Explain this? WT7 explosions in the windows.

This thread is awesome. A complete bitch-slap in the face for gullible truthers, who, of course, will learn nothing from this lesson.

Originally posted by FlySolo

I

People, people, people, people, people!

What you are seeing here is faked, computer generated, demolition software
video, produced especially for our viewing pleasure.

Look at it (especially now 10+ years later) for gods sake. It is such a third rate production.

If you, the educated, finger on the pulse, conspiracy spotters cannot see this by now,
there is indeed little hope for everyone else.

Wakey wakey time!

Originally posted by foodstamp "many news agencies all said the same thing"

got some links to back this up? to the best of my knowledge, only the bbc made this schoolboy error.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
This thread is awesome. A complete bitch-slap in the face for gullible truthers, who, of course, will learn nothing from this lesson.

Faked videos have nothing to do with the fact that WTC 7 collapsed vertically into it's own footprint. You've debunked a video, not the implosion collapse of WTC7.

Not even a little.

Originally posted by davjan4
The fact that those 3 building came down as a result of controlled demolition is so obvious as to be laughable. I.

edit on 6-12-2012 by davjan4 because: removed last line. Too off topic.

Prove it.Using legitimate sources. Not some fools on the Internet making things up. Oh wait,you can't.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

what a strange little man the guy in the wife-beater is...

He didn't create the video to show off his fashion sense. He created the video to make a point, and he definitely made it.

and what "point" is that??? to cause more confusion for the truth?


he did NOT alter the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREE-FALL". If you don't know the significance of FREE-FALL, I shall enlighten you, it means that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION!.

he didn't alter the FACT we see NO fire to do ALL the work..


SO, using BASIC FACTS, common knowledge, and 'good-old' Shyam Sunders quote from the WTC7 Technical Briefing, "free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

where did ALL the vertical support go within 1.75 SECONDS for the global unified descent that occurs starting when the kink forms, to 4.0 seconds of the collapse, EQUAL to G?

some quotes from the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION to help ya...

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

[NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completeing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"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."


so Dave, it seems we have a 47 story global collapse, with NO EVIDENCE the fires present did anything.

oh yes, didn't someone officially claim NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist, years after a SCIENTIFIC investigation that did not test?

"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

so how does one SCIENTIFICALLY support their claim?
they don't.....do they

[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.

less than 30 seconds of collapse, scientifically proves NONE were used the entire day....and that is all they have....

no wonder all you ....'people', [I was told I have to be nice to you], focus on 'DISTRACTIONS', case you have NO support for the fantasy claims you push as truth.

NO one has to prove CD, YOU MUST prove FIRE Alone!

and since there already is an IN-PLACE official claim stemming from a scientific investigation that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist", that means YOU supply the EVIDENCE that NONE were there.....not anyone else to prove different.

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Originally posted by davjan4
The fact that those 3 building came down as a result of controlled demolition is so obvious as to be laughable. I.

edit on 6-12-2012 by davjan4 because: removed last line. Too off topic.

Prove it.Using legitimate sources. Not some fools on the Internet making things up. Oh wait,you can't.

edit on 7-12-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)

people asking for and DEMANDING the evidence of the HYPOTHESIZED claims that ARE the official story, need NO evidence.....you do supporting it!

oh wait....you can't!

Originally posted by exponent
There is no 'official story' of this, the BBC isn't even American. They repeated a Reuters report without sufficiently fact checking it. That's all there is to it.

And what was Reuter's explanation? It´s irrelevant who broadcasted it.

Do you really think someone would be stupid enough to give out a script to a foreign media organisation telling them what to say before it happened? Could there be a more risky thing to do in such a conspiracy?

I agree, but the fact that it happened still stands and is hard to explain otherwise without an incredible coincidence.

Do you really think someone would use two planes in new york, but then use two missiles elsewhere just for the fun of it? Occam's razor please!

The towers where easy to hit with planes, the Pentagon not so, and all eyes were on the towers any way at that time. I don´t know what happened at Shanksville, but the sheer lack of a plane tells me something is fishy there also.

It will probably never be proven that 9/11 was anything else than what the OS tells us, but nothing that the OS tells us should be taken at face value either. I wish proponents of the OS would spend some more time investigating the claims they support so ferociously instead of immediately considering everything else "debunked already." (I´m aware the video in the OP is irrelevant here; it´s a deliberate hoax; Í´m talking in general here.)

Originally posted by samkent
Once you start walking down the conspiracy lane you have all sorts of other questions you then have to answer.

1.How did they pull the wool over the eyes of the press?
2.How do they prevent the press from publishing all this new evidence?
3.How do they keep all the engineers from publishing the truth?
4.How do they keep all the pilots from publishing the truth?
5.How do they keep all the demolition experts from publishing the truth?
6.If the Gov has all these super powers why do they let ATS have a 911 section?

Look even the head of the CIA can't get a little nookie on the side without being found out and making headline news.

This conspiracy is impossible.

I see what you're saying but engineers etc. have expressed their views re the official tale

Professionals for 9/11 Truth
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Consensus911.org
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 9/11
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Scientists - Journal of 9/11 Studies
The Science of 9/11
Researchers - Complete 9/11 Timeline

911truth.org

The vid in the op maybe a hoax but it sure as hell comes nowhere near the scale of the hoax pulled on that date.

People all over the globe were shocked - none more so that the people of the US (the real targets of terror). When people are in shock their reasoning capacity is reduced and they become highly suggestible. That's how they could produce an intact passport from an inferno and tell the public the names and nationalities of all the hijackers within hours of the event - and people believe it's the truth.

The explanation that is absorbed first becomes extremely difficult to shift despite a myriad of evidence that may later contradict it.

reply to post by christina-66

Without checking all those sites here are a few oddities I have found.

Religious leaders for 911 truth is registered in Japan a non religious country.
Scientist for 911... Right on their front page

This new organization, founded by Yaz Manley, a voice-over artist

Media for 911 ... Right on their front page.

We hope to return to the Internet towards the end of January '12.

Someone in the media can't get a website running???


Scholars for 911
James Fetzer Right from Wiki

Some have questioned his apparent endorsement of a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration

Also he has been interviewed by Jerry Springer???

I wouldn't want to live next door to this guy let alone side with him on an issue.
Look anyone can make a website. I have one myself. But that doesn't mean the content has real value.
You have to look at the people running it and their reasons behind it.
Most of these types of sites want a new investigation because of oddities of the events. Not because they say the events were impossible.

Originally posted by RationalDespair

I agree, but the fact that it happened still stands and is hard to explain otherwise without an incredible coincidence.

Not really. The BBC have made countless errors in the past, as have all the other news services. Many thought the towers were going to collapse, including firefighters on the scene, all this reporter did was jump the gun and announce what was likely to happen before it actually did.

At any other time this would have been nothing more than a mundane mistake, but due to the nature of the error and the conspiracy theory surrounding the collapse of the towers, this was made into a much bigger thing than it really was.

So... Ahem...

Hoax bin?

:::Cough:::

WOOOOOOOW

If I ever had any doubt...at least...this video is undeniable proof of WTC7 demolition.

There is absolutely no doubt anymore.

Charges firing prior to the collapse, clearly visible. Audio audible. Building cracking near the points where charges went off.

I WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN !!!!!!


the only question remains now...how much of the whole event was covered up ? who was involved ?

reply to post by humphreysjim


Well, if that explanation satisfies you, then by all means... but I find it hard to believe that this was reported before the fact by coincidence. There were absolutely no signs that WTC7 would collapse prior to or during this broadcast.

That this was reported by the BBC is also very coincidental, considering the role the UK has played in the "evidence" for WMDs in Iraq: the decisive factor for the US and others to invade the country, which was based on forgery as we now know. The BBC is a public service broadcasting corporation, i.e. controlled by the government who has very close ties to the US government and has obviously no problem with cooperating on shady operations, which costs innocent human lives.

I understand broadcasting companies make mistakes. "I´m sorry folks but we accidentally broadcasted yesterdays news this morning, bla bla."-kind of mistakes, but this is another level in my view.

reply to post by RationalDespair

There were absolutely no signs that WTC7 would collapse prior to or during this broadcast.

NYFD said it would collapse B4 ths broadcast. Where do you think the news got the information?

reply to post by samkent


Do you have a link for proof of that statement?

I haven´t heard that before, but I'm open for the truth.

Originally posted by hgfbob
and what "point" is that??? to cause more confusion for the truth?

No, the point is that 100% of what the conspiracy theorists consider proof is fake information they're getting off the internet ("Pull It is lingo for demolitions, no interceptors were scrambled, no aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon, the fires in WTC 7 were almost out, the list goes on and on), and rather than applying critical analysis to it they just blindly accept the bad information at face value without question. He said it himself when he put a UFO into the video to make it even more outlandish, and what happened? The UFO groupies accepted it without question by making up their own excuses like "UFOs have been seen during other disasters too". He created evidence the conspiracy theorists wanted to hear and they began using their own circular logic to validate it becuase they wanted to believe it was true.

I will bet any amount of money you want that somewhere out there, there's a zealot conspiracy theorist who STILL won't get it, and will still insist the video is genuine, UFO and all, and insist this guy is really a disinformation agent sent by the government to discredit it. Any takers?

he did NOT alter the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREE-FALL". If you don't know the significance of FREE-FALL, I shall enlighten you, it means that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION!.

Personally, one part of the NIST report I accept as valid is that they theorize the south side of WTC 7 (the far side away from the camera that we don't see) folded in and collapsed six seconds before the north side (the side we're looking at in the video) of the building did. I accept this theory because it logically explains why the penthouse collapsed six seconds before the rest of the building did, or at least, it explains it better than armies of sinister secret agents going through the insane complexities of using controlled demolitions to destroy a building from the inside out in the first time in history for no reason.

In short, there was no top down collapse and there was no free fall because the collapse wasn't symmetrical, and you are just blindly quoting the pretty sounding information that other conspiracy theorists have blindly quoted to you...and odds are, in your very next post you'll refute that scenario for no other tangible reason than because you want it to be a symmetrical collapse becuase you want to believe the building was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Am I wrong?

THAT is the point the creator of this video was trying to make.

he didn't alter the FACT we see NO fire to do ALL the work..

That's becuase we see only the non damaged side of the building in the video. If you look at only the autopsy photos of JFKs feet you're not going to see any gunshot injuries there either.

reply to post by FlySolo


Something about the video/windows seems fake to me; it seems like someone may have edited the film. I did not read through the whole thread to see if someone else has already proven this as I did not want to waste much time on it after reviewing this video a few times. Anyhow . . . not saying that it is fake for sure . . . but very suspect for me.

reply to post by samkent


Japan has cried foul many times and so has other countries but you MSM don't want you to know....

Japanes Parliament Questions official story

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by superman2012

 

I think Larry silverstein's statements are more credible than a timestamp definatley. But he would defend his words later by saying he meant "pull it" in the sense that they got all the people out because they thought it was coming down. Which in fact it did. So, you'll never know really what he meant...

Alex Jones made up that whole "Pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit himself (he deliberately misquoted ground zero crews pulling down the remainder of the buildings with cables), so once you remove that out of the equation there's only one logical meaning for what Silverstein said. When he made the interview he wasn't expecting the conspiracy theorists were going to go through his grammar with a microscope looking for hidden meanings.