World trade center video

Life sucks. Lets go have a beer. :D

i'd love to see someone refute the WTC7 thing

If I remember right, Gepper, it was addressed in the Popular Mechanics article. But you will have to go look for it.........I can't be bothered. (thank you.......I have wanted to use the 'can't be bothered' phrase for some time...... :lol: ) Then you can let me know why you think their reasoning is wrong. ;) Unless you can't be bothered, in which case, I am cool with it. :D

Quote:

---

This vid has some interesting info on the trade center colapsing. Its very interesting, some stuff i never knew.

Well worth the download.

---

Quote:

---

i'd love to see someone refute the WTC7 thing

---

This video gives consipracy theorists a bad name. Not since "Fahrenheit 9/11" have I seen such bombastic, utterly laughable garbage purporting to be "truth".

As for WTC 7? Watch the History Channel's presentation of Greatest Engineering Disasters in their Modern Marvels series and all of this is explained. There were no preplanted explosives or any other such nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

i'd love to see someone refute the WTC7 thing

---

This video gives consipracy theorists a bad name. Not since "Fahrenheit 9/11" have I seen such bombastic, utterly laughable garbage purporting to be "truth".

As for WTC 7? Watch the History Channel's presentation of Greatest Engineering Disasters in their Modern Marvels series and all of this is explained. There were no preplanted explosives or any other such nonsense.

---

anyone know where i can download this Greatest engineering disasters program?


i find it hard to believe a design flaw can make the owner and police lie, or make a building collapse in perfect fitting with controlled demolition because of small fires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

i'd love to see someone refute the WTC7 thing

---

This video gives consipracy theorists a bad name. Not since "Fahrenheit 9/11" have I seen such bombastic, utterly laughable garbage purporting to be "truth".

As for WTC 7? Watch the History Channel's presentation of Greatest Engineering Disasters in their Modern Marvels series and all of this is explained. There were no preplanted explosives or any other such nonsense.

---

First rule of the internet...

When something is presented as fact it is fact.
There is no need for further research.
We've got the answer already, dumbshit.

hey busy, i'm asking for sources to refute this. as far as i see it's impossible to make the building collapse like this. even if it was made out of wood (so fire could break it), it could not have collapsed so perfectly.


unlike others here. i like to see the whole story before deciding someone is wrong.

so does anyone have anything that says it didn't involve well placed explosives? republican blogs that call me crazy without confronting any accusations don't count

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



This is from the Popular Mechanics 'Debunking the Myths' article, Gepper. They consulted 300 experts for their article, and listed them at the end. I am not convinced anyone is an 'expert' at what happens when planes fly into buildings, though, as most experts become that way based on experience, and these experts don't have much but hypothesis. After reading the whole article, though, I think they have more experience in these things than the people writing the conspiracy articles. But to each his own. :)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

A chain-reaction collapse just doesnt go down like this.Nice read Everose but i still dont think it dissproves everything.

You can find more stuff here: http://www.conspiracyvideos.com/site...p?article.64.1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



This is from the Popular Mechanics 'Debunking the Myths' article, Gepper. They consulted 300 experts for their article, and listed them at the end. I am not convinced anyone is an 'expert' at what happens when planes fly into buildings, though, as most experts become that way based on experience, and these experts don't have much but hypothesis. After reading the whole article, though, I think they have more experience in these things than the people writing the conspiracy articles. But to each his own. :)

---

interesting read, but i don't believe it. i've heard that fire can weaken the metal, but not that much. remember out of about 100 tall steel buildings that have been on fire none have collapsed. i don't think there really was 25% "scooped out" of a third of the building, how the hell would they work this out, the many cameras didn't see it and i didn't see any sources to say how they knew this. even if fire and this missing section could cause the building to collapse, i doubt it could fall so neatly, and i doubt the building owner would lie about having it pulled down

Nah, but thanks, Robs. Been to a lot of sites, read a lot of different conspiracy theories. Took some seriously, laughed at others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The afternoon of the morning the WTC gets decked, and this guy (who was, no doubt, a close personal friend of George Bush) has the wherewithal and foresight to round up a demolition crew (after all, they were just sitting around doing nothing, on 9fucking11) and pull together an act that would take weeks under any other circumstances, and knock his fucking building down.

Unreal.

After four years, you are still addicted to the smell of bullshit.

This is the most cockeyed conspiracy that has yet arisen from 9/11.

You know, if all of the events of 9/11 are the result of this conspiracy you put all your stock in, that means that Bush and the U.S. government control Al Qaeda, which in turn means that, ipso facto, diddly-doo, presto-chango, Bush and the U.S. (with a little hands-on help from Al Qaeda, and the willfully averted gaze of Tony Blair) are responsible for 7/7 and 7/21, not to mention 3/11, or whatever it was in Madrid.

It's a good thing your choir doesn't actually sing; you lot couldn't hit a right note to save your asses.

---

Umm wow I don’t think that I’ve ever seen J2 this fired up.

I originally didn’t post in this thread because I knew that the same thing would happen to me. No matter how hard you may try to get people to see things that are right in front of them if they don’t want to see it they never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

interesting read, but i don't believe it. i've heard that fire can weaken the metal, but not that much. remember out of about 100 tall steel buildings that have been on fire none have collapsed. i don't think there really was 25% "scooped out" of a third of the building, how the hell would they work this out, the many cameras didn't see it and i didn't see any sources to say how they knew this. even if fire and this missing section could cause the building to collapse, i doubt it could fall so neatly, and i doubt the building owner would lie about having it pulled down

---

Oh, absolutely, Dave.

The afternoon of the morning the WTC gets decked, and this guy (who was, no doubt, a close personal friend of George Bush) has the wherewithal and foresight to round up a demolition crew (after all, they were just sitting around doing nothing, on 9fucking11) and pull together an act that would take weeks under any other circumstances, and knock his fucking building down.

Unreal.

After four years, you are still addicted to the smell of bullshit.

This is the most cockeyed conspiracy that has yet arisen from 9/11.

You know, if all of the events of 9/11 are the result of this conspiracy you put all your stock in, that means that Bush and the U.S. government control Al Qaeda, which in turn means that, ipso facto, diddly-doo, presto-chango, Bush and the U.S. (with a little hands-on help from Al Qaeda, and the willfully averted gaze of Tony Blair) are responsible for 7/7 and 7/21, not to mention 3/11, or whatever it was in Madrid.

It's a good thing your choir doesn't actually sing; you lot couldn't hit a right note to save your asses.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, sing along gang!!!

:yahoo: I Lovvvvvve Google!!!! :yahoo:

If Dave gets to be a demolishion expert online, I want to be a gynocoligist.

Hey Everose, com'r woman.....

Quote:

---

Oh, absolutely, Dave.

The afternoon of the morning the WTC gets decked, and this guy (who was, no doubt, a close personal friend of George Bush) has the wherewithal and foresight to round up a demolition crew (after all, they were just sitting around doing nothing, on 9fucking11) and pull together an act that would take weeks under any other circumstances, and knock his fucking building down.

Unreal.

After four years, you are still addicted to the smell of bullshit.

This is the most cockeyed conspiracy that has yet arisen from 9/11.

You know, if all of the events of 9/11 are the result of this conspiracy you put all your stock in, that means that Bush and the U.S. government control Al Qaeda, which in turn means that, ipso facto, diddly-doo, presto-chango, Bush and the U.S. (with a little hands-on help from Al Qaeda, and the willfully averted gaze of Tony Blair) are responsible for 7/7 and 7/21, not to mention 3/11, or whatever it was in Madrid.

It's a good thing your choir doesn't actually sing; you lot couldn't hit a right note to save your asses.

---

you kind of missed the point. which is, the building was rigged before september 11th.


the bush government created the modern al qaida that's responsible for all those attacks you mentioned, so whether they were false flags set up by the US government or they were by small groups of extremists. the US caused it by your so called retaliation to september 11th


so the lot of you can put away the champaign and the lube because you only agreed with me in that post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

interesting read, but i don't believe it. i've heard that fire can weaken the metal, but not that much. remember out of about 100 tall steel buildings that have been on fire none have collapsed. i don't think there really was 25% "scooped out" of a third of the building, how the hell would they work this out, the many cameras didn't see it and i didn't see any sources to say how they knew this. even if fire and this missing section could cause the building to collapse, i doubt it could fall so neatly, and i doubt the building owner would lie about having it pulled down

---

Oh, absolutely, Dave.

The afternoon of the morning the WTC gets decked, and this guy (who was, no doubt, a close personal friend of George Bush) has the wherewithal and foresight to round up a demolition crew (after all, they were just sitting around doing nothing, on 9fucking11) and pull together an act that would take weeks under any other circumstances, and knock his fucking building down.
Unreal.

After four years, you are still addicted to the smell of bullshit.

This is the most cockeyed conspiracy that has yet arisen from 9/11.

You know, if all of the events of 9/11 are the result of this conspiracy you put all your stock in, that means that Bush and the U.S. government control Al Qaeda, which in turn means that, ipso facto, diddly-doo, presto-chango, Bush and the U.S. (with a little hands-on help from Al Qaeda, and the willfully averted gaze of Tony Blair) are responsible for 7/7 and 7/21, not to mention 3/11, or whatever it was in Madrid.

It's a good thing your choir doesn't actually sing; you lot couldn't hit a right note to save your asses.

---

J2,

The video on the start of this thread has the owner and the firemen teling us on camera, that they demolished the building delibratly.

Doesnt matter what the "experts" say in this case... its a proven fact in court too.. it was delibratly demolished. See the Insurance Claims case.

Can i therefore thank you for your input, that the charges would need to be placed before 911.

I thank you for your change of stance on this, due to your refusal to accept anything that you dont agree with, including taped interviews with the owner/firemen on the subject, as evidence.

Nice to see that, due to the acknowledged legal evidence, and proven facts in court... you are now one of the conspiracy theorists. :)

Edit:

Shame Hank was so obtuse in his reply, it could be read as either agreeing with or disagreeing with J2 on this issue.

Maybe he actually watched the TV Interviews before commenting on them, unlike wor kev.. ;)

http://moderation.invisionzone.com/s...fault/glag.gif


consider yourself well and truly out pissed J2.

My opinion is still out on this. But, unlike some of the lamers in this thread, I have watched this video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

its a proven fact in court too

---

Proof?

Quote:

---

See the Insurance Claims case.

---

Proof?

Quote:

---

...the charges would need to be placed before 911.

---

Proof?

they could get away with admitting demolition, but they don't try it.


if i was evil, i'd say "because of the sensitive nature of the information held within the building it was designed to be destroyed quickly incase of invasion or coup attempts" but nooooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Proof?

Quote:

---

See the Insurance Claims case.

---

Proof?

Quote:

---

...the charges would need to be placed before 911.

---

Proof?

---

have you watched the video?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Proof?



Proof?

Quote:

---

...the charges would need to be placed before 911.

---

Proof?

---

have you watched the video?

---

Doubtful. If you watch the video then the terrorists win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

My opinion is still out on this. But, unlike some of the lamers in this thread, I have watched this video.

---

I haven't got time to watch the video, but I gather it's something to do with claims that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, with explosive charges that were planted prior to 9/11...?

But does it explain...


WHY? :unsure:

Quote:

---

have you watched the video?

---

Yes. I thought that would have evident by my previous posts.

The information I'm looking for is proof, not a conspiracy theorist yelling into a microphone on the street saying it to be so. Heck, I've seen the homeless doing that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

My opinion is still out on this. But, unlike some of the lamers in this thread, I have watched this video.

---

I haven't got time to watch the video, but I gather it's something to do with claims that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, with explosive charges that were planted prior to 9/11...?

But does it explain...


WHY? :unsure:

---

I haven't watched the video either but that doesn't seem a pre-requisite in this thread.

I expect the charges were to ensure that the buildings fell in a regular fashion so as not to tumble into adjacent buildings, which would cause even more loss of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

have you watched the video?

---

Yes. I thought that would have evident by my previous posts.

The information I'm looking for is proof, not a conspiracy theorist yelling into a microphone on the street saying it to be so. Heck, I've seen the homeless doing that. ;)

---

That's not how the evidence was presented in the video though. Which suggests to me that you didn't watch it or that you are engaging in a similar tactic to that you deplore in that you are just shouting "Conspiracy Nuts!" at the top of your voice (perhaps into a microphone) as your only defence.

Heck, I've seen children doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

I haven't got time to watch the video, but I gather it's something to do with claims that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, with explosive charges that were planted prior to 9/11...?

But does it explain...


WHY? :unsure:

---

I haven't watched the video either but that doesn't seem a pre-requisite in this thread.

I expect the charges were to ensure that the buildings fell in a regular fashion so as not to tumble into adjacent buildings, which would cause even more loss of life.

---

Lamers.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

I haven't got time to watch the video, but I gather it's something to do with claims that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, with explosive charges that were planted prior to 9/11...?

But does it explain...


WHY? :unsure:

---

I haven't watched the video either but that doesn't seem a pre-requisite in this thread.

I expect the charges were to ensure that the buildings fell in a regular fashion so as not to tumble into adjacent buildings, which would cause even more loss of life.

---

one thing is, the building wouldn't have fallen. another is, like J2 said it would have taken quite some time to set it up to be demolished, so the charges must have been set before september 11th

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I haven't watched the video either but that doesn't seem a pre-requisite in this thread.

I expect the charges were to ensure that the buildings fell in a regular fashion so as not to tumble into adjacent buildings, which would cause even more loss of life.

---

one thing is, the building wouldn't have fallen. another is, like J2 said it would have taken quite some time to set it up to be demolished, so the charges must have been set before september 11th

---

Quite. Altho' how can anyone be absolutely sure that they wouldn't have fallen.

Maybe lots of tall buildings also have charges in them to detonate if they look as if they're about to fall into other buildings :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

one thing is, the building wouldn't have fallen. another is, like J2 said it would have taken quite some time to set it up to be demolished, so the charges must have been set before september 11th

---

Quite. Altho' how can anyone be absolutely sure that they wouldn't have fallen.

Maybe lots of tall buildings also have charges in them to detonate if they look as if they're about to fall into other buildings :unsure:

---

maybe they do, if so why is no-one using this as a defense?

If you're going to topple a building deliberately, and make it look like an accident, surely you'd set the charges so that it WOULDN'T look like a controlled explosion? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quite. Altho' how can anyone be absolutely sure that they wouldn't have fallen.

Maybe lots of tall buildings also have charges in them to detonate if they look as if they're about to fall into other buildings :unsure:

---

maybe they do, if so why is no-one using this as a defense?

---

Maybe it's classified.

If this was common knowledge then perhaps terrorists would seek to exploit it in other tall buildings.

This might be impossible, however, the public would panic if the right figurative buttons were pushed by harbingers of doom.

Someone here agrees with you!!

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

if it was possible i think the terrorists would no all about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

if it was possible i think the terrorists would no all about it

---

Yeah, but that wasn't really my point.

What I'm saying is that there might be a load of 'public interest' reasons for not officially confirming that tall buildings often have explosive charges in them.

For example, it might be in the public's interest not to have it officially confirmed that office workers in Canary Wharf are sitting on a fucking great bomb each day that they go to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Someone here agrees with you!!

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

---

makes sense, after my reality filter went to work on it.

kinda badly written. not to say that a labourer should be able to write like a republican, like


the twin towers fell like this theory would suggest (crumbling from the top down), but tower 7 collapsed from the bottom up.

After reading all that...I dont give a damn...

To me its just another conspiracy about yet another major event in history. From the Holocaust to the Moon landings. What I saw was a terrorist attack in our soil and thats it.

"Aw man you've been trapped in government propaganda!" yeah whatever...

I dont like the way this guy spreads his opinion on to others either. On point where he walks off as if to say "I dont give a damn about your opinion."

Ah well.

he's just a bit hyperactive. can't really hold it against him. especially when you look at the case he's making not just the slightly mental public display he's making

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helghast004

After reading all that...I dont give a damn...

To me its just another conspiracy about yet another major event in history. From the Holocaust to the Moon landings. What I saw was a terrorist attack in our soil and thats it.

"Aw man you've been trapped in government propaganda!" yeah whatever...

I dont like the way this guy spreads his opinion on to others either. On point where he walks off as if to say "I dont give a damn about your opinion."

Ah well.

---

Its worth looking into.The guy in the video is very creditable and well known.Dont just pass him off as a conspiracy nut.He uncovered the bohemian Grove and stuff like this gives him credit.If your into it,look into if,if youre not then say your not,dont just pass it off just because its not on CNN...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helghast004

After reading all that...I dont give a damn...

To me its just another conspiracy about yet another major event in history. From the Holocaust to the Moon landings. What I saw was a terrorist attack in our soil and thats it.

"Aw man you've been trapped in government propaganda!" yeah whatever...

I dont like the way this guy spreads his opinion on to others either. On point where he walks off as if to say "I dont give a damn about your opinion."

Ah well.

---

Its worth looking into.The guy in the video is very creditable and well known.Dont just pass him off as a conspiracy nut.He uncovered the bohemian Grove and stuff like this gives him credit.If your into it,look into if,if youre not then say your not,dont just pass it off just because its not on CNN...

---

Im not passing it off just because I didnt see it on CNN or anyother news network for the matter.

I cant really explain what I feel at the moment, without having a major backlash of harmful comments sent against me, or perhaps its the fetigue of laying down wood flooring all day? :dry:

Debate among this yourselves...though in the many topics I've posted in many different forums. This one really pisses me off if you will...I'll let you guys handel this with your proper english and grammar, im not known to use it correctly :lookaroun

If its true and the word gets out then great! we've exposed the horrible truth about the government.

One thing still puzzles me...they planned to demolish the building during such a busy day and without barricades to hold back bystanders?

As with most topics I know little about or have no answers too. I'll avoid this topic and leave to you guys. :shifty: