Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by DevilJonah

 

I thank you for your kind words DevilJonah.

I am not here to make enemies or browbeat people.

It may seem hard to believe, but I, too, was once on the Truth Movement side. Back when LC, Sept. Clues, and all that came out, I truly believed that we were suckered and there was something fishy.

But once I started to look for the actual eyewitness accounts, uncut, unmolested, unedited used by the TM's videos and sites, I immediately did an about face.

Do I deny the fact that there were explosions? No. You had about 6 buildings burning, plus two large airliners. Of course there will be explosions in a fire. I mean come now, I just got to watch a garage burn up a couple weeks ago, and I heard a few explosions come out of the garage. I had to warn the firefighers about them going off. But can ask you, does an explosion mean explosives? Its just an honest question. I have no problem with you believing 9/11 may be an inside job. That is what you believe, I respect your view. But all I ask is that it is based on actual evidence and questions, and not based on cherry picked quotes, edited accounts, twisted and taken out of context quotes about "explosions" trying to suggest that there were bombs planted all over. Like this poor firefighter's account. After reading it, you can see that in effect, he only detracts from the "planted bombs" idea simply by his account of not hearing anything until the thing is already collapsing around him. I think that if you and I were right next to a building that had demo charges going off, we'd notice that a whole lot sooner than it falling down right?

Once again, I thank you for you kind words, and dont stop looking for the truth. But remember to approach the truth with an unbiased and clear thinking brain that can tell similes, metaphors, and such when describing explosions!

And yet, General, here is unquestionable proof that the government agency tasked with the analysis has clearly edited video of the collapse!!

Speaking of edited accounts, I'm sure your aware of eyewitness testimony being kept from the public until a lawsuit brought them out? I'm sure your aware of the firefighters and first responders account that required a lawsuit to have released?

I'm sure your aware of William Rodriguez account being edited out from the official account, right?


10 years ago I was arguing with debunkers about sounds of explosions equating to explosives. And I agree with you. Except that argument requires that all following evidence being ignored....eyewitness accounts, bright flashes in the building, structural damage to the towers after the explosions, thoughts and opinions of those nearest to those explosions, etc. etc.
Sadly, to accept that the sound of explosions doesn't necessarily equate to explosives REQUIRES the absolute neglect of everything else that led those on the scene including the mainstream media to believe explosives brought down the building.



I wouldn't want to be you right now because you must be torn in two directions. Right now your being confronted with clear evidence of the same reasons you 'left' the truth movement and accepted the official story as the truth.

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by GenRadek
I think that if you and I were right next to a building that had demo charges going off, we'd notice that a whole lot sooner than it falling down right?

I disagree. You wouldn't hear explosions "a whole lot sooner" than it falling down.

Cause and effect. Bombs go off, building crumbles...
Not bombs go off.. building stands awhile before deciding to fall.

Zomar, you are correct, there is always a sound delay, but usually during a building demo, you hear the initial charges going off removing supports and such first, then you hear the main blasts cutting the large parts. But also the closer you are the shorter the delay.

However, in his own words especially, its as if the building is crumbling before the charges go off? I mean doesnt that strike you as odd? I mean we are not dealing with tachyons, when they arrive before they ever left. What we have here is a firefighter who claims to have been standing literally right NEXT to WTC7, and yet the only, ONLY moment he senses something is wrong, is when he hears on the radio the screams and shouts of "get away". And that is when he finally looks up and sees the building already collapsing. Why oh why does he not mention hearing the demo charges going off prior to collapse? He is right next to the building, he's right next to the alleged demolition charges going off causing the collapse. Since when do buildings collapse prior to detonations??

reply to post by GoodOlDave

If ever I have seen a blatant dis-information agent, it's you bub and while I now have little faith that justice will be rendered against those responsible for 9-11, I do believe the crimes are written for eternity upon the souls of those responsible, as well as those who have since taken part in its cover-up and attempts at covering it up. You bub,,,it's on you.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I mean doesnt that strike you as odd?

Don't you think that all four walls ending up on top of the debris pile is odd?

Your whole argument is based on your refusal to believe explosives were heard. But the fact that the building fell into it's own footprint with all four walls ON TOP of the debris pile isn't odd to you?

The evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demo is not effected by the sounds heard on videos. The visual evidence of the final outcome of the collapse is what is important, as it shows the result of a controlled collapse, all four walls ON TOP of the debris pile. You keep ignoring this in favour of your 'explosive sounds' argument. You are here to argue because you want to argue, not because you want to learn anything.

How did all four walls end up ON TOP of the debris pile Gen?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Well I'm using his videos and his own words as well. And I'm seeing that you are selectively cherry picking the account rather than using the whole thing. Why is that?

1) "There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions."

Wow! Hearing explosions?? During a fire?? Especially after having two 110 floor buildings collapse, burying cars, trucks, TWO 767s!!!, gas lines, buildings 3,4,5,6,7 burning from end to end, and you are acting surprised that people heard something going BOOM?

2) "I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing."

Well maybe he claims he didnt, but what about the firefighters that ALL did see and hear it? Do I have to repost them again? Hows about this firefighter?

And I'm sure you have read the actual accounts by others who were there and saw what was going? Do I need to repost them again? Since when does one person's twisted account trump 5 or more others who contradict his account?

Go ahead and point out where exactly Bartmer contradicts himself here.

He says...

1) "I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down."

2) The radios exploded to get away from the building "at that moment" that he looked up and noticed the building was coming down.

3) "the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it..."

4) "I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Well wow, when you cherry pick the soundbites you want and use them seperately, what do you call that? Ah yes, Taking out of contex. Lets put them right back where they belong:

I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

So once agian BACK in context. According to his own words, he hears nothing, sees nothing, that would signify a collapse. Which means he's not hearing any booms either right? Reading comprehension here VRYA. Reading comprehension and critical thinking. (I know I got those skills, lets see you use yours.) All of a sudden, he is hearing the radio people screaming "Get away from it!!" So what does that mean? Someone pushed the button willynilly by accident before everyone cleared out (I thought everyone was clear much earlier). Or does it mean that the building is already collapsing and they are warning everyone to run like hell? So then THAT is the moment when he finally looks up and sees the building peeling in on itself, right over him. So then he is grabbed and told to run and as the building is collapsing behind him, debris hitting the ground, he's hearing the whole time "thooom thoom thoom". Well gee I wonder how a building collapsing will sound like. So that is his account.

I think the contradiction you're TRYING to say exists, is that he didn't explicitly say an explosion preceded the penthouse collapsing. He neither confirms or denies this. And he doesn't have to confirm it, because we already have evidence of numerous explosions coming out of that same building in the time between the WTC Tower collapses and its own collapse. News reporters walking by it and talking about hearing "secondary explosions" going off every 15-20 minutes, FEMA seismograph records showing activity in 15 minute intervals after the Tower collapses, a video of firefighters hearing and reacting to an explosion they heard 2 blocks from WTC7.

Oh no, he actually makes no mention of hearing any booms until the [snip] is falling down behind him hitting the ground. Oh he does say, "the whole time," Well where was that when the only warning he got of the collapse is already when it was well underway and the radio's warning to run away?? Sorry but you cant have it both ways.

And all this talk abotu secondary explosions, go back to my first paragraph. You have a 47 story building burning nonstop for 6+ hours. You have two 110 floor buildings, each floor consisting of 1 acre (2x110acres = 220 acres) collapsed and burning, burying hundreds of firetrucks, ambulances, cars, trucks, police cars, police trucks, buses, motorcycles, vehicles in the basements, all around the WTC plaza, AND two, not one, TWO 767's in the debris, and you have four more buildings burning out of control (WTC 3,4,5,6), plus power transformers. And you are acting all shocked and surprised that people were hearing "secondary explosions" in that mess? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? And I'm suppose to take what you say seriously? I just watched a garage burn down a week ago and I heard a couple of good explosions eminate from it. Loud enough to get the neighbors out. A simple garage fire. Gee lets start a few hundreds of vehicals on fire and see if we hear any explosions come from them. Lets hear some accounts from a car fire:
www.youtube.com...
did you catch that one gentleman's account? Five explosions in 10 minutes! Those cars must have been packed with explosives too right?

Oh and that video you speak of with the firefighters supposedly hearing an explosion from WTC7, didnt you ntoice how the audio of the video itself is in mono while the explosion itself is in stereo? How does that happen VRYA?

Barry Jennings was in WTC7 when both Towers came down. Did you forget that part? Also, it got whacked by both, causing some damage to it. I think that would sound like an explosion when you have a few hundred tons of steel and debris impacting yoru building from 110 floors up.

Not so strange to me considering many people seem to knew that building was going to be brought down before it was, and there even being stories of radio countdowns. There are no two ways about it, if that building was demolished, someone would had to have known beforehand, ie the person who was actually in charge of bringing it down at the very least. That is infinitely more believable than to assume everyone there was psychic and predicted a 1st in human engineering history, based on no good indication other than the explosions, and Bartmer and NIST and many others are saying the debris damage wasn't even close to being able to do the job itself, the whole building wasn't leaning, etc.

And once again you bury your head in the sand and shout "Lalalalalalala".
Building wasnt leaning? I redirect you to the video above.
Here is Fire Chief Hayden:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
"Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?"
"Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."

web.archive.org...

So please, do not lie that it wasnt leaning, because it was. Unless, that is all that is left for you.

[edit on 9/3/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK:
#1
Explosions do NOT equal explosives. Get that into your head first. Its been almost 9 years, and if you cannot understand that simple fact, how can you understand something more complex like a building collapsing from structural failure.

#2
Did it fall into its footprint? I didnt know that having it land and destroy Friterman Hall means it fell into its footprint! I didnt know that extensively damaging the Post Office next door means it fell into into its footprint. I didnt know damaging the Verizon building also caused by falling its footprint. I didnt know that covering up nearly the entire street in front of it is considered in its footprint! But maybe that is how life is in Bizzaro World, but not here on Plant Earth. Trying returning to reality.

#3
Already told you, the interior floors and section collapsed first, then the hollow shell fell in afterwards. Pay attention ANOK. Once again I question your ability to comprehend such harder facts when you cannot grasp the simple fact that explosions =/= explosives.

If 7 just happened to fall because of OS theory, then 3, 4, 5 and 6, probably should have also done the same as 7. 2 100+ floor, steel buildings had just crumbled on top of them, and they still stood. They had mad holes in them, and horribly damaged, but they were standing. 7 supposedly gets gouged by falling debris, and just drops like a, like a, well like a demolition. Oh, and dont say fire did it.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Myendica]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

Explosions do NOT equal explosives. Get that into your head first. Its been almost 9 years, and if you cannot understand that simple fact, how can you understand something more complex like a building collapsing from structural failure.

Oh jeez you just don't get it do you? I knew you wouldn't. How many more time do I have to say hearing explosives doesn't matter when all four walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile? Get that in your head!

Did it fall into its footprint? I didnt know that having it land and destroy Friterman Hall means it fell into its footprint! I didnt know that extensively damaging the Post Office next door means it fell into into its footprint. I didnt know damaging the Verizon building also caused by falling its footprint. I didnt know that covering up nearly the entire street in front of it is considered in its footprint! But maybe that is how life is in Bizzaro World, but not here on Plant Earth. Trying returning to reality.

Yes it did. If all four walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile then it collapsed into it's own footprint, that is kinda like the point dude. Otherwise the walls would have fell outwards and surrounding building would have been destroyed also. No demolition is perfect and to expect such close buildings to not be damaged is unrealistic. Those buildings would have been draped with tarps to protect them in a normal demolition situation.

Already told you, the interior floors and section collapsed first, then the hollow shell fell in afterwards. Pay attention ANOK. Once again I question your ability to comprehend such harder facts when you cannot grasp the simple fact that explosions =/= explosives.

And I already told you, no I explained to you with evidence, that fire is not going to cause the center to collapse in perfect timing to allow the outer walls to end up ON TOP of the debris pile.

Pay attention? LOL, how many times have I now shown you are not paying attention? Hard facts, what hard facts? You have no facts, hard or not, that fire could cause a perfect implosion demolition with all four walls ON TOP of the debris pile, just as a controlled implosion demolition is designed to do.

Show me another collapse that resulted in all four walls ON TOP of the debris pile from fire.

Your hypothesis could put demo companies out of business, how come you don't try this method of yours. Just set fire to the center of the building and watch it collapse into its footprint, no need for complicated explosives set to go off in a specific sequence or anything, einstein here can do it with a lighter...

And as I predicted you didn't address any of my post, just waffled on about hearing explosives again. You have the nerve to question my comprehension...

[edit on 9/3/2010 by ANOK]

There you go Anok, tell Gen how it is..

There is no doubt that some of the WT7 videos have been interfered with, the traffic lights to the right only add to that. The Explosive sounds are pretty inconclusive as evidence of high explosive which is akin to thunder,(highly compressed air) which rumbles on and I don't hear that, even with a thousand watt stereo mixer amp. That is not to say some kind of explosion did not take place for instance, like a humble detonator as an initiator for a chain reaction. Look at it this way, there may well be a mundane explanation of how each or all of these buildings fell, but it is not fully explained by NIST full stop. All of us then are morally bound to keep asking honest questions, no matter how insignificant or stupid they might seem. Remember, much of the NIST report is based on a cartoon..made by them.

reply to post by ANOK


Wait wait wait, ANOK, how do YOU know that the exterior walls will only fall on top of the pile with ONLY explosive demolition? What evidence do you have of that, ANOK? What makes YOU such an expert at how any building should behave during a structural failure? Your incredulity? Wow well then alert NIST, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, the folks at Explosion World, American Society of Civil Engineers, cause ANOK's incredulity is more than enough education and expertise than their years of work and knowledge! Oh and please start up a list of real professional demolition experts with years of experience that also agree that WTC7 was a demolition. Here is Brent Blanchard for starters, explain to him how he is wrong:
www.jod911.com...
Be sure to tell him how much more you KNOW about just how a building is suppose to collapse.
Here is the website's email and phone:
[email protected], or (001) 856-234-3703.
[email protected]

And again ANOK, its already been explained to you. When columns 79 I believe failed, causing the penthouse to collapse into WTC7, where do you think it went? Fell down and began the internal collapses. A few seconds after that, the exterior shell fell over and into the hole left by the internal collapses earlier. Again, are you or are you not aware of just how WTC7 was designed and those pesky transfer trusses used for the floors over the Coned substation's levels? Also recall the fact that according to seismic data, the building was having internal collapses for 18 seconds in total. A building is not a solid block that will fall in one unit. We are dealing with steel beams, steel bolt connections, welds, they are not going to all in one solid piece move down. They are going to deform, fail, putting more stresses on the surrounding steel sections until they all start failing, and that is called a global collapse.

By the way, there on top of the pile we saw the north face on top of it, and some sections of the west wall I believe. Not four. Geeze at least get the amount of walls right


[edit on 9/3/2010 by GenRadek]

Based on what I saw in the videos and the previous administration's lack of credibility, I'm more likely to believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen. Not necessarily in order to give Bush an excuse to start a war with Iraq, but possibly to cover up something. Something that may have been hidden in WTC-7. The destruction of the Twin Towers merely served as a means to distract the entire world, while the real event was taking place in WTC-7. Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by blankduck18

 

... Also I've watched programs on building implosions and there seems to be alot of work involved with setting it up. Not one person witnessed the crews of the demolition teams rigging the buildings with explosives! Come on now.

Exactly, it takes precise demolition to bring a building straight down! Go on youtube and watch failed demolitions...here is one for your viewing pleasure...



also look at the oklahoma city bombing...the federal building was almost blown in half and it stood tall...however on 9/11 three buildings just happen to freefall straight down by natural forces?

reply to post by GenRadek


NIST isn't trustworthy at all. Remember this leaked memo> They didn't want to release everything because of "Public Safety".

NIST worked out the truth of the collapse from their model and then called "Public Safety" and denied it to the public.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by Skyline74]

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by blankduck18

 

... Also I've watched programs on building implosions and there seems to be alot of work involved with setting it up. Not one person witnessed the crews of the demolition teams rigging the buildings with explosives! Come on now.

Exactly, it takes precise demolition to bring a building straight down! Go on youtube and watch failed demolitions...here is one for your viewing pleasure...

also look at the oklahoma city bombing...the federal building was almost blown in half and it stood tall...however on 9/11 three buildings just happen to freefall straight down by natural forces?

This is an excellent example that corroborates the argument that WTC 7 was a controlled implosion. It fell straight down and not to the side.

reply to post by GenRadek


So now the truth comes out and are you by chance a spokesperson of that website trying to tell us we truthers are wrong?

I have been seeing a lot of videos of that event and even see flashes of light from the windows on some scenes.You know just the same way a controlled demolition would happen.

Also prove those engineers and architects wrong on ae911.org as well that support the 9/11 truth movement. You have little evidence and they have tons of evidence that support their theories.

reply to post by ANOK

Thank you. I have posted several replies to similar posts asking people to look at 911studies/911photos, Jack Whites site. Google that and look at all the pictures there and you will have no doubt about what did not happen on 9/11. Have seen comments here about " That liar " Jack White and his "Phoney pictures ". Shows you how desperate these people are. All Jacks pictures are from live news reports, firemen on scene and DOD or other Gov. web sites. He did not take the pictures.
Look at the signature. Bill Clinton was a partner with the Bushies in the Mena Arkansas airport. He is a strange guy to be using as a guide to the truth about 911 or anything else for that matter.
The PTB know their drug based shylock banking system and terror based wars of choice are all coming apart.

I was a senior in highschool when 9/11 happened, and I'll never forget the moment I heard about the attacks. I have never been a 'truther', and have always found the conspiracy theories about 9/11 pretty absurd. But I have to admit, the new footage of building 7 is very worrisome If this conspiracy turns out to be true, everything changes.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

ANOK:
#1
Explosions do NOT equal explosives. Get that into your head first. Its been almost 9 years, and if you cannot understand that simple fact, how can you understand something more complex like a building collapsing from structural failure.

Hey GenRadude, I'm just curious -- do you think BOMBS = EXPLOSIVES? I'm still trying to get THAT simple fact into my head!

9/11 NBC News broadcast: wma download:

"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device -- he thinks, he speculates -- was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."

FDNY firefighter "bomb in the building" wmv download:

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”

Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me.

Bombs in the Building: WTC 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact



[edit on 9/4/2010 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

Wait wait wait, ANOK, how do YOU know that the exterior walls will only fall on top of the pile with ONLY explosive demolition? What evidence do you have of that, ANOK?

Dear GenRadek thank you for your reply, I hope people reading this will note that I already answered this question in this thread, and others Gen has been involved in, about a dozen times now and we have just gone full circle, and this rant by Gen just proves he doesn't read other peoples posts, he's a TROLL.

Once again for the last time Gen, what was it you said, 'pay attention'? Time to do that right now matey...

First off look at this web site, it explains how implosions work, there is a gif for those that are comprehension challenged...

science.howstuffworks.com...

Inner columns drop first, which leaves a space for the outer walls to fall into, so the building all lands in its footprint. If the 'explosives' are not set right the collapse will fail...

www.youtube.com...

That will NOT happen from a natural collapse caused by fires, it is not something that happens by accident due to many rules of physics that I shouldn't have to explain.

If you fail to understand this now I give up, ignore button is useful for trolls.

BTW folks also note the debunkers have given up trying to claim the walls did not end up ON TOP of the debris pile, and are now desperate to ignore this line of discussion by playing ignorant to why it matters.

[edit on 9/4/2010 by ANOK]