Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

a reply to: craterman

Utter fiction.

a reply to: UB2120


I've watched Wood a few times, and her theory is most interesting. I just can't figure out what they mounted the weapon on. But I know nothing about it, so....

Her point about the reduction in mass or size is right on IMO, but I think the final result was achieved with the assistance of nuclear devices, probably just as Dimitri Khalezov has described.

a reply to: UB2120

By directed she means aimed/controlled.

If cars were cooked by it that suggests it was aimed downward from above.
So explain why story 110 down to 80 were unaffected by it?

Have you ever looked into the amount of electricity needed to vaporize steel ?
It's not complicated and you can find the numbers needed on line.
In short the entire US power grid doesn't generate enough to do it.
So her theory fails at the outset.
But she only needs to sell books to stupid people to make her living.

a reply to: audubon

The 2nd video is tooshort and taken out of context for me to get your point,the third confirms my point as they quickly rectify the error . The first is hardly on the scale of a situation like 911 where they are reporting breaking stories based on legitimate sources. That was my point so I don't think these videos disprove my point but thanks for the lolz!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: neutronflux

There are pictures from ground zero hours after the events and the pile of debris is not big enough to compensate for two 110 story buildings. Even accounting for the debris sticking out of the side of and on roof tops of the other buildings. Where did the towers go?

I know you're never gonna admit this, because you think you're too smart for your mind to be tricked, but that's simply a trick of your mind. The towers were giant structures, true, but they also contained a large percentage of empty space. When you remove the empty space, the building materials and furnishing take up a much smaller cubic area than the towers appear to occupy when they're standing. If the towers were mostly gone, what were they cleaning up for 8 months? Literally thousands of people worked there sorting and removing the debris, more than has probably ever worked on any collapsed or demo'd building, and it still took 8 months to remove it all.

False arguments

So all the truth movement claims the steel was rushed to china is wrong?

You have the effort to recover remains, evidence, and personal items.


You have the 400,000 tons of steel between the two towers. Between WTC 1 and WTC 2 there was over 1,000,000 tons of just building material. Then WTC 7 and 6 clean up. The clean up of about 10 other building beyond safe or economical repair.

Then you had the careful removal of WTC 1 and 2 ruble out of fear the ruble was holding up the slurry wall.

Just the 1,000,000 tons of tower material equals 50,000 loads using 20 ton dump trucks.

originally posted by: daftpink
The first is hardly on the scale of a situation like 911 where they are reporting breaking stories based on legitimate sources

It's on exactly the same scale!

A news anchor is interviewing someone, thinking that the interviewee knows what they are talking about, when in fact the interviewee is essentially just ad-libbing in order to keep the programme rolling, basing their remarks on general bits of information that are in circulation.

More crucially, the anchor has bad information in both cases - the 9/11 anchor has dud info about WTC7 and the anchor interviewing the cab driver thinks she is interviewing someone else.

News presenters and on-the-spot reporters don't have access to some special level of spoken communication unavailable to the rest of us. What you are watching is a conversation, nothing more and nothing less.

The facts of the stories themselves may be different, but the process you're watching is identical. Two people, engaged in a pas-de-deux of basic misunderstanding and outright speculation, all the while knowing that they are on-camera and can't falter or hesitate without it looking odd to the viewer.

This happens to most people regularly, but without the presence of TV cameras. We all bluff and blunder our way through a conversation from time to time. Anyway, I've made my point, whether you take it is your affair.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know why you always mistake my posts for truther posts. Slow down. I was explaining to him why the debris pile looked small to him. The entire building is there, it just looks different. I'm not a truther.

a reply to: face23785

You are right, I owe an apology. Sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's all good. I don't blame you for being a little edgy. Dealing with the nonstop ignorance will drive anybody nuts.

a reply to: audubon

BBC was quoting Reuters report about WTC 7. Reuters in turn got the information from local media

Considering that WTC 7 had been abandoned early in afternoon and left to burn. Reports were that FDNY was
anticipating possible collapse of WTC 7 . A transit from the Collapse Unit (Rescue 3) was setup to watch the building

By 230 crew watching the building with the transit observed a 3 story bulge in the SW corner and that the building was
out of plumb.

Collapse zone was established around WTC 7 at 3pm and all personnel were cleared from the area,

Information regarding possible collapse of WTC 7 and collapse zone around the building got distorted as passed around

Marines have a saying "Given choice between stupidity and conspiracy, pick stupidity..."

a reply to: firerescue

You're right - thanks for that. I had no idea that the BBC has actually explained this. That's a bit of a shocker. Reuters is meant to have its own reporters, hence being a trusted primary source for the media. It still leaves the ultimate reason for the error (by the local media outlet) unknown, but I suppose that's as close as we're going to get.

The determination of some to be deceived amazes me. A building, that wasn't bombed, hit by a plane, or even on fire like the others, falls into its own footprint. In a fashion that would make any demolition expert very proud. And still some say those that question the given narrative are 'crazy conspiracy theorists'. Simply amazing!

a reply to: audubon

originally posted by: craterman
The determination of some to be deceived amazes me. A building, that wasn't bombed, hit by a plane, or even on fire like the others, falls into its own footprint. In a fashion that would make any demolition expert very proud. And still some say those that question the given narrative are 'crazy conspiracy theorists'. Simply amazing!

a reply to: audubon

to believe in any of that already debunked guff, you also have to point out what the reason to do so would be.
they blamed bin laden meaning america did not take credit for it, jewish bankers didn't take over the world, yes trump appointed a lot to cabinet posts and yes he was a truther for a while but he has gone quiet, the insurance claims also debunked leaving no discernable reason to carry it out.

unless the white house carried it out for the lulz hoping we would remember it as september eleven two thousand and fun but, remember the white house couldn't even cover up slick willie getting a blowie off a fat chick or jfk banging hollywood starlets, so it's highly unlikely they could keep this quiet, if they carried it out, which they did not.

a reply to: growler

remember the white house couldn't even cover up slick willie getting a blowie off a fat chick or jfk banging hollywood starlets, so it's highly unlikely they could keep this quiet,

Lets not forget the head of the CIA couldn't keep his affair secret.
But somehow 16 years later 1000's of co conspirators remain silent.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: firerescue

You're right - thanks for that. I had no idea that the BBC has actually explained this. That's a bit of a shocker. Reuters is meant to have its own reporters, hence being a trusted primary source for the media. It still leaves the ultimate reason for the error (by the local media outlet) unknown, but I suppose that's as close as we're going to get.

I think the reason is obvious. Ever play the Telephone game? As information gets passed from one person to another it gets altered. It was just human error. Not that complicated or hard to believe. This is the kind of mundane, easily explainable crap that happens every day truthers have been clinging to for 16 years as proof. It's embarrassing.

a reply to: craterman

There is an old saying that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. Too true, and on display regularly.

a reply to: Salander

This is precisely why we can't convince some of you guys that as information gets passed from media source to media source it might get jumbled and that sometimes the media make mistakes. Both of these are commonly known facts, but you guys insist on thinking the media had inside knowledge of 9/11, which is asinine.

originally posted by: face23785
I think the reason is obvious. Ever play the Telephone game? As information gets passed from one person to another it gets altered. It was just human error. Not that complicated or hard to believe. This is the kind of mundane, easily explainable crap that happens every day truthers have been clinging to for 16 years as proof. It's embarrassing.

I agree wholeheartedly. Before I knew about the BBC-Reuters snafu I had posited an idea that it was a misreporting of the collapse of WTC6. This still isn't ruled out, because the local media source that Reuters relied on for their erroneous report might have actually made the mistake I was suggesting, instead of the BBC.

In any case, as you quite rightly say, the 'telephone game' explains so much, so often, that in some inquiries it ought to be ruled in as a working presumption until it is positively excluded. (We call it 'Chinese Whispers' here in the UK, a slightly ropy and non-PC name which will one day surely be airbrushed from schoolyard lore).

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: craterman

There is an old saying that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. Too true, and on display regularly.

Glad you recognize that Dr Wood, Jones, Gage, AE 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth are con artists that you have bought into for way to long.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Salander

This is precisely why we can't convince some of you guys that as information gets passed from media source to media source it might get jumbled and that sometimes the media make mistakes. Both of these are commonly known facts, but you guys insist on thinking the media had inside knowledge of 9/11, which is asinine.

I like how Salander wants to act like the government controls the media, but....

Salander then claims the coroner for Shankville walked out of a field and reported to the camera there was no crashed jet?

One, I cannot find the video for context.

Two, cannot find any reference on Truth movement sites of the quote.

Three, Salander cannot prove the claims.

Four, the government controls everything. So how was that allowed to happen on TV.

Five, funny how Salander wants to play the lying media game, but then the media is believable when it suits Salander....