Stumble This | You should also watch “Top of the World - A trip to the top of the WTC” |
I don't have an engineering or technical background, so I can't say how valid this argument is. However, I haven't seen the WTC 7 controlled demolition theory fully addressed in the official NIST report yet either, so you decide (go to the very end, point #14): http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Groucho Marx
Good find - thanks.
Fuck us not with masturbation or unconsciousness......
K. Just seen that. And no, they didn't. The phrase "pull it" was used by Larry Silverstein in an interview after the attacks, in reference to getting the firefighters out of the building, because the firefighters on the ground thought the building was going to collapse, and there was no need to risk their lives to save the building.
The truthers now claim that "pull it" is a term used in controlled demolition, which CD workers have denied.
If it's the latter, then I don't think that's necessarily all that silly.
But if it's the former, I would like to hear your general ideas for why in the hell they'd bother? Whatever insane scheme (and here I'm echoing the opinion of Noam Chomsky, who's not exactly on the Bush payroll) may have motivated the destruction of the first two towers, it seems like going for tower 7 is a little pointless (and would only increase the risk of detection, which would be catastrophic).
I mean, do they think anyone would have thought "Towers 1 and 2 were bad - but I won't (be OK with a crazy war/vote Republican/sign up for government brain monitoring) until Tower 7 falls. It's tower 7 that's really the make or break for me".
Also, if you really believe the government set the whole thing up - be sure not to vote Democrat. I mean, talk about comparative incompetence: the Bush administration can kill 1000s of powerful Americans without consequence - Clinton couldn't even get serviced in secret. They've come a long way since Nixon couldn't break and enter in a hotel.
Funny how in the controlled demolition videos, you hear the explosives going off, yet in the wtc7, you dont hear any???? Hence my statement above about a brand new explosive that makes no noise when exploding.... which, ofcourse.. doesn't exist.
The guy saying most of the fires were out is a flat out lie.
One last thing.. the footage at 1.36, of the tower collapsing, starts around 10 seconds after the collapse had started. I've posted these links before: here and here. I prefer the second one. Shows the the full collapse, and times it.
CD guys use the phrase "pull it" all the time as euphemism for blow the shit out of it.
WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from the collapse of the Towers. Also, the fires were NOT almost all out by the time of the collapse. In fact, they'd spread across multiple floors and were increasing. City engineers examined the structure a half-hour before it collapsed and said it was dangerously unstable. In the middle of the biggest rescue operation in New York history, they had the emergency personnel pull out of the area. Finally, seeing endless replays of building implosions on TV doesn't make you an expert on structural engineering any more than seeing the stars every night makes you an expert on astronomy.
You people think too much-Does the building look, smell,taste,sound,and feel like one that was demolished by implosion?.....Yes. Do buildings fall like this of their own accord after having been partially damaged by fire? Oh...this would be the first-
Finally....DOES the official story include the fact that the fucker was taken down by anyone???...wouldn't know, don't read Pulp Fiction....
For anyone who hasn't read this please do. If you think it was a controlled implosion, but haven't seen
a) pictures of the damage caused by the first tower collapsing
b) pictures of fires burning unchecked for hours on several floors
c) the layout of the fuel storage system in building 7
d) the design of the cantilever girders that made up the 'transfer system'
then you have missed all of the important facts on this ridiculous topic. Choggie...thinking too much is not a charge I mind accepting, and also not one I would level in your direction.
The best thing to do is just ignore these people and let them live out their deluded little lives. Yes, I'm pretty harsh with my assessment of them...but I'm fucking sick of this nonsense.
Salomon Smith Barney Financial Institutions GRND,1-6,13,18-46 1202900
Provident Financial Management Financial Institutions 7,13 9000
American Express Bank International Financial Institutions 7,8,13 106117
U.S. Secret Service Government 9,10 85343
Standard Chartered Bank Financial Institutions 10,13,26,27 111398
Securities & Exchange Commission Financial Institutions 11,12,13 106117
United States Equal Opportunity Commission Government 18 N/A
NAIC Securities Insurance 19 22500
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 19-21
First State Management Group, Inc Insurance 21 4000
Federal Home Loan Bank Financial Institutions 22 47490
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt Government 23 45815
Internal Revenue Service Regional Council Government 24,25 90430
From Wikipedia (so it's gotta be true!)
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][25]
Look: maybe
smell + taste: never heard of anyone saying the building smelt/tasted like an implosion.. but, well, whatever way the tower collapsed, both would have the same result... lots of dust...
sound: now this is the one which lets your whole argument down.. do you hear any of the regular explosions you'd hear at a CD??? I sure as hell don't. And neither does anyone else.
Feel: do you mean like gut feeling????
I also don't remember the last time I saw a building burn for a couple of hours before being demolished. Fire and explosives don't really mix that well, and when they do, the explosive normally goes off.
Goofball_jones. You're right. The reason debunker skeep going on though, is out of the hope that soeone who's not convinced yet, might see our posts, and finally see reason.
Fade: No they don't, and no, he was referring to the firefighters. he did clarify that in a later interview, but, then again, I guess according to you, he was prob told by his NWO superiors to say that huh?
I would never attempt to change the minds of your typical conspiracy nutjob. That 1% of society is beyond hope. But with this particular "theory" there is something like 30% of people who believe it. For the sake of humanity I have to believe a good chunk of those people just haven't read all the evidence on the matter, and would change their minds if they did.
The very PBS documentary that features Silvertein making the "pull it" remark also features the CD engineers using the term to refer to the controlled demolition of wtc6
Unidentified construction worker 1: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."
Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."
We "truthers" are the "moronic idiots" who can see with our own eyes that a 47 story building suddenly collapses in a synchronized fashion straight to the ground - exactly the way that a rigged CD building does.
You "skeptics" are the "the smart ones" who can watch those videos and think it's a perfectly natural way for a building to collapse.
"Truthers" compose a second alternate history to facts and logic, behind liberal bolsheviks whose recent alternate history begins with the whopper that Bush "stole" the 2000 election.
On top of that to you can look at the way the World Trade Center was constructed. They have a more ridged and reinforced outer support structure that acts like a shell. The inner structure is a bit more flexible and was designed with the intent of having the outer shell contain any collapse of the building. Why? Because they were going to be the largest buildings in New York City.
I'm an Architect, I've designed close to a hundred buildings now and I can tell you that structural engineers look at this kind of stuff and have noted it on plans they have reviewed. So the "towers falling straight down like in a controlled demolition." It's bullshit, it would have happened with or without government ninja-placed secret hidden explosives all over the building.
The reason these conspiracy theories don't make sense is because they hold no COMMON SENSE! They don't take into account that architects think about designing for disasters. Much less how the government could shut up so many people. Lets face it they couldn't keep Watergate, Lewinsky, or other scandals from surfacing. They couldn't keep this a secret if they wanted too. So all you nut-jobs that keep thinking the government is behind 9/11, try applying research and common sense in your reasoning and you'll find that it actually makes more sense then anything any wacko can spout out on his blog.
Edit: Okay, Not everybody disregard half the claims. Most ignore some and some ignore most.
I've got to say, though, it's not smart to be so closed minded. It's easy to cling blindly to popular belief and spitefully call those who question popular notions the "fringe of society", or worse, "nutcases". I see plenty of compelling arguments for questioning events from 911, and I don't consider myself a nutcase, and I'm certainly someone who has spent copious amounts of hours doing research on the whole thing. I'm not a structural engineer or a pilot or a ballistics expert, but I don't feel I have to be one to question theories that aren't believable by my own comprehension and reason.
To me, the ones who are crazy are the ones who substitute arrogance for intelligence.
For example - for those pointing to the BBC video - do you think their entire staff was "in on it"? Every cameraman? Every tech guy? And nobody talked? And, after all that careful orchestration, they didn't wait until the tower fell before they started? What? It doesn't even pass the vaguest, most forgiving laugh test. I don't know what the explanation is (though I can imagine several without straining credulity) - but the idea that the government told them about it before is, by itself, ridiculous.
I mean, why would anyone want them to be "in on it" in the first place? Why not just let them report on it naturally after the building falls down? What would be the point? If they can be made to report on a building that hasn't fallen yet, certainly they could be trusted to "go with the official story" after the building falls.
People are discussing this like there's two scenarios here and we're evaluating facts to decide which is right. But the alternative "truthy" scenario is never fleshed out - there's nothing to evaluate. I've seen a lot of people make lists of 100 things that they think are suspicious, but they never seem to write up an explanation that resolves all (or even many of) those 100 things. Often those 100 things themselves point to wildly different scenarios.
Write up a scenario that fits the facts better than the "official" story - tell me how many new "suspicious coincidences" arise and how many "unanswered questions" there are with the new theory.
I'm not saying everything you'll find will be accurate or correct, so you'll have to make discerning judgment calls along the way. I've seen some videos that show birds flying around WTC 1,2 & 7, and the YouTube poster was trying to insinuate that the birds were remote controlled demolition aircrafts or something like that. Either way, it was certainly doubtful and completely unreasonable, in my opinion. Still, once you've sifted through the muck and mire, you should be able to find some tidbits of information that should raise an eyebrow or two.
That's a logical fallacy and utter bull. The government can and does keep big, very important secrets.
It's obvious that the building was rigged.
Every reference to the NIST is as useful as referring to the Warren Commission report on the JFK assasination.
The point of the "official" investigation was not to uncover the truth: it was to highlight evidence that supported the official excuse, and suppress or ignore any evidence that challenged it.
(Hello MyCroft - sexy as ever, I see)
What does that have to do with 911? Nothing. I just wanted everyone to know about my experiences with gross governmental negligence. So, yeah... anyway...
I think people tend to consider the government to be this well oiled machine. It's a morass. It's a bureaucracy. To think the government could pull off a multi-faceted operation on our own soil with operatives who were cameramen and reporters is ludicrous. Though, there's good reason to believe there are other reasons for the explanations given for 911. And, when you hear the personal accounts of people in the building speaking about the security lapse days before the attacks, maybe you'll consider this whole attack thing in a different light. It's important to consider them instead of ignoring them.
When people like Rosie started pointing out the unexplained portions of the events of 9/11, I was intrigued. There is nothing I would put past this administration. And at the time, it wasn't easy to find people giving logial explanations for how WTC7 fell. Now, however, there are a lot of good solid reasonable answers to the questions that arose, including the baselesness of some of the questions in the first place. The timing of the collapses, the extent of the fires, the structural saftey measures in place... they all point to a collapse that resembles a controlled demolition, but isn't. Conspiculously absent from the video above is the collapse of the East Penthouse. Missing points like that are all over the place in the assertions of the "truthers".
It's FAR from obvious that anything was rigged, and I have seen absolutly no evidence of a massive conspiracy, except for the fact that one would be necessary for it to have been planned.
The burden of proof is now squarely on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists, and I eagerly await some reasonable evidence.
max burning point of jet fuel - 980 °C (1796 °F)
diesel fuel and jet fuel are very similar.
hmmm, granted fuel could weaken the steel a little bit, but considering how many TONS of concrete surround the beams, that would soften it a little bit, its going to take more than that. Keep in mind i listed MAX temperature for the fuel. open air (or less air than would be in a building) is allot lower.
Besides, what started these fires in building 7? Anyone ever try to light diesel on fire? its a pain in the ass. a random fire coincidently making its way to a fuel tank isn't going to be easy work to ignite that shit.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
And particularly this article, which gives a quite reasonable explanation why the building went all at once:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DD1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B63
What I can't stand about the whole conspiracy theory thing are the people who are neither engineers nor firefighters claiming that "a building can't collapse like that due to a fire." And they know this how? Because someone on the Internet told them. That in itself should be enough to dismiss their claims. Please find me the "truthers" who are actual NYFD members that were there that day and perhaps some engineers that have solid experience designing and/or demolishing these types of buildings and then maybe I'll be willing to listen what these people have to say.
One thing I will definitely give the "truthers", the media blackout of WTC7 is ridiculous. I didn't even know there was a third skyscraper collapse that day until years later.
I guess I'm not done studying this subject.
* The building was very much on fire at that time.
* As noted above, there was no detonation or explosion.
* It actually took 30 seconds for the building to collapse.
* It actually spread debris over 150 meters.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile?
While we're at it, here's some actually researched information on the subject (as opposed to edited clips of footage found on Youtube):
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
(This is not the first time these two websites are brought up on Videosift. Apparently some are much more comfortable with having an opinion than with having the actual facts)
The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it. And then you'll have to start all over again. With them, everything is about beliefs and dogma, nothing is about facts. Reminds you of another kind of people? That's right, they're behaving just like creationists.
Gordon you are full of shit! Here is post 2004 NYC building code. I cannot find a copy of the pre-2000 building code. I also am not sure there is even a "Universal Building Code" that would have secret non-NYC building code statues applying to "falling into footprint".
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/reference/code_internet.shtml
If you want to private message me your BSArch or Architect license number I would be glad to do the vetting, but otherwise I still maintain you are full of shit.
if you think 9/11 skeptics are "cranks" or "idiots" then i really don't understand you. you SHOULD be skeptical, it's the only patriotic thing to do. Hold the government to account. Notice the fact that they make bullshit investigations with no incentive to find the truth. That's called cover up.
however, skepticism isn't proof, and i still don't see a lot of convincing proof that the buildings were rigged.
the mid east conflict is, and has been, rigged for decades, nay centuries, but that's another matter.
And the WTC towers were designed to collapse straight down in the event of a disaster.
P.S. my name is Gorgon not Gordon.
Jeez, everyone is getting pissed about this. Let's slow our roll, shall we? It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with all this. We're not going to solve anything in this little video message board. I commend MaxWilder for taking the first step in doing research, and, although, I'm pretty sure his point-of-view won't be changed, at least he's trying and he's listening. That's huge.
And, to you, TomStall, I'm a bit disappointed by your comment above because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. I'm not altogether sure your comment is true when you write, "The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it". Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.
I don't care enough to convince you to go dig up all the research or expert's names that oppose the conventional perspective of 911, but they're there. All you have to do is scratch the surface, and please understand you will see a lot (and I mean A LOT) of unlikely and implausible perspectives of 911 (such as the remote control birds I spoke of earlier). Those are par for the course whenever a government's theories are questioned.
This was clearly a controlled demolition by the government. All you people with common sense are so full of shit!!! Don't you understand that Bush wanted to invade Iraq no matter what the cost?! It's indisputable that Al Qaeda hijackers took over the planes and flew them into various places (oh, but not the Pentagon of course; that was a military missile fired from a submarine or satellite or something), but that wouldn't have been enough cause to invade another country. (We also musn't forget that those hijackers were all being trained and financially supported by Bush, of course.)
Instead of counting on the airliner attacks being enough reason to eventually wage war, the Bush administration had fantastic enough insight and just knew that unless a small, unimportant building near the Twin Towers also collapsed, we wouldn't have just cause.
So as soon as Bush took office, he had his secret engineers who work at Area 51 develop new powerful bombs based on alien technology that could be placed inside a building's support columns without anyone able to see them and then later explode without making any sound whatsoever.
Zomg, it's like so totally obvious, you dumb L4m3rz!