9/11myths.com manipulates it's videos

Originally posted by CameronFox
That is the active link. I simply cut and pasted the text and not the link. I would assume with all the graduates in here from Google University, one of you would have figured it out.

One step closer to downloading the files. But, since I didn't graduate from Google University, can you explain how exactly to download those files? It says to hit the FTP link to download the .iso files but I don't see an FTP link anywhere. Just an HTTP link that goes to another dead link of the .iso files. Any help would be appreciated.

Griff,

I was logged on and used the ISO file.

This is the link:

ia350625.us.archive.org...

It is a massive file that takes a very long time to download. (hours, depending on your connection speed)

It was originally released here:
Amazon.com:

www.amazon.com...

More information here:

www.stevespak.com...

Originally posted by CameronFox
Griff,

I was logged on and used the ISO file.

This is the link:

ia350625.us.archive.org...

I'm still getting an error. Maybe it's my computer?

It was originally released here:
Amazon.com:

www.amazon.com...

More information here:

www.stevespak.com...

What is it that you guys claim when someone makes money off of 9/11 again?

[edit on 12/9/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

I'm still getting an error. Maybe it's my computer?

Could be. I also have a membership there. (but i don't think you need one)

What is it that you guys claim when someone makes money off of 9/11 again?

Hence the word "originally." ( i knew you would comment on it)

He then donated the DVD for everyone to see for free.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Could be. I also have a membership there. (but i don't think you need one)

I just joined and no difference.



Don't know. This really stinks to not be able to download it.



[edit on 12/9/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/9/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by GenRadek
But what happens to a 48 story building when its main structural load bearing columns and trusses get damaged or destroyed?

I don't think that happened, so what difference would it make to me?

There was superficial damage to the South face, just like the superficial damage to the SW corner. Anything else is conjecture. Just because you don't have pictures doesn't mean you can make up what happened. To the contrary, because you don't have pictures, you don't have evidence. And I'm sure NIST has a better photo of that face out of the thousands they are withholding from the public. They are just leading you on, because you are so easy to lead. There were people all around that building that evening with cameras.

And even if debris did cut halfway through the building to hit a column (if), that still wouldn't give WTC7 a clean excuse to collapse in a way completely unprecedented outside of controlled demolitions. Buildings are never demolished like that; it would be way too risky and require way too much luck in coordinating everything to just drop together like that.

And those that did survive, how do they cope with being exposed to fires for 8 hours without firefighting efforts?

I think you missed where I explained that WTC5 was heavily bombarded with heavy debris and suffered at least the same (if not worse) fires, and that it had much thinner steel columns and would have been much more easy to heat.

I really hope you don't relapse into "forgetting" that buildings are made just as strong proportionally even when they carry greater loads.

To ask, why didn't WTC5 collapse like the first 3

I didn't ask that. Nothing happened to WTC5 at all besides the impact damage and fire burning whatever was inside of it. Which is consistent with everything we have all been saying the whole time about the other collapses being completely unprecedented, with no supported collapse mechanisms.

All the questions you could ask about WTC7, you could ask about WTC5. "Unique" doesn't mean a damned thing except that you'll opt for whatever excuse is most convenient. At the end of the day WTC7 was still built every bit as able to hold itself together by the legal codes.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Griff


Here is a screen shot when I click on it:




Not sure why it isn't working for you??

reply to post by CameronFox


I've tried at work and now at home. Nothing.

Is there anywhere else to download?

Have you downloaded them?

Have you watched them?

Do they show the same splices into the videos described in my OP?

Have you watched the videos from 9/11myths? If so, do they match?

Thanks.

Originally posted by ANOK

Answer this, how did that debris have enough energy to fly 355ft from the south tower to cause enough damage to completely symmetrically cause a 48 story building to collapse into it's basement?

Who says that debris caused the collapse?

Or is this another strawman?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Oh moving the goal posts again?

So you're not still proposing the hypothesis that debris from the towers collapse caused a huge gash in the side of WTC 7 that inevitably led, along with office fires, to its global collapse?

Why are you acting confused here? Because you can't keep your story straight, or you have no legitimate argument?

This is the biggest debunkers contradiction I've heard yet. You can't be taken for anything more than an amusing distraction, serious debate with you is impossible.

Originally posted by ANOK

So you're not still proposing the hypothesis that debris from the towers collapse caused a huge gash in the side of WTC 7 that inevitably led, along with office fires, to its global collapse?

You're confusing me with someone else.

NIST falsified the working hypothesis that the damage helped enable the collapse in 7.

However, your description accurately describes the situation in both towers.

reply to post by CameronFox



I just downloaded firefox and your link works.

Unfortunately, I can't download until I get home. Then after about 8 hours of downloading I'll finally be able to set this straight.

Thanks for the link.

reply to post by tezzajw


But there was no minor damage according to NIST. Where did it ever say that? Apparently all the fire fighters that reported seeing a large gash down the lower 1/3 of the WTC7 and about a 1/3 in is not proof of severe damage? What about the fact it was leaning prior to collapse? Are all of these not sufficient evidence for severe structural damage?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Apparently all the fire fighters that reported seeing a large gash down the lower 1/3 of the WTC7 and about a 1/3 in is not proof of severe damage? What about the fact it was leaning prior to collapse? Are all of these not sufficient evidence for severe structural damage?

Actually no. Just because a building has damage to it's facade it doesn't mean any of the structural load bearing elements were compromised.
That is just an assumption on the part of those who want you to believe there was mass structural damage.

Even if half the buildings columns were knocked out physics tells us the building would not collapse asymmetrically into its own footprint. So your claim of mass damage is irrelevant. You can scream it all day long it's not going to change known physics.

Sorry but no steel framed building has ever symmetrically globally collapsed into its own footprint from asymmetrical damage, office fires, earthquakes, bombs, wind, poor construction. That ONLY happens in controlled demolition.

The govs evidence supporting structural damage and raging steel destroying fires is extremely weak.
Just like all the other debunkers your whole belief is based on a lack of education. Hollywood physics 101...

Originally posted by GenRadek
Apparently all the fire fighters that reported seeing a large gash down the lower 1/3 of the WTC7 and about a 1/3 in is not proof of severe damage?

The SW corner damage also spanned about 20 stories but it was still superficial damage. If the damage was so extreme on the South face why did no one take a picture of it?

What about the fact it was leaning prior to collapse?

You don't know what was leaning. Obviously it wasn't the entire building. That's the problem with hearsay, even when it comes from firefighters.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But there was no minor damage according to NIST. Where did it ever say that?

From the NIST report, page 38/130

The debris also caused structural damage to the southwest exterior of WTC 7, primarily between Floors 7 to 17... ...Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.

Apparently all the fire fighters that reported seeing a large gash down the lower 1/3 of the WTC7 and about a 1/3 in is not proof of severe damage? What about the fact it was leaning prior to collapse? Are all of these not sufficient evidence for severe structural damage?

From the NIST report, page 39/130

The collapse of WTC 7 could not have been prevented without controlling the fires...

same page, further down.

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

here's the bit I like on the same page...

Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.

Page 58/130 also describes how there was very little interior damage. Most of the damage was seven severed columns, mainly along the southwest corner.

You do believe the NIST report, don't you? Why don't you believe the words that describe how WTC 7 was not seriously affected by the impact damage from WTC 1?

reply to post by Griff


OK. After 6 hours of download time, I still can't play the file? Again, I'll restate that if this where a video by Richard Gage and you couldn't get it anywhere except one link that doesn't work half the time leading to a file that, so far, can't be played, you guys would be screeming bloody murder.

Oh, BTW, the FACT that Mr. Spak still has his DVD for sale (and which I think is the only real way to view it) is discusting.

Why aren't the "throatyogurts" screeming bloody murder on this one?

reply to post by tezzajw


Ahh i see, so now you believe the "official report" then on WTC7? So in that case you do now believe that fires alone managed to destroy the WTC7? I mean, now you are quoting from the directly, and yes, I have just checked the latest report and you are correct.
So will you be admitting that it really was fire alone, or are you just posting from NIST to prove me wrong, and then continue to say it was an "inside job" with thermite and/or explosives, and ignore the rest? Because on pages 22-23 it also disproves the 'explosives" theory too.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ahh i see, so now you believe the "official report" then on WTC7?

No, I don't believe it's conclusions. However, I don't see any reason to disagree with the observed fire patterns that NIST described. No single floor burnt for seven hours. Their predicted fire patterns probably have errors though, as they claim the fires were hot enough to ruin the supports around column 79.

So in that case you do now believe that fires alone managed to destroy the WTC7? I mean, now you are quoting from the directly, and yes, I have just checked the latest report and you are correct.

Of course I'm correct. That's what is stated in the NIST report. You're the one who simultaneously believed the NIST report, while also believing that the WTC 1 debris caused the structural failure in WTC 7. If you believe that WTC 1 played a role in the collapse of WTC 7, then you're contradicting the NIST report, that you believe in. A little silly, hey?

It's ok for you to admit that the NIST report is wrong, if you feel that it wasn't just the fires that caused the collapse.

So will you be admitting that it really was fire alone, or are you just posting from NIST to prove me wrong,

I'm posting to prove you wrong, of course. You made false claims about the fires so you needed to be shown that they were false claims.

I don't know how WTC 7 collapsed. The 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration is very suspicious. For 2.5 seconds the building offered no resistance to its collapse. That's also in the NIST report.

GenRadek, I called you out on your false claims and all you tried to do was to put words into my mouth. Just admit that you were wrong about the fires and move on. Trying to pin false accusations about what I believe in the NIST report is futile. I'm not the one believing its conclusions or trying to defend it - you are.

reply to post by tezzajw


All right, I do admit that I did not have a chance to read the final report,as I was still under the impression of the first report from 2005.

Now then. Please explain how the NIST report is flawed and what proof do you have it is? Also, what qualifications do you have that allow you to believe so? Anyone can believe anything they want, but what makes you believe its flawed and everyone that investigated it wrong?

And also, do you believe or understand the NIST explanation on why there is NO evidence fro explosives used in WTC7? Its right there as well, and I am curious how you care to explain that.

There is also the seismic data that shows the collapse event of WTC7 lasting for 18 seconds. It also states it has no similarities with explosives being set off. Is it not possible it was falling apart and the collapse we see (ie the "global" collapse) is the final part of its collapse, after the insides have already fallen? Is this also not possible?

[edit on 12/12/2008 by GenRadek]