The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON

[Ivan Seeking]

Done.

Subject closed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, Sub-Zero had indicated that this was an accident; the threads do move pretty fast. So again, I am waiting to hear from the skeptics. Do we have any common ground here?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.

Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.

Perhaps I'm biased but they don't even seem to be able to respond to our arguements unless they are twisting our words or creating strawmen. I'm baffled that they could even believe half of this. I'd be more than willing to continue this if only in the hopes that we might be able to get them to be more incredulous of their sources or this wacky version of physics they are learning.

 

[outsider]

Well, since you reopened this, I guess I will come into agree with what the crazy's are saying to some degree, but disagree with their method of debate.

After watching some of the vids, i'd hate to say that they almost resemble the same type of stuff the rightwing crazys got... i'd even consider these guys false leftys with the way that they go about arguing... but they are probably just very passionate.

The video about the pentagon explosion was one that I thought was quite good. I personally have never been satisfied with the results of any of the investigations. Any media that came out of 911 was suspicious to me. The whole threat level colors and the obvious scare tactics were so corny to me (but if I were writing them, I would've used similar methods)... this is the type of media that America loves though. I'm on the side of the crazys... they can bash me for calling them crazy... i don't care... I believe the conspiracy theory that there is a global corporate agenda in the works... I can't prove it, nor do I care to have a lot of people agree with me, so I won't chase down the proof... I just know how corporations work from the inside... and since everything is relative and connected I come to my personal conclusion... believe what you want...

America is not evil... There are certain rich people who want to corner the market on being rich and untouchable who are at fault... it just so happens that some of them are American.

It is definitely true what they say about people who have money & power... they are concerned about getting more. There is some inferiority complex involved. Capitalism drives a lot of this complex for sure... hence the war of beliefs (IMO).

 

[outsider]

as for bombs and underground bombs on the WTC Towers, that's pretty far fetched... I hope they pick something else to debate rather than the way in which the towers fell...

but to support what they are saying, don't engineers implode buildings using explosives placed in strategic places to ensure that buildings fall straight down to prevent damaging other buildings?

Otherwise, we could just hire anyone to destroy old buildings, NO?

 

[Pengwuino]

After watching some of the vids, i'd hate to say that they almost resemble the same type of stuff the rightwing crazys got... i'd even consider these guys false leftys with the way that they go about arguing... but they are probably just very passionate.

I think this insanity transcends ideological lines. I think there backwards-wingers

 

[Pengwuino]

but to support what they are saying, don't engineers implode buildings using explosives placed in strategic places to ensure that buildings fall straight down to prevent damaging other buildings?

Otherwise, we could just hire anyone to destroy old buildings, NO?

Demolition crews basically get the blueprints and determine exactly where they should set off explosives (I believe they use a type of thermite drilled into the steel when they have to topple steel buildings) so that buildings fall in the way they want them to fall. You can make a building fall in most any direction... except when it comes to tremendously tall skyscrapers. There is nothing you can do to make a building fall anywhere but straight down when your dealing with skyscrapers basically because your dealing with such incredible amounts of mass.

I remember a show a while ago where they were showing various demolitions. One happened to be a very large sky-scrapper. They said that basically the only way to do it was set off shape-charges at like... 3 floors of charges with 5 floors inbetween all the way up. The charges would basically weaken the structure and the building would collapse upon itself with the force of gravity. The OBVIOUS difference in the controlled demolition in the show and the supposed demolition in the WTC is that the bottom floors started to fall at the same time as the top floors. As we can see in the WTC, a large section basically fell and pushed everything down as it made contact.

 

[outsider]

Demolition crews basically get the blueprints and determine exactly where they should set off explosives (I believe they use a type of thermite drilled into the steel when they have to topple steel buildings) so that buildings fall in the way they want them to fall. You can make a building fall in most any direction... except when it comes to tremendously tall skyscrapers. There is nothing you can do to make a building fall anywhere but straight down when your dealing with skyscrapers basically because your dealing with such incredible amounts of mass.

I remember a show a while ago where they were showing various demolitions. One happened to be a very large sky-scrapper. They said that basically the only way to do it was set off shape-charges at like... 3 floors of charges with 5 floors inbetween all the way up. The charges would basically weaken the structure and the building would collapse upon itself with the force of gravity. The OBVIOUS difference in the controlled demolition in the show and the supposed demolition in the WTC is that the bottom floors started to fall at the same time as the top floors. As we can see in the WTC, a large section basically fell and pushed everything down as it made contact.

Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.

 

[Pengwuino]

Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.

Which one... what do they say. I've seen so many of these things

 

[Rude Boi MC!]

Ok the point of contention that was actually picked out a long time ago was the collapse of building 7. I would also like to see you conspiracy theorists defend the official conspiracy theory, and provide "you’re strongest argument" as to why that brainwashing is actually true. I have to make this clear though, this whole debate is not meant to be about a personal attacks on those who still believe the official story. Believe it or not we’re on your side and we’re just trying to point out to you all, that there’s a massive fraud taking place, and that we need everybody to fight it. So let's please not descend into pathetic beefs, and let's just argue the cases.


But as I said Building 7 is what we’re saying, based on logic and reasoning, can only be described as a controlled demolition. And so by default that raises serious questions as to the legitimacy of the official story, of the attacks being solely carried out by Arabs “who hate our freedoms”. So study the video of it’s collapse and bare in mind the facts like minimal fire and no plane or substantial debris hitting it, and see if you can understand where our argument is coming from.

Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg Video Broadcast by CBS - 1.4mb - mpeg
This 36 second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.

http://wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg Video from NBC news camera - 1.5mb
This 9 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg Video broadcast on CBS - 1.7MB - mpeg
This 9.6 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.


The difference between building 7 and the towers is that, WTC 7 can be described as an implode demolition, and if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, they can be described as explode demolitions.

 

[Rude Boi MC!]

Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.

Yes we should get on to that, but right now we're focusing on the collapse of building 7. I know what you’re talking about though, there's tremendous suspicion about what happened at the pentagon also.

 

[outsider]

can someone other than the rude boi explain what happened with building 7? There wasn't any reasons for it to collapse was there?

 

[Pengwuino]

can someone other than the rude boi explain what happened with building 7? There wasn't any reasons for it to collapse was there?

... read the last 8 pages.

 

[outsider]

no.. i did not read anything previously about a direct hit... fire isn't enough to take a building down... are there not sprinklers?... it's late... I'm :zzz:

 

[Pengwuino]

no.. i did not read anything previously about a direct hit... fire isn't enough to take a building down... are there not sprinklers?... it's late... I'm :zzz:

Well denying it doesn't make it false. This FACT has been substantiated by many many many experts. And even on the day it happened, people were saying the water systems were damaged from the twin tower's collapse so the sprinklers couldn't activate. That or they had to de-activate them... whichever it was, it was being discussed on the 9/11 and there was nothing intriguing or questionable about the explanation. No conspiracy nuts have brought it up so far so I suppose its of the utmost factual integrity

 

[Esperanto]

Just for the hey of it I'll say it again. The building owner said he pulled it and Fema said “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

Can anyone hear me?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, Evo, any common ground?

Esperanto, could you post a link to what you just said. I have no idea where it might be at this point.

 

[Evo]

Ivan, there have been a ton of threads on this, and the result is always the same, there is no crediblity to these "conspiricy" theories. How many threads with the same drivel being regurgitated do we want to endure? When one of these kids can come up with new hard evidence, we can look at it then, right now there is nothing to look at. Here is a link Fred Garvin provided in the last WTC 7 thread. It's the official report on the WTC 7 collapse.

Without water for the sprinkler system, the fire department did not attempt to control the blaze. It continued to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours.

WTC 7 summary:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wt...ort/WTC_ch5.pdf

5.6.2 Probable Collapse Sequence

The collapse of WTC 7 appears to have initiated on the east side of the building on the interior, as indicated by the disappearance of the east penthouse into the building. This was followed by the disappearance of the west penthouse, and the development of a fault or “kink” on the east half of WTC 7 (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24). The collapse then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the
inside and progressed up, as seen by the extension of the fault from the lower levels to the top.

During the course of the day, fires may have exposed various structural elements to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of causing collapse. The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7, located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building.

 

[Esperanto]

Esperanto, could you post a link to what you just said. I have no idea where it might be at this point.

I'll quote myself on this topic thread.

And to those people who want to point to the fuel tanks in building 7


Quote:
“The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, “The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse.”



http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/LiesAndVideotape.html

The building seven was burning for seven hours before it collapse at 5:30 p.m. People were evacuated an hour or two before. That's how mild the fires were.

Let's just forget about all that evidence and compare what Larry Silverstein and FEMA say.


Quote:
n a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."



http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html


Quote:
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”



http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

How can you defend that?

But whatever, let's just focus on building 7 when Larry Silverstein said he blew it up and FEMA said "... I don't know"

Answer now!

He said they PULLED it. Demolition term for demolishing.

Ok Ivan. Larry said he blew up 7. Fema said they don't know what happened. Good luck!

Then tell me, Evo can stick with the idea that fire caused wtc 7 to collapse when Larry says he blew it up and I am guilty of ignoring the evidence?

 

[Evo]

Then tell me, Evo can stick with the idea that fire caused wtc 7 to collapse when Larry says he blew it up and I am guilty of ignoring the evidence?

Your information is not accurate. No one said they blew it up, if they had, there wouldn't be any question, would there?

If you have nothing factual to present, I suggest you stop wasting our time here.

 

[Esperanto]

Did you listen to the audio clip? Larry said he blew it up. Or you don't think that's Larry Silverstein?

 

[Burnsys]

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3


America Rebuilds: http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Perhaps I'm biased but they don't even seem to be able to respond to our arguements unless they are twisting our words or creating strawmen. I'm baffled that they could even believe half of this. I'd be more than willing to continue this if only in the hopes that we might be able to get them to be more incredulous of their sources or this wacky version of physics they are learning.

I'm not sure you guys really know what you're talking about as much as you think you do, I've talked about Steel weakening at 2000 degrees and offered several scholarly links to supporate this claim, and all you've said is, "I AM WRONG" but cannot pull up an enginnering link to substanciate your claim, are you expecting me to just take your word for it? Cause that's not happening, show my a link, then you have a point.

THe only other thing I can discuss that seems like it could be interpeted as physics oriented is, for the buildings to fall at virtual freefall speed the enitre column would have to be destroyed, that's how buildings are demolished, explosive are placed all long one of the column, it controlled demolition it's the one in the middle, this achives the symetrical collapse, making the building fall in on itself, that's what I said. That's more common sense than anything.


Where's the wacky physics?

I want to see links

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Your information is not accurate. No one said they blew it up, if they had, there wouldn't be any question, would there?

If you have nothing factual to present, I suggest you stop wasting our time here.

Of course there is becuse the military industrial complex who owns are government and who also owns the media doesen't want the truth about 9/11 to come out so they spin it to mean differen't things, "Pull" the building has alwasy meant controlled demoliton, and this is simply the elite trying to save Silverestine's ass by changing the symantics of what he meant after he slipped up, show many any sky scraper that has EVER falled from fire, or falled from ANYTHING but controlled demolition, or earthquakes, I don't care what FEMA says that the building was mis-designed, for one I doubt this is even true (it may be) but two it still would not cause this building to fall like this or fall period, to believe the offical line on seven is nothing but pure quakery.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Chill out now boys, n let them respond

 

[Evo]

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3

Yes, they pulled the firefighting operation. Have you not read any of the official reports?

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Yes, they pulled the firefighting operation. Have you not read any of the official reports?

I've read them, however I QUESTION them, you should too, if you were really looking at this objective. If any of these numerous facts meant anything, you're facing the posibility of having the killers investigating themselves. Have you seen the videos? You're really saiying that it was not demolished.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

 

[Evo]

Here is the latest update from NIST

Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7

If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:

An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2

A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

 

[Sub-Zer0]

That is extremely far fetched. So you believe that? You believe fire brought down Seven?

 

[Evo]

That is extremely far fetched. So you believe that? You believe fire brought down Seven?

Yes, the facts are all there.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Yes, the facts are all there.

Facts can be concocted, and evidence can be manufactured. Show me any other building that anything like this has ever happened in before. This is completely ridiculous,

 

[Evo]

Facts can be concocted, and evidence can be manufactured. Show me any other building that anything like this has ever happened in before. This is completely ridiculous,

Find a building that matches the damage specified in the report on WTC 7. Thinking that the building was demolished with explosives isn't even a possibility since no traces of explosives were found. I prefer fact over wild, baseless fabrications that make no sense.

Do you really expect someone to believe that Silverstein and the NY fire department deliberately imploded the building? (without explosives, no less)

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Find a building that matches the damage specified in the report on WTC 7. Thinking that the building was demolished with explosives isn't even a possibility since no traces of explosives were found. I prefer fact over wild, baseless fabrications that make no sense.

Do you really expect someone to believe that Silverstein and the NY fire department deliberately imploded the building? (without explosives, no less)

Who said it was the fire department. Bring me any steel framed building under ANY circumstances, that has fallen from fire, Fire Won't Melt it or weaken it, for goodness sake, take piece metal and hold it over a lighter, It doesen weaken from little fires from that, Look at the Windsor Building look at the WTC fire in 75, there throwing in an extraneous factor to create doubt in your mind, it's a VERY controlled process, but that's absolutley ridiculous, not only that, it has PULVERIZED CONCERETE, how are these little fires and ANY kind of design flaw in the building able to PULVERIZE CONCERETE? DESENTEGRATE IT. THink about it, what you're proposeing is ASBSOLTELY RIDICULOUS!

 

[outsider]

Find a building that matches the damage specified in the report on WTC 7. Thinking that the building was demolished with explosives isn't even a possibility since no traces of explosives were found. I prefer fact over wild, baseless fabrications that make no sense.

Do you really expect someone to believe that Silverstein and the NY fire department deliberately imploded the building? (without explosives, no less)

I personally question that some people can accept that a fire burning from the top of a building can cause the entire building to collapse in a matter of seconds. Just as the lunatics being closed minded, I find that there is an equal wall of resistance. When mythbusting, one cannot take government reports and documents as "word". Just as the bible is not a full and precise interpretation of history.

For example... Martha Stewart was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice right? Due to a lack of evidence on other counts, this was the only offense she was charged with. So officially, she DID nothing else wrong... but it doesn't mean that she DIDN'T.

Now... let's apply some logic to what is truth... and I think you might see where these "howling mad murdock" guys are coming from. There are no other cases like 911... so there is a missing element of control to the experiment... but this doesn't mean that we can't work the equation some other way... so let's try to look elsewhere ok?

 

[Entropy]

For example, did you know vaccines have a mercury perservative in them which has irrefutable been linked to autism?

Yeah. That isn't news. It's been know for quite a while and has been delt with.

How about Depleted Uranium, the true culprit of Gulf War Syndrome, cause seven to ten the birth deffects, and tripple the cancer rates in Iraq? Did you know about that?

As a matter of fact I did. This is all old news and well known. C'mon, tell me a real cover-up story and not 10 year old news from CNN.

Is this a point?

Yes. You said that we didn't know anything about this "shadowy group" and I was making a point to prove you wrong.

LOL, NO! I'm saying the entire central Colum would have to be destroyed to achieve this

Okay, bring up a credible demolition site that says a building can't fall down that fast with the central column intact.

Steel weakening at 2000 degrees and offered several scholarly links to supporate this claim, and all you've said is, "I AM WRONG"

What? A link to forging sheets of steel? THATS DIFFERENT FROM CONSTRUCTION STEEL! Don't you get it!

Where's your link for that buddy?

Oh and you want a link? Fine. http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

And btw Jet fuel only burns for 30 secconds to two minutes

There is no set time limit from how long fuel can burn. How fast it burns is a function of how much of the fuel is at ignition temperature and how much oxygen is present.

Facts can be concocted, and evidence can be manufactured.

Yeah, just like the conspiracy theorists have done.

design flaw in the building able to PULVERIZE CONCERETE?

It was pulverized from the FALL! Drop a piece of concrete from 1000ft and see what happens.