debunked."

If you could find an author willing to say that the literature concerning the moon landings was somehow inaccurate, that statement would hardly convince me (or most sane people, I suspect) that there were no moon landings.

I've grinded by teeth in this forum pointing out inconsistences in the M$M, and moreover than not, I turn out to be right, and the M$M turns out to be liers.

[johnsmith]

I've grinded by teeth in this forum pointing out inconsistences in the M$M, and moreover than not, I turn out to be right, and the M$M turn out to be liers.


:rollin :rollin

LINKS PLEASE.

I'm using the plural on link too because hey, the sun even shines on a dog's ass every once in while.


By the way, how's the foreclosure going?

[Nbadan]

It seems from this thread that those who oppose the mainstream view of the events of 9/11 can't (or won't) explain what actually happened to those of us who have taken the time and effort to try to understand those occurrences.

The unwillingness (or inablility) to explain what actually happened is a rather striking flaw in the conspiracy-oriented arguments.

That's like trying to do complex math with only half the equation. give us all the info on the collapse of WTC so we can complete the math. If truth is on the government side, they certainly shouldn't oppose that, right?

[johnsmith]

It seems from this thread that those who oppose the mainstream view of the events of 9/11 can't (or won't) explain what actually happened to those of us who have taken the time and effort to try to understand those occurrences.

The unwillingness (or inablility) to explain what actually happened is a rather striking flaw in the conspiracy-oriented arguments.



Dude, they want the truth.

[FromWayDowntown]

well there are many ways it can collapse besides "falling over its side"

What other way did you expect it to collapse?


a few questions

Can you imagine wtc 7 collapsing in a "cleaner", "quicker", more efficient way?

I would say thats the cleanest, quickest, most controlled, most efficient way I could possibly imagine a building collapsing from fire and "structural damage"


You mean as clean, as quick, and as efficiently as its sister structures? It would make sense to me that the collapse of WTC 7 would have appeared cleaner and more efficient because: (1) it was built with different materials that didn't produce the same quantum of pulverized material that the towers did; (2) it wasn't as large as the towers were and, thus, didn't take as long to collapse; and (3) by the time WTC 7 had collapsed, the entire world had witnessed the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and had a point of reference that hadn't existed before that.



Would not the government give us an official story?, would not the liberal media give us a theory?, would not it get mentioned ONCE on cablenews, network news after september 12th 2001 until now?

I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed -- because most of the world isn't looking around for some opportunity to scream conspiracy. Most of the world believes (and with good reason, I think) that a well-organized group of 19 Muslim young men decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, causing unprecedented and catostrophic damage to those buildings and others which were in close proximity.

[Nbadan]

Does anyone here know what goes into a controlled demolition of a building? I already know the answer as I've been involved first hand with the controlled demolition of a building, but I'm just curious if Dan and his little brother Mookie know.


So what's your point john-boy? I've never seen the inside of a gay bath-house either.

[johnsmith]

So what's your point john-boy? I've never seen the inside of a gay bath-house either.


Look it up chief and tell me if you still think it was a controlled demolition. Oh, and try and avoid the conspiracy websites when googling your information.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's like trying to do complex math with only half the equation. give us all the info on the collapse of WTC so we can complete the math. If truth is on the government side, they certainly shouldn't oppose that, right?

Actually, that sort of dodging is like assuming that there's more to discover when all of the facts are already there.

[johnsmith]

I've never seen the inside of a gay bath-house either.


I find that hard to believe by the way.

[Nbadan]

I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed -- because most of the world isn't looking around for some opportunity to scream conspiracy. Most of the world believes (and with good reason, I think) that a well-organized group of 19 Muslim young men decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, causing unprecedented and catostrophic damage to those buildings and others which were in close proximity.

What world do you live in? Poll after poll has shown that the world thinks the official govt. 911 story is a farce.

[Nbadan]

Actually, that sort of dodging is like assuming that there's more to discover when all of the facts are already there.

Then why has Dubya classified so much info regarding the towers collapse? what's to hide? Doesn't that help feed conspiracy theories? Where's the NIST report, it's been 6 years.

[FromWayDowntown]

What world do you live in? Poll after poll has shown that the world thinks the official govt. 911 story is a farce.]

I understand that people believe that there are parts of the story they're not being told, but I don't think that polling data to that effect implies that the larger world view of 9/11 has strayed much from 19 guys hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

[mookie2001]

I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed -- because most of the world isn't looking around for some opportunity to scream conspiracy. Most of the world believes (and with good reason, I think) that a well-organized group of 19 Muslim young men decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, causing unprecedented and catostrophic damage to those buildings and others which were in close proximity.
1. whats the other part?

I want a story from the government regarding building 7, an official story, an official explanation
I want a story from the news networks


2. I completely agree with the last part

naturally

[FromWayDowntown]

Then why has Dubya classified so much info regarding the towers collapse? what's to hide? Doesn't that help feed conspiracy theories? Where's the NIST report, it's been 6 years.

Who knows? You assume that it implicates the government in some conspiracy -- though you still won't explain the elements of such a conspiracy. That the information is classified (for whatever reason) doesn't suggest to me (or to many others) that the classified information will reveal a conspiracy.

And curious still, to me, that you haven't fessed up to being wrong about the fires on the north face of WTC 7.

[FromWayDowntown]

1. whats the other part?

I want a story from the government regarding building 7, an official story, an official explanation
I want a story from the news networks

Sorry -- wrong choice of words. I should have said "the reason."

I'm not sure why the government would be terribly concerned with the failure of building 7. The government's concern with the failure of buildings 1 and 2 was largely to determine how people died and whether the efforts to save those who were in those buildings could have been conducted more efficiently. Beyond those questions, as far as I can see, there is really very little reason from a pragmatic standpoint to necessitate a governmentally-sponsored engineering investigation into how those buildings failed.

And since nobody died in building 7, the justifications for undertaking such an investigation with regard to that building are simply not there. The fate of Building 7 holds meaning mostly to those who choose to believe in conspiracies.

I'm not sure why the media needs to investigate Building 7, either. But, perhaps you can write to the ombudsmen at the various news outlets and suggest that you'd be interested in seeing an investigative report on that subject; maybe someone will find merit in that suggestion and sate your desire.

[mookie2001]

thanks for trying to answer the question though

[Nbadan]

Who knows? You assume that it implicates the government in some conspiracy -- though you still won't explain the elements of such a conspiracy. That the information is classified (for whatever reason) doesn't suggest to me (or to many others) that the classified information will reveal a conspiracy.

And curious still, to me, that you haven't fessed up to being wrong about the fires on the north face of WTC 7.

Doesn't matter if it does or not, much like the controversy surrounding Gonzo the longer he stays quiet about the attorney's firings the worst it's gonna look for him once his truth does come out. In this case, conspiracy theorists are having a field day because the Bush administration has never created any non-partisan Engineer and Scientific investigative entity to conclusive study and present with facts, the collapse of WTC7.

[Nbadan]

Mookie, everytime a 'credible' news outfit attempts to do a investigative report on 911 or WTC7 it gets killed by the news desk.

[mookie2001]

well shit it happened 5 years ago, and nobody cares about wtc7, except thousands and thousands of americans

[Nbadan]

best fucken book ever.

[ChumpDumper]

And curious still, to me, that you haven't fessed up to being wrong about the fires on the north face of WTC 7.

[mookie2001]

best fucken book ever.Carroll Quigley Tragedy and Hope or the 911 Commission Report?






Can you imagine wtc 7 collapsing in a "cleaner", "quicker", more efficient way?


Would not the government give us an official story?, would not the liberal media give us a theory?, would not it get mentioned ONCE on cablenews, network news after september 12th 2001 until now?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, yeah. I can.

I would also have to wonder why WTC7 would have to be brought down in only a semi-controlled fashion. Why would anyone who doesn't mind killing two or three thousand people give a crap about sparing the Verizon building?

Unless you're saying Verizon did it....

http://www.debunking911.com/b7verizon2.jpg

[whottt]

Unless you're saying Verizon did it....



Well...he definitely wants us to hear him.

When you want to build the nations most complete cellular network...sacrifices have to be made.

[mookie2001]

Well, yeah. I can.would it vanish or what?

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, it wouldn't have piled up against Verizon at all or fallen toward the south were it perfect.

Now answer my question:
I would also have to wonder why WTC7 would have to be brought down in only a semi-controlled fashion. Why would anyone who doesn't mind killing two or three thousand people give a crap about sparing the Verizon building?

[Phenomanul]

Look, even if you believe that fire brought down WTC7, the speed in which the structure collapsed was free-fall, that means that there was a total and complete and simultaneous collapse of all the support columns and all at the same time.

Not necessarily true... How much resistance would you expect failed floors to exert on the rest of the falling structure? The facade of the building could have fallen appreciably faster than the internal support columns and were that the case we wouldn't be able to confirm that theory from the available video takes of the collapse. After all, we can only see what occured to outside of the building. The flip side is that the support columns could have crumbled before the shell of the building followed suit. Again, no existing video clips of the collapse can confirm or debunk either theory because internal footage of the collapse, the 'smoking gun' element in this argument, does not exist...

[mookie2001]

did they give a crap about it? I think wtc 7 was controlled demolition, I think 1 and 2 had explosives and thermite


I know you cant see the molten unaccounted for substance spilling out, or that wtc 7 was brought down, but hey I'll watch that discovery channel show, at least the part about where the arab men flew planes into the wtc will be correct

[ChumpDumper]

Not necessarily true... How much resistance would you expect failed floors to exert on the rest of the falling structure? The facade of the building could have fallen appreciably faster than the internal support columns and were that the case we wouldn't be able to confirm that theory from the available video takes of the collapse. After all, we can only see what occured to outside of the building. The flip side is that the support columns could have crumbled before the shell of the building followed suit. Again, no existing video clips of the collapse can confirm or debunk either theory because internal footage of the collapse, the 'smoking gun' element in this argument, does not exist...Even in the videos that are available, one can easily see the east mechanical penthouse falling into the building first. It's not simultaneous. Definitely not because the north wall ends up folding over the debris pile. How can it be simultaneous if one wall falls faster than another?

[ChumpDumper]

did they give a crap about it? I think wtc 7 was controlled demolition, I think 1 and 2 had explosives and thermiteWhy would it be controlled? What is the purpose of controlling the collapse of three skyscrapers when all one would have to do is knock off a good chunk of each to declare a total loss?
I know you cant see the molten unaccounted for substance spilling out, or that wtc 7 was brought down, but hey I'll watch that discovery channel show, at least the part about where the arab men flew planes into the wtc will be correctI have seen the substance spilling out. I've seen every link that has been thrown at me in these threads, so I don't know why you would assume I haven't. We've all been telling each other we're not mechanical engineers, so I looked around and found a guy who at least claims to be a mechanical engineer (http://stephenchastain.com), and has appeared to have written more than a couple of items regarding metals. He had been asked "several times" to comment on a picture of the flowing molten material, and he took the time to weigh in on the matter a couple of years ago. After a brief but pretty detailed analysis he concludes:

"The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."

http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85

The board is still open to new members, and he does have a contact form as well -- so if you have any questions about it you can ask him. Let me know how it goes.

http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=register

http://stephenchastain.com/contact.htm

I await your next change of subject.

[sabar]

The sheer logistics and faith required to keep this conspiracy plausible are so far-fethched that the conspiracy should invalidate itself on the premise that a conspiracy is born when the accepted truth doesn't add up; the conspiracy itself is filled with more holes than the accepted explanation.

I'm still waiting on an explanation of keeping hundreds of conspirators silent. From the people on Interstate 395 and the Pentagon to the explosives experts that would have to lace the buildings with hundreds of pounds of demolitions, to the paper trails of the cruise missiles and demo parts.

Then there is the simple argument: what is the purpose of the controlled demolition? The guy uis going to collect insurance money anyways from massive fire damage regardless of collapse. A lop-sided collapse would actually be less suspicious and cause more collateral damage -- aka support for the Iraq war (according to conspiracy). So why would you conspire to minimize casualties? Why would you conspire to leave behind even more evidence of your supposed conspiracy?

It just doesn't add up.

[Nbadan]

I would also have to wonder why WTC7 would have to be brought down in only a semi-controlled fashion. Why would anyone who doesn't mind killing two or three thousand people give a crap about sparing the Verizon building?

Think of it this way Chumper. Giuliani's emergency command and control center was in building WTC7. Reinforced concrete blast columns, reinforced blast-proof glass and probably a lot of secret modifications we don't even know about. Any plotters could have conceivable thought that WTC7 could be brought down after Towers 1 and 2, to use as a control center for the attacks and then demolish and purge any evidence of evil-doing.

[Nbadan]

Even in the videos that are available, one can easily see the east mechanical penthouse falling into the building first. It's not simultaneous. Definitely not because the north wall ends up folding over the debris pile. How can it be simultaneous if one wall falls faster than another?

it's the internal columns that fall first Chump, that's why in the videos the top penthouse appears to be collapsing into the rest of the building. Had the outer support failed first the collapse would not have been as catastrophic.

[Nbadan]

]

I understand that people believe that there are parts of the story they're not being told, but I don't think that polling data to that effect implies that the larger world view of 9/11 has strayed much from 19 guys hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

No, they do. The government story has so many holes, but the biggest is what happened to WTC7. We have also not been told everything about Muhammed Atta and the rest of the 18 hijackers, stuff the rest of the world knows, but is blacked out by the M$M here in the U.S... I have alluded to this possibility in many of my previous posts on this topic.

[Nbadan]

"The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color."

Aluminun oxides aren't gonna cause steel beams to fail Chuck. There may have been some present from the planes, but it doesn't explain how thick steel girders appear to be cut in a angle caused by thermite in a controlled demolition.

[xrayzebra]

dan, you can rest easy my man. You have Rosie ODonald on your
side and she is an expert this area, I'm sure. Of course you like
her keep forgetting one thing. F I R E melts and weaken's steel.
That's how it is made you know.

[Sportcamper]

I think the towers were brought down by giant airplanes filled with jet fuel crashing into them...As the heat intensified the interior or the towers melted...Because the towers were not made with traditional frames the structure weakened & collapsed....

I know my theory is controversial...Particularly the part about jet airplanes flying into the building... :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

I think the towers were brought down by giant airplanes filled with jet fuel crashing into them...As the heat intensified the interior or the towers melted...Because the towers were not made with traditional frames the structure weakened & collapsed....

I know my theory is controversial...Particularly the part about jet airplanes flying into the building... :rolleyes

Are you really sure it wasn't some kinda trick photography.
You know how those Hollywood types are. I mean they make floods, ice storms and all that kinda stuff. :spin

[Phenomanul]

Aluminun oxides aren't gonna cause steel beams to fail Chuck. There may have been some present from the planes, but it doesn't explain how thick steel girders appear to be cut in a angle caused by thermite in a controlled demolition.


Again you are assuming the pictures weren't taken after some beams were purposely cut for rescue egress.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the towers were brought down by giant airplanes filled with jet fuel crashing into them...As the heat intensified the interior or the towers melted...Because the towers were not made with traditional frames the structure weakened & collapsed....

I know my theory is controversial...Particularly the part about jet airplanes flying into the building... :rolleyes

Smallminded simpleton.

[thispego]

Particularly the part about jet airplanes flying into the building...whos debating that? :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[johnsmith]

I like the part when Dan just skips over questions that don't support his theory.

[xrayzebra]

I like the part when Dan just skips over questions that don't support his theory.

Don't pick on dan. The seriousness of his charges
demands an investigation. And he has that expert
"Rosie" on his team. And she is on national TV with
the other expert, Babs Walters. So his charges should
be investigated. Especially now that the dimm-o-craps
are in charge. They need more to do.

[Nbadan]

Again you are assuming the pictures weren't taken after some beams were purposely cut for rescue egress.


Oh give me a break!

:lmao

[Nbadan]

Exhibit B:

Here is one of the pics we are talking about, for those of you who haven't seen it:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg

Notice the beam directly behind the rescurer is cut at an angle. seemingly, some contend, by what is known by demolition experts as a thermite charge used to bring the building down at a known angle.

[Nbadan]

I like the part when Dan just skips over questions that don't support his theory.

Only because the questions aren't really pertinent to the discussion, we've already acknowledged that there was fire on the 10th floor and above WTC7, but for the buildings to fail like they did, the fire had to be much lower, at least according to the initial FEMA report, which none of the pics I have seen from anybody show.

Why haven't any of the sheeple acknowledged that discrepency johnny?

[Phenomanul]

Oh give me a break!

:lmao


Ummmm in case you weren't aware.... beams in the debris field were in fact cut in order to reach survivors... this was done the week of the attack even while fires were still ravaging under the rubble piles.

For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth on the matter you certainly seem like someone who has already made up their mind. Your response was rather dismissive. We've already covered this aspect of the 'controversy' with mouse.

edit: ah yes, that's the picture...

[Nbadan]

Ummmm in case you weren't aware.... beams in the debris field were in fact cut in order to reach survivors... this was done the week of the attack even while fires were still ravaging under the rubble piles.

For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth on the matter you certainly seem like someone who has already made up their mind. Your response was rather dismissive. We've already covered this aspect of the 'controversy' with mouse.

Look, I'm just saying that it would have taken days, if not weeks to get the needed mechinery to lift that type of weight, and the pic just do not support that, those firemen look like first-responders, and besides if they had already cleared that area there would be much less debris around the beam.

[ChumpDumper]

Think of it this way Chumper. Giuliani's emergency command and control center was in building WTC7. Reinforced concrete blast columns, reinforced blast-proof glass and probably a lot of secret modifications we don't even know about. Any plotters could have conceivable thought that WTC7 could be brought down after Towers 1 and 2, to use as a control center for the attacks and then demolish and purge any evidence of evil-doing.So now you are basing your theory on things you "don't even know about"?

Why would anyone need to use the building next door as a control center when all they had to do was hijack planes in Boston, Washington and Newark? wouldn't it have been easier to use one of the main towers as a control center instead of hoping the top of the north tower would make it across the street (now THAT'S a controlled demolition) and take out enormous chunks of your secret hidey hole AND start multiple fires AND cut off the water supply AND start the diesel pumps AND put squibs in the very top corner of the building when all that was needed was to weaken the lower floors and let the rest of the building collapse into it.

That's how you are telling me to think about it.

[Nbadan]

Why would anyone need to use the building next door as a control center when all they had to do was hijack planes in Boston, Washington and Newark? wouldn't it have been easier to use one of the main towers as a control center instead of hoping the top of the north tower would make it across the street (now THAT'S a controlled demolition) and take out enormous chunks of your secret hidey hole AND start multiple fires AND cut off the water supply AND start the diesel pumps AND put squibs in the very top corner of the building when all that was needed was to weaken the lower floors and let the rest of the building collapse into it.

Excellent question. As Dick Cheney would would say, there are known known and known unknowns, what get's you aren't the known unknown but the unknown knowns. I don't know why, yet, but for some reason WTC7 was going to come down either way that day.

[Phenomanul]

Look, I'm just saying that it would have taken days, if not weeks to get the needed mechinery to lift that type of weight, and the pic just do not support that, those firemen look like first-responders, and besides if they had already cleared that area there would be much less debris around the beam.

First off, neither you or myself can ascertain the exact context of this picture. Could be in the very heart of the pile of WTC1, at the edges or the fringe of the debris field. Only the guy/gal who took the picture can say where he/she was. The problem is that 'conspiracists' are running around with this picture and making all sorts of claims without that context. Hence, their conjectures on the matter from this picture alone have little value without said contextual details (time, what was going on?, exactly what are we seeing?, etc...).

But again someone who has already made up their mind on the matter won't let such a simple concept stop them from thinking the worst.

[ChumpDumper]

it's the internal columns that fall first Chump, that's why in the videos the top penthouse appears to be collapsing into the rest of the building. Had the outer support failed first the collapse would not have been as catastrophic.No shit internal columns failed. On the south side of the building under the penthouse first. Why are you pretending it was a pefectly symmetrical collapse when the east penthouse falls in first, then the west penthouse, then the rest of the building?

[FromWayDowntown]

Look, I'm just saying that it would have taken days, if not weeks to get the needed mechinery to lift that type of weight, and the pic just do not support that, those firemen look like first-responders, and besides if they had already cleared that area there would be much less debris around the beam.

So, wait -- you're not even sure when the photograph that is your Exhibit B was taken? You're guessing that the men depicted in the photograph are first-responders, but don't really know?

That's some scientific proof!!

[ChumpDumper]

Aluminun oxides aren't gonna cause steel beams to fail Chuck.Of course they aren't. My explanation of the events doesn't require steel cutting material being planted directly in the impact zone before the crash and instructing arab agents (who have decided to kill themselves to help you) exactly where to hit the building to ignite it with the thermite with the jet fuel.
There may have been some present from the planes,You're saying there MAY have been some aluminum in commercial airliners? What exactly do you think they are made of?
but it doesn't explain how thick steel girders appear to be cut in a angle caused by thermite in a controlled demolition.Oh yeah, the infamous out of context girder. No girders were cut during the recovery or cleanup efforts, were they? Not one. Do you even realize what you have to ignore to believe your stories?

[ChumpDumper]

Only because the questions aren't really pertinent to the discussion, we've already acknowledged that there was fire on the 10th floor and above WTC7, but for the buildings to fail like they did, the fire had to be much lower, at least according to the initial FEMA report, which none of the pics I have seen from anybody show.

Why haven't any of the sheeple acknowledged that discrepency johnny?Why haven't you acknowledged that fires reached the north side of the building?

[FromWayDowntown]

Why haven't you acknowledged that fires reached the north side of the building?

Come on, Chump. That was relevant when there wasn't any photographic proof in this thread to dispute the absolute assertion that the fire never reached the north face; but once the unassailable photographic proof was adduced, there was no longer any real relevance to dan's assertion.

Think of it as a mental exercise that dan authored.

[Nbadan]

But again someone who has already made up their mind on the matter won't let such a simple concept stop them from thinking the worst.

Maybe the real issue is you haven't convinced me otherwise. Whatever the context of the photo, it's highly unlikely that rescuers would set off thermite charges in an area where they believe there to be victims.

[Nbadan]

No shit internal columns failed. On the south side of the building under the penthouse first. Why are you pretending it was a pefectly symmetrical collapse when the east penthouse falls in first, then the west penthouse, then the rest of the building?

Because under that scenario the building was more likely to collapse like the Murrah building. In order for those buildings to fall in the manner they did, something had to compromise the load-bearing support columns on the lower foors, especially floors 5th and 6th, that's where the crazy scenario with the diesel fuel comes into the discussion.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe the real issue is you haven't convinced me otherwise. Whatever the context of the photo, it's highly unlikely that rescuers would set off thermite charges in an area where they believe there to be victims.Right.

Because the rescuers didn't use thermite.

[Nbadan]

Right.

Because the rescuers didn't use thermite.

Well, technically, at that point they were no longer rescuers.

[ChumpDumper]

Because under that scenario the building was more likely to collapse like the Murrah building.Why do you keep bringing up a building that is only one seventh the height of 7WTC and has a completely different construction? There is no way to compare the two whatsoever.
In order for those buildings to fall in the manner they did, something had to compromise the load-bearing support columns on the lower foors, especially floors 5th and 6th, that's where the crazy scenario with the diesel fuel comes into the discussion.Two mechanical penthouses falling on top of columns hundreds of feet below that had already been weakened by other falling debris, fire and transformer explosions -- yeah, that's a crazy scenario alright.

What was your scenario again?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, technically, at that point they were no longer rescuers.Well, technically, why did you use the word rescuers?

And you still have no idea when that picture was taken.

[Nbadan]

Why do you keep bringing up a building that is only one seventh the height of 7WTC and has a completely different construction? There is no way to compare the two whatsoever.

What? you think that taller buildings are naturally weaker, but that's not necessarily the case. There were support columns at all ends of WTC7, besides the penthouse's dropping first is a clear indication of catastrophic internal column failure, but no one here has provided a realistic scenario of how that could have come about.

[Nbadan]

Two mechanical penthouses falling on top of columns hundreds of feet below that had already been weakened by other falling debris, fire and transformer explosions -- yeah, that's a crazy scenario alright.

What was your scenario again?

Maybe, but the penthouses clearly went first.

[Nbadan]

Let's look at other tall building fires:

Exhibit C:

Catastrophic fire, no collapse (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM)

[Phenomanul]

Let's look at other tall building fires:

Exhibit C:

Catastrophic fire, no collapse (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM)


OK let's go through this again....

WTC7
Fire: Check
Major Structural Damage: Check
High Center of Gravity: Check
Collapse: Yes

Murrah Building
Fire: Check
Major Structural Damage: Check
High Center of Gravity: No
Collapse: No

Building in 'Exhibit C'
Fire: Check
Major Structural Damage: ??? (not likely otherwise we would know about it)
High Center of Gravity: Check
Collapse: No


Any Questions???

[FromWayDowntown]

Here's another fine example of how the conspiracy theorist dodges an important question by simply pretending that it was never asked

[ChumpDumper]

What? you think that taller buildings are naturally weaker, but that's not necessarily the case.I think a building with 47 floors is heavier than one with 7 floors. If you won't acknowledge the fires in the north side of 7 WTC, would you at least acknowledge that 7 WTC is larger than the Murrah building?
There were support columns at all ends of WTC7, besides the penthouse's dropping first is a clear indication of catastrophic internal column failure, but no one here has provided a realistic scenario of how that could have come about.North tower falls into 7 WTC, damaging internal columns on upper floors and lower floors -- eyewitness accounts cite holes deep in the building all down its southern face. Fires throughout the building further weaken the structure. Weakened upper internal columns can no longer support the load transferred to them from the damaged ones and the mechanical penthouse collapses into the building, knocking out all manner of columns on the way down, preciptating a total collapse that begins in the originally damaged south side of the building and the building falls in that direction.

Now I'm no engineer, but that seems just as plausible if not moreso than any conspiracy theory you haven't come up with. I say you haven't come up with any because your half-assed conjectures don't even merit the title of theory. You never come up with suspects, motive, means -- anything that a real theory would require.

[xrayzebra]

I cant believe this thread is still going on. This subject has
been hashed and rehashed at least four times that I can
remember right off hand.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe, but the penthouses clearly went first.Right, that's exactly what I said. There's no need to restate my argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, here's another guy that probably isn't a structural engineer -- he's only a firefighter who was at the scene at 7 WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

I'll go ahead and quote him since you probably won't click the link:

"You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond..."

If this guy and all the other firefighters knew this building was going to come down by itself without the aid of explosives and got the hell out of the way hours before it happened, why would any explosives be needed to bring it down?

This is the most basic common sense question that has to be answered by anyone who is going to refute the firefighters who were there at the scene.

[FromWayDowntown]

Again, we see a perfect example of how the conspiracy theorists cut and run when their arguments are debunked; they lay in wait, hoping for another day to offer their unfounded contentions, praying that the voices of reason will be unaware of their attempts to sway the gullible.

[Nbadan]

I think a building with 47 floors is heavier than one with 7 floors. If you won't acknowledge the fires in the north side of 7 WTC, would you at least acknowledge that 7 WTC is larger than the Murrah building?

Blah, the fires you posted are insignificant. Show me a fire like the fire in the building that I posted and I might start to believe you. Why have you ignored my question about there not appearing to be fire below the 10th floor?

[johnsmith]

Blah, the fires you posted are insignificant. Show me a fire like the fire in the building that I posted and I might start to believe you. Why have you ignored my question about there not appearing to be fire below the 10th floor?


Why haven't you answered half of the questions directed towards you in this thread?

I'm beginning to believe that it was actually Dan that brought the towers down on that day and he's trying to cover it up now.


Hey, it's as believable as his side of the story.

[Nbadan]

Well, here's another guy that probably isn't a structural engineer -- he's only a firefighter who was at the scene at 7 WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

I'll go ahead and quote him since you probably won't click the link:

"You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond..."

Ok, but he really didn't qualify what he meant in his statement by 'it's coming down', did he mean the entire building's coming down, or just that southern end of the building that appears to have received most of the fascade damage from falling Tower debris. Why didn't any of the building surrounding WTC7 collapse? Don't you think they would have received equally catastrophic damage?

[johnsmith]

Ok, but he really didn't qualify what he meant in his statement by 'it's coming down', did he mean the entire building's coming down, or just that southern end of the building that appears to have received most of the facade damage from falling debris.

What questions are those?


:lol :lol :lol :lol


Oh, wait, you were serious on that?

[Nbadan]

:lol :lol :lol :lol


Oh, wait, you were serious on that?

No, it's all context Johnny, if you know politics, you should know that by now.

[xrayzebra]

Give it a rest dan. You lost the argument.
Not just once but how many damn times.

[Nbadan]

Again, we see a perfect example of how the conspiracy theorists cut and run when their arguments are debunked; they lay in wait, hoping for another day to offer their unfounded contentions, praying that the voices of reason will be unaware of their attempts to sway the gullible.

Man, I'm with you most of the time FWD,T but no-one has debunked anything here yet.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, but he really didn't qualify what he meant in his statement by 'it's coming down', did he mean the entire building's coming down, or just that southern end of the building that appears to have received most of the fascade damage from falling Tower debris. Are you kidding me?

Here's part of an interview with a fireman from Ladder Company 22:

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind [the Verizon building],
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here's the Chief of Department:

The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

Here's Chief Frank Cruthers:

A. ....Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt

Here's part of a Firehouse magazine interview with FDNY Captain Cris Boyle:

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

They also interviewed deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Also from Firehouse:

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html

Now do you want me to add links to the videos of the Aaron Brown saying the building has collapsed or will collapse and Brian Williams saying what we have feared would happen has happened the moment after it did go down?

Or is this enough to convince you?

[ChumpDumper]

Why didn't any of the building surrounding WTC7 collapse? Don't you think they would have received equally catastrophic damage?Here's the Banker's Trust building that was across the street from the south tower:

http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Fortunately, it didn't catch fire and was contructed completely differently too boot.

Here's the Verizon building which was next to 7 WTC:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_140wst.jpg

Stuff hit it. Just not as much.

Here's the Winter Garden of the World Financial Center to the west:

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-09/4484079.jpg

So other buildings were damaged.

[FromWayDowntown]

Man, I'm with you most of the time FWD,T but no-one has debunked anything here yet.

I don't buy that.

You offer nothing but idle speculation dan, which strikes me as being unsupported by and wholly contrary to the plentiful known and objective facts about the condition of the buildings on 9/11 and the physics that will support collapse in those circumstances.

You conflate the many factors that went into the collapse of the Twin Towers into a singular argument that fire hasn't brought down a steel structure -- you somehow ignore the fact that nobody is arguing that the collapse was caused entirely by fire.

You state, as facts supporting your unsubstantiated opinions, things that have been affirmatively disproven by photographic evidence in this thread. Rather than acknowledging that, you simply change the "facts" upon which you are relying.

It's easy to say that something remains possible (or that it hasn't been debunked) if you take that sort of a stilted view of the facts or refuse to accept the consequences that flow from things that are proveable.

It's easier still when you don't make any argument whatsoever and rely on innuendo that changes with each page of posts.

[Nbadan]

Let's see what the scientists say...


NIST "anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007".[8][9] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[10][11] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[12]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[13] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[9]

As reported by the New York Times,[14] the building had had some extreme renovative work done to it in 1989 to accommodate the needs of a new major tenant, the brokerage firm Salomon Brothers. Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and then more than 350 (US) tons of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were also installed on the fifth floor as part of a back-up power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors

WIKIPEDIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center)

[Nbadan]

Let's see what Scholars say about WTC7:


Another expert at the hearings, Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, stated, "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse." Investigators at the time stated that they did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence.

Public access to blueprints of the three destroyed skyscrapers - the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 - has been a long-standing goal of the 9/11 research community. The inability to access data on the structural design of the buildings has been an impediment to further investigation of the theory, these researchers say. One goal they have is to remodel the collapses and see if NIST's findings can be replicated.

"A key element of the scientific method is reproducibility - can others repeat the experiment and get the same results?" Jim Hoffman said, investigator and creator of www.wtc7.net . "Without the original data, findings cannot be examined scientifically. Even the most prominent scientists and engineers in history have made mistakes. But without the ability to try to replicate others' findings, we might keep on making the same mistakes over and over."

Groups releasing the plans cite support for the demolition theory in their organizations and elsewhere by a variety of professionals including structural and civil engineers, architects, and physicists. Supporters point to several features which they say cannot be explained by a gravity-driven collapse, including the speed, symmetry, explosiveness, thoroughness of pulverization, and totality of these events, and numerous reports of molten metal pools in the debris piles.

The research of physicist Steven E. Jones has focused on the molten metal pools found in basement areas under rubble piles of the Twin Towers and Building 7. He states in his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse," that the observations of molten metal "are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel."

Neither of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' destruction - FEMA's and NIST's - disclose core column dimensions - dimensions now apparent in the blueprints. Hoffman believes these studies minimized the strength of the cores and their structural role, as did the Commission Report. "The Commission Report denied the existence of the core columns," he says, "describing each Tower's structural core as 'a hollow steel shaft.'"

Hoffman says that the newly released blueprints show what analysis of independent investigators have long held on the basis of construction photographs and scattered reports in journals, such as the Engineering News Record, from the era of the Towers' construction: "The Towers contained 47 large core columns, more than a dozen of which retained dimensions of 54 x 22 inches through the 66th floor, and tapered in stages on higher floors. The core columns around the South Tower's crash zone were about twice as heavy as those in the North Tower's crash zone."

Hoffman's associate editor, Gregg Roberts, sees the NIST Final Report as a whitewash. "The refusal by NIST to fully disclose its computer models, its assumptions, and the conflicts of interest of the many defense contractors who assisted in this whitewash of an investigation reveal the true intentions behind the Report."

Groups investigating the Towers' destruction also cite the case of the collapse of WTC Building 7. In 2004 during the 9/11 Commission hearings, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee (FSC) asked of the Commission, "On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" The group formed in the fall of 2001 to demand an independent investigation into the attacks. However, 70 percent of the questions were either not sufficiently addressed or not addressed at all by the Commission. NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report. The newly released blueprints do not include WTC 7, built 10 years after the main World Trade Center complex.

Dr. Steven Jones has described the type of investigation he would like to see. He states in his paper, "A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion."

Critics of the Bush Administration's secretive policies have claimed that the alternative accounts of the attack have thrived in part because of the lack of information such as the WTC blueprints.

Scholars for 911 truth and justice (http://stj911.org/press_releases/blueprints.html)

[ChumpDumper]

Why is your answer to everything changing the subject?

I just gave you SEVEN eyewitness accounts saying they thought the building was going to collapse. what do you do in reponse? Give some writing from a physics professor who was in Utah on 9/11.

I want you to comment on the six additional eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene.

[Extra Stout]

Did you actually read that, or just cherry-pick for things that kind of sounded a little bit like what you wanted to believe? Because Dr. Sunder just destroys you.


"We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors
Interestingly, dan, a floor is not the same thing as a support column. First of all, floors are horizontal. In a skyscraper, they are stacked up one on top of another. Meanwhile, support columns are vertical. They support the weight of things like floors, because there is a force between masses called gravity that tends to make things like floors fall towards the earth.

So far, other posters have been discussing how these columns had been compromised, leading to collapse; here, you have gotten the columns confused with floors. I hope my explanation clears that up.

[Extra Stout]

Why is your answer to everything changing the subject?

I just gave you SEVEN eyewitness accounts saying they thought the building was going to collapse. what do you do in reponse? Give some writing from a physics professor who was in Utah on 9/11.

I want you to comment on the six additional eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene.
Look, dan gets a rise and a feeling of superiority from believing this stuff. It's not about having the answers. It's about the self-satisfaction in being counter-culture, and all that takes is the ability to ignore most facts and cherry-pick a few others.

Sadly, as anyone who has ever listened to a Cal Thomas commentary can attest, this flaw is not unique to the moonbat left.

[xrayzebra]

Did you actually read that, or just cherry-pick for things that kind of sounded a little bit like what you wanted to believe? Because Dr. Sunder just destroys you.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interestingly, dan, a floor is not the same thing as a support column. First of all, floors are horizontal. In a skyscraper, they are stacked up one on top of another. Meanwhile, support columns are vertical. They support the weight of things like floors, because there is a force between masses called gravity that tends to make things like floors fall towards the earth.

So far, other posters have been discussing how these columns had been compromised, leading to collapse; here, you have gotten the columns confused with floors. I hope my explanation clears that up.

ES, wastn't there a company from San Antonio that
thought they had perfected a process where they could
construct floors on the ground level, raise them and
build multi-storied building that way. Then had a
terrible accident where their system failed killed some
workers and now you never hear of that system. Seems
like the accident happened in the late 80's or 90's.

[Nbadan]

Why is your answer to everything changing the subject?

I just gave you SEVEN eyewitness accounts saying they thought the building was going to collapse. what do you do in reponse? Give some writing from a physics professor who was in Utah on 9/11.

I want you to comment on the six additional eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene.

What do you expect me to believe Chump? That six people could look at a building and say that they think it's gonna come down? What is that? These people weren't experts on the collapse, they didn't run any numbers on the stress loads of the trusses, they didn't do a fire and chemical analysis on the beams of the buildings. Cut the superficial stuff and give me something I can sink my teeth into and maybe we can get to some debunking.

but thanks for trying.

[ChumpDumper]

What do you expect me to believe Chump? That six people could look at a building and say that they think it's gonna come down?You don't believe that six firemen could look at a building and say they think it's gonna come down?
These people weren't experts on the collapse, they didn't run any numbers on the stress loads of the trusses, they didn't do a fire and chemical analysis on the beams of the buildings.And your experts and scholars did?
Cut the superficial stuff You first.

[Nbadan]

You don't believe that six firemen could look at a building and say they think it's gonna come down?

I got 10 firemen on tape saying they heard a series of sequenced explosions before Towers 1 and 2 fell...who should i believe.......hmmmm....

[ChumpDumper]

I got 10 firemen on tape saying they heard a series of sequenced explosions before Towers 1 and 2 fell...who should i believe.......hmmmm....Did they say it looked like bombs were going to go off hours beforehand?

[Nbadan]

And your experts and scholars did?

I'm the one that said that any further discussion of this topic should be reserved till the next NIST report comes out. Hopefully, it contains a more detailed analysis than the preliminary report did.

[ChumpDumper]

What do you expect me to believe Chump? That six people could look at a building and say that they think it's gonna come down? What is that? These people weren't experts on the collapse, they didn't run any numbers on the stress loads of the trusses, they didn't do a fire and chemical analysis on the beams of the buildings.Did you not read anything I posted?

Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

There's your test. The only one that could have been done while the building was still standing.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm the one that said that any further discussion of this topic should be reserved till the next NIST report comes out. Hopefully, it contains a more detailed analysis than the preliminary report did.Yet that didn't stop you from spitting out all the tired conspiracy theorites (my new term for tiny unrelated bits of theory that amount to nothing).

[Nbadan]

Did they say it looked like bombs were going to go off hours beforehand?

I got the explosions on tape. Look, I'm convinced that some 911 conspiracy shows like loose change are just poison pills to categorically attempt to debunk every alternative theory about 911 as a conspiracy theory. Get a copy of eyewitness 911. The guy was right across the Hudson and you can hear explosions on his video and you can see white smoke rising from the base of both buildings well before and right at the time of the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Strangely, or not, I have not been able to find a complete copy of this video online, but I would be happy to share a copy if you send me your address or a way to get it to you by IM.

[Nbadan]

Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

I already posted that this particular building had removable walls and ceilings to meet demands for higher ceilings and wider working areas.

[ChumpDumper]

I already posted that this particular building had removable walls and ceilings to meet demands for higher ceilings and wider working areas.Did they design the entire structure to move on it's own? Really, are you feigning this level of ignorance to avoid accepting the truth here? That's not what the transit would measure and you know it.

[ChumpDumper]

I got the explosions on tape. Look, I'm convinced that some 911 conspiracy shows like loose change are just poison pills to categorically attempt to debunk every alternative theory about 911 as a conspiracy theory. Get a copy of eyewitness 911. The guy was right across the Hudson and you can hear explosions on his video and you can see white smoke rising from the base of both buildings well before and right at the time of the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Strangely, or not, I have not been able to find a complete copy of this video online, but I would be happy to share a copy if you send me your address or a way to get it to you by IM.I've seen that video. I'm sure there were explosions all over the place and there were fires all over the building because they spread through the elevator shafts. The lobby on the ground floor got blown all to hell very soon after the plane hit the building. There's tape of that too.

[Nbadan]

Did they design the entire structure to move on it's own? Really, are you feigning this level of ignorance to avoid accepting the truth here? That's not what the transit would measure and you know it.

Look, these guys weren't engineers. They noticed movement in a few walls, they didn't have any data of the trusses.

[ChumpDumper]

Look, these guys weren't engineers.Look, these guys were firemen who use a tool to figure out if an entire building was moving.
They noticed movement in a few wallsHow many walls were there to measure? Four?
they didn't have any data of the trusses.And neither does the BYU physics professor, but that never stopped him from saying it had to be explosives.

[Nbadan]

I've seen that video. I'm sure there were explosions all over the place and there were fires all over the building because they spread through the elevator shafts. The lobby on the ground floor got blown all to hell very soon after the plane hit the building. There's tape of that too.

In that casee, there would be a few explosions, there are more than that on the tape, a series of explosions, some right before the collapse, and if you had seen this particular video, his free-fall analysis on the collapse of WTC7 is copied by every other conspiracy video. Did the need for a vacuum in order for the building to free-fall that fast just escape you?

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, that's a load of crap. Why is there other debris falling out from the buildings faster than the building itself? Was there a super-vacuum that was sucking that stuff down to the earth faster than the force of gravity in the vacuum that was supposedly pulling down the towers? What fact escaped me there?

[ChumpDumper]

his free-fall analysis on the collapse of WTC7And is he on the faculty at BYU as well?

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me which is falling faster here: the building or the debris.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR/DOCS/wtc_collapse7.jpg

[Nbadan]

Ok, I can see you no longer wish to discuss this rationally.

[Nbadan]

it's the trusses that matter, not individual debris, that not holding the building up.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, is the building falling as fast as this debris?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_collapse.jpg

This is the simplest common sense question you need to answer for yourself.

[Nbadan]

Fine, do a arc analysis of your own pic, tell me, do things fall upward? because they are there.

[ChumpDumper]

it's the trusses that matter, not individual debris, that not holding the building up.Why are you confuse the subject? You said the building fell at free-fall speed. If that's true, it would be falling at the same rate as the debris.

It isn't.

[Nbadan]

Why are you confuse the subject? You said the building fell at free-fall speed. If that's true, it would be falling at the same rate as the debris.

It isn't.

No, free-fall would mean that there was catastrophic truss failure at all levels, a statistical impossibility.