Do You believe 9/11 was staged or really a terrorist attack ? (poll) (srs)

[rsnnh12]

The NIST was forced to ADMIT that a few seconds of FREE FALL ACCELERATION actually happened on 9/11 on the WTC Building seven , this mean that the World Trade Center building SEVEN Fell at FREE FALL ACCELERATION for 105 feets (32m), FREE FALL ACCELERATION only can happen when the vertical strenght of ALL the vertical support columns is removed instantly to ALLOW the building to fall at FREE FALL ACCELERATION, THIS FACT AUTOMATICALLY AUTOMATICALLY AUTOMATICALLY prove controlled DEMOLITION brought down the WTC building SEVEN, the US government is in despair trying to Cover-UP the controlled Demolition of WTC Building seven

Note the use of caps to make sure the cavemen, as he views you, get it that "severely" means "REALLY SEVERELY!" OOGA BOOGA LOOK! JUMBO jet! You may have noticed this is Rowbro's condescending pattern of talking to this audience.

Hmmmm....

[notorius1]

FREE FALL ACCELERATION only can happen when the vertical strenght of ALL the vertical support columns is removed instantly to ALLOW the building to fall at FREE FALL ACCELERATION

Is there some sorta scientific rule to this or is it your opinion?

[dlaliberte]

So 2 firefighters, who were actually there, could tell that WTC7 and other buildings didn't look good. They could tell the building was in trouble... are you saying that you know better than they do? Are you saying there wasn't a bulge in 1 corner of the building? Or that there werent massive fires inside? There are many more firefighter accounts of WTC7, if you'd like to research them.

Actually, it seems likely that there WAS significant damage inside the building, and not just on the exterior parts that could be seen. But according to NIST's own report, the internal damage that supposedly resulted in the collapse was invisible to the outside, and exceedingly unlikely. So these couple of reports by people who heard creaking were enough to assume a complete collapse was imminent, when NO other steel structure buildings have collapsed just like a controlled demolition, except on 9/11. Was there no other more likely outcome that might be expected when people hear creaking?

But, there should NOT have been such damage based on what is known about the structure of the building, not without something extra going on besides office fires. The external damage and sporadic 20-minute-long fires that moved around as they ran out of fuel in each area could not have caused enough structural damage even in one place, let alone enough to cause the complete failure of all the columns of 8-10 floors, or even just all the interior columns.

NIST never argued that all the interior core columns somehow failed without causing the exterior to cave in as the core was failing. They believed it was a progressive collapse and that is how they modeled it. If you look at the wireframe animations they produced based on their model simulations, they only show the first couple seconds of the collapse, and even that much doesn't look like the collapse we see in the videos. Here is a fun video that makes this little concept clear: youtube watch?v=gdkYj4ShbIA (it would be nice if someone could reply with a link to the actual video - thanks)

Shyam Sundar argued that there was no free fall involved in the collapse of WTC 7 because, as he said, free fall is impossible without ZERO RESISTANCE and in a progressive collapse, there is always some resistance. Do you agree that he said this? What did he mean by that?

And their defense of this claim about lack of free fall was that the fall time was 40% longer than it would have been with free fall, which they determined by *averaging* the velocity of the motion of the top of the tower over a longer period of time. Does that calculation make sense to you? That's what they tried to get away with in the draft of their report. (link to video of Shyam Sundar trying to explain free fall on planet earth)

But when they were forced to admit that there really was free fall during part of the collapse, did they change their model to explain the free fall? It appears they merely declared that their model was consistent with free fall. Do you see a problem here? First they claim their model is inconsistent with free fall, but then after admitting free fall did occur, suddenly their model is consistent with free fall. How does that work?

But here's the kicker: They won't tell us what their model was so we might be able to check it. Hiding your model or data is NOT science, but it is a strong indicator of fraud.

So it is likely that the explosion Barry Jennings experienced inside of WTC7 at about 9:30am was one of the early explosions which were intended to weaken the structure in preparation for bringing it down sometime later. (link to Barry Jennings interview here)

[rsnnh12]

But here's the kicker: They won't tell us what their model was so we might be able to check it. Hiding your model or data is NOT science, but it is a strong indicator of fraud.

You mean like Dr. Jones and his "thermite"?

I have a question for you. Lets say they did have explosives to prep the building, well before the fires and debris damage. Now, its obvious that really only one side (South side) of WTC7 was really hit by a lot of debris, agreed? That's why the other sides and the fires in them look like there was not even close to enough damage to cause a collapse. Now, in order for the plan of prep charges to weaken the structure to work, there has to be significant damage to the building later on, right? How did the masterminds know that the towers would cause enough damage (or any, for that matter) to WTC7 for it to catch fire/have the hole in it? What if the towers didn't touch WTC7? The entire premise of explosives in building 7 requires the foreknowledge of exactly how the towers would fall and where they would fall, as well as WHEN they would fall. What happens if the towers don't touch building 7? Surely the people at ground zero, inspecting buildings for safe re-entry would notice the massive damage from the prep charges being set off, right?

The whole thing is just ridiculous. There is zero logic backing that up. They set off prep charges without even knowing if/when the towers would fall? Seems like a ridiculous risk, by a group that has supposedly kept this whole thing from the public eye for a decade...

[Mr Beer]

The whole thing is just ridiculous.

Quite. If 'they' have managed to rig the towers with explosives, why go through the ridiculously elaborate and complex charade of flying planes into the buildings? It just makes the whole plan more likely to go catastrophically wrong by several orders of magnitude. Not to mention 'they' are unable to pull off a successful bugging operation without getting caught, let alone orchestrate 911 which is, to repeat the phrase, several orders of magnitude more complex and would require a lot more people.

[dlaliberte]

Well, maybe seven hours of fires burning throughout the building, with significant exterior damage, and visible structural damage, was their first clue... Your position seems to believe that firefighters are utterly shocked whenever a building collapses.

We were all in shock that day. When firefighters were told, as they were, that the building was DEFINITELY coming down, they were then predisposed to believe what they were told. Someone in authority even said that the building might have to be brought down.

You are exaggerating the amount of fires and the significance of the exterior damage, just as NIST did. There were hours when there were no significant fires, and by the time of the collapse, there was very little going on.

But EVEN IF there were such intense fires for hours, this would not have weakened the structure sufficiently and precisely enough to cause the complete and symmetrical collapse we saw. Roaring infernos that we know of in other steel structured buildings caused only partial failures, asymmetric failures, or no significant structural failures. (link to roaring infernos)

By the way - In your earlier post, you claimed to have actual, factual, researched evidence. I'll politely ask again that you provide some of it.

Nice of you to only ask for some of the evidence. It is coming out. See my other posts. And there will be lots more, given time. Too much all at once will overwhelm people.

Because jumping into this massive & baseless conjecture that thousands of additional people, all around the world, were complicit in the day's events - "proven" because of a reporting error during an enormously chaotic breaking news story, really doesn't live up to that claim.

Who is making such a conjecture about thousands of people being involved? For shame! I said no such thing, and you won't get me to say such a thing, and anyone who professes to know what happened is probably not representing legitimate truth investigations. Can you point me to anyone who is making such a conjecture, because I would like to talk with them?

We don't know how many people had to be involved, or how many people even knew they were involved while just doing their jobs. But we don't have to know any of that in order to prove that the official conspiracy theory cannot be true. And we have that proof. We are calling for real investigations, not more coverups, so that we can actually find out what really happened, including who was really involved.

If you having trouble imaging how it is possible that most people were just doing their jobs while a relatively small number of people were directing the operation, we can get into speculating about some possibilities, but it is just speculation. If you can prove that there is no way that such an operation could be possible, I might have to listen closely. But then we would have to compare the likelihood of that to the likelihood of the official conspiracy theory.

But hey, aren't you also arguing that most people where just doing their jobs on 9/11, while a small number of co-conspirators were outwitting all of them?

And, in case it is not clear, this one supposed reporting "mistake" is certainly not enough on its own (no one should claim it is), but when combined with all the other evidence of foreknowledge (youtube: watch?v=bfwJMRgcLs0), it adds up to a strong case that there was foreknowledge of the collapse, which could not have existed without someone knowing they were intentionally bringing the building down.

[nutsy54]

Nice of you to only ask for some of the evidence. It is coming out. See my other posts. And there will be lots more, given time. Too much all at once will overwhelm people.

Well... How about any of the "proven evidence" you've promised? So far, all we have is more opinions, apparently based on what you'd like to believe about that day...

Who is making such a conjecture about thousands of people being involved?

The referenced topic was the BBC's erroneous reporting that WTC7 had fallen. Anyone who believes the BBC had a script of the day's planned events (up to and including the utterly useless and irrelevant late-afternoon collapse of an unknown building) must "logically" believe that all other international Press was also given the same information. And for that information to get down to the field reporter, everyone between "the top" and that reporter needed to be fed such information. Yet this was the only piece of foreshadowed news which was misreported - because you refuse to believe that errors occur all the time during live, chaotic, breaking-news events.

If you can prove that there is no way that such an operation could be possible, I might have to listen closely.

That statement is rather laughable. If you are making the accusation of an enormous Government-controlled conspiracy of treason and mass murder, then you have the obligation to prove it. I have no such obligation to prove you wrong - even though that's repeatedly and easily been done in these threads.

[Bsip]

WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EST, that BBC broadcast was at 4:57 PM EST, you ignorant fool.

Everyone knew WTC 7 was going to collapse well before it happened. Media was covering the impending event well ahead of time and most likely screwed up the banner graphic.

Ignorant fool

[nutsy54]

but when combined with all the other evidence of foreknowledge (youtube: watch?v=bfwJMRgcLs0), it adds up to a strong case that there was foreknowledge of the collapse, which could not have existed without someone knowing they were intentionally bringing the building down.

Your video:



My standard policy is to watch such videos until the first lie is presented.... Here goes.
By the way - How the hell is someone with a PhD in Comparative Religion cited as a subject matter expert on building demolition?

4:20 "This building was not struck by a plane"... Bizarre statement, since nobody has ever asserted that it was, but a common strawman to put forth. Nevertheless, he doesn't dwell on that, and moves on.

8:00 And the tired old argument of "The BBC knew about the plot and planned events in advance" is brought up. Once again, utterly stunning that these "experts" can't comprehend that incorrect information was reported during the largest and most chaotic breaking news event in modern history... Just as incorrect information is reported during almost all breaking news events. I wonder why they didn't mention the equally incorrect initial reports that a small plane, like a Cessna, had hit the towers when the day started. Strange that the world Press, knowing exactly what was to happen that day, didn't get the hysteria rolling as early as posible, with foreknowledge that a commercial jumbo jet had actually impacted...

13:00 He now claims "the collapse couldn't have been predicted" - Even though this thread has quoted multiple on-scene firefighters who could clearly see and understand that a collapse was likely. {Hell, he even quotes those firefighters later in the video!} How difficult is it to believe that someone saying "That building is about to collapse", ended up mis-stated or mis-reported by someone else as "That building has collapsed"? Doesn't that make a hell of a lot more sense than "The largest, most complex, and most secretive plot of treason and mass murder in world history... Decided to give the BBC an advance copy of the day's agenda"?

14:00 From the NIST report "This is the first time in history such a collapse has occurred"... No sh*t, Sherlock. It's also the first time in history such a building suffered that damage, on that scale, in that scenario. There were a lot of "first" actions that day - so why are we surprised there were "first" results"?

17:40 He now flat-out states that people had foreknowledge. No longer a supposition, he's now stating as Fact, to better support his bizarre and baseless claims. Then he rambles on for several minutes, pretending that an incorrect report was actually "foreknowledge".

20:20 He now focuses on "detail"... Which makes no sense, since "It's gonna collapse" is not detail. Nobody provided a detail of how or when it would collapse.

24:00 He continues this endless surprise that professional firefighters could look at the damage to WTC7, and understand that it would eventually collapse. Ironically, this is during his exploration of "Certainty" - even though nobody knew when the hell it would come down, since his various quotes cover a period of hours.

This is where I have to stop. He's twisting history to match what he wants to believe, while ignoring all logic and common sense - the useless collapse of a useless building, insanely advertised to a seemingly endless number of public and private organizations throughout the world.

[dlaliberte]

You mean like Dr. Jones and his "thermite"?

What are you referring to? What model or data did Dr Jones refuse to release regarding thermite or nano-thermite?

I have a question for you. Lets say they did have explosives to prep the building, well before the fires and debris damage. Now, its obvious that really only one side (South side) of WTC7 was really hit by a lot of debris, agreed?

I wouldn't say there was a lot of debris. It wouldn't take much debris falling at high speed to cause significant damage, but there wasn't really all that much damage either.

That's why the other sides and the fires in them look like there was not even close to enough damage to cause a collapse. Now, in order for the plan of prep charges to weaken the structure to work, there has to be significant damage to the building later on, right? How did the masterminds know that the towers would cause enough damage (or any, for that matter) to WTC7 for it to catch fire/have the hole in it? What if the towers didn't touch WTC7? The entire premise of explosives in building 7 requires the foreknowledge of exactly how the towers would fall and where they would fall, as well as WHEN they would fall. What happens if the towers don't touch building 7? Surely the people at ground zero, inspecting buildings for safe re-entry would notice the massive damage from the prep charges being set off, right?

Half-way decent argument. You get some points for that.

You are perfectly right that they could not predict how much, if any, debris from the WTC 1 collapse might fall on WTC 7. No one claims they did that. It seems clear that they couldn't use the mere possibility of such damage to be the cover story for later fires and the eventual collapse of WTC 7, because that would be unreliable.

However, from what Barry Jennings said about experiencing explosions in WTC 7 at 9:30am, (link to Barry Jennings interview, and not the BBC hatchet job) it appears they were already committed to weakening WTC 7 by that time, which is an hour before WTC 1 fell. So given that piece of evidence, it appears they were not planning on waiting for WTC 1 to cause any damage. In fact, there is a possibility (merely a speculation at this point) that they planned to take down WTC 7 at the same time as WTC 1 fell, and few would suspect that it wasn't just another casualty. The weakening of WTC 7 before WTC 1 fell supports that idea. One additional support for this speculation is that there was a news report at around 10:45 (link to news report), a few minutes after WTC 1 fell, when there was still too much dust to see what was left standing, saying that another tower, which met the description of WTC 7, also fell at the same time.

What happened to WTC 7 if it was supposed to fall at the same time as WTC 1? Maybe there were some technical difficulties.

But given that WTC 7 was still there after WTC 1 fell, and there was, in fact, some damage to WTC 7 (though how it matches up with falling debris is unsettled, as far as I know), then they could go forward with plan B, which they might have improvised at that point. If there was instead no visible damage, perhaps they could have just canceled the WTC 7 demolition, and who would know?

The whole thing is just ridiculous. There is zero logic backing that up. They set off prep charges without even knowing if/when the towers would fall?

Who said they didn't know if/when the towers would fall?

Seems like a ridiculous risk, by a group that has supposedly kept this whole thing from the public eye for a decade...

Yes, it would be a ridiculous risk, the way you described it. But that doesn't mean it happened the way you described. That is called a strawman argument, by the way.

[voodoo101]

Well since you ignored this from two pages ago, why not??

I always ignore you. Cliff note what the video says, if you even know, I don't have time for your nutsy rabbit holes leading to nowhere.

[Rowbro]

I always ignore you. Cliff note what the video says, if you even know, I don't have time for your nutsy rabbit holes leading to nowhere.

So you admit to being one-sided and entirely uncompromising on the simplest of issues which you have no self-awareness of. Basically you are what you claim the "conspirators" are: an ignorant slave to the conspiracy, only this time you're a slave to the conspiracy theory. I hope one day that you realize the truth, that all this time you spent on "proving the towers were demolished" was nothing but an idiotic series of failures of communication, logic and cognition. Until that day, you have me, bushmaster, nutsy and a bunch of other sensible Americans who really are trying to help you come to terms with your pathological self-deceit.

[voodoo101]

Quote Originally Posted by nutsy54 View Post
You only cited a result - how about some actual proof that the Cause was perpetrated by Americans, working on behalf of the government to murder thousands of their fellow countrymen. You know... Something which every conspiracy believer has utterly failed to provide throughout this huge thread.

By your "proof", every homeowner who receives an insurance payment after a fire... Must have committed arson.

whatever proof i will give u, u will find something that will prove that wrong, some1 else will prove you wrong. neverending cycle of back and forth arguments

That's what disinfo does, please see the "25 Rules of Disinformation and Truth Suppression". The good news is it means you are right, ijjy. Why bother with a bunch of kooks who want to believe what they believe? You only bother with people who are closing in on something, which could lead to lethal injections for war criminals. The $2.3 trillion announced missing from the Pentagon on the day before 911, never to be mentioned again, might suggest how they pay for a disinfo operation. When you commit mass murder of 3000 people just going to work, you better DAMNED sure have a propaganda machine to cover your tracks for the next 50 years.

Now, since the Official Conspiracy nuts ignored my evidence that Marvin Bush was complicit (my last post here). Let's talk about something else: what was Israeli MOSSAD doing there?

BTW, Here is another 911 witness to explosions who "commits suicide." Make no mistake, these are killers. But they'll swing on a rope at the end.

911 witness commits suicide:
http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/0...kills-himself/

Is my talk about "disinfos" tin foil?" Read and judge. We know they have the software.

"]Salon.com Glen Greenwald:

"Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs...In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and psuedo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here." - Greenwald Destroys Cass Sunstein and the Idea of "Cognitive Infiltration"

AND NOW, ABOUT MOSSAD. What's with the buried story of the "Dancing Israelis" who turned out to be Mossad agents who were high-fiving and flicking cigarette lighters in front of the burning towers? They had set up a camera on a tripod prior to the attacks. Based on police transmissions their van, which was full of explosives, had a mural on it showing the towers being hit by a plane. When the media got wind of it, the Bush administration rounded up around a thousand Arabs in New York on minor immigration violations, to bury the Dancing Israeli story, and they had them released over the objections of the local FBI.

From WhatReallyHappened.com (with links to news sources)

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.


The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)


Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)

They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)


"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)

From HistoryCommons.org

Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police

A homemaker living near Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey sees three men behaving strangely on a nearby roof and alerts the authorities. This homemaker, who has given only her first name Maria, is called by a neighbor shortly after the first plane has hit the WTC and is told about the impact. She has a view of the WTC from her apartment building so she gets her binoculars and watches the disaster. However, she also notices three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. Maria will later recall, “They seemed to be taking a movie.” They are taking video or photos of themselves with the WTC burning in the background. But what strikes Maria is their expressions: “They were like happy, you know… They didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange.” She writes down the license plate number of the van and calls the police. ABC News, 6/21/2002

The lawyer for the five men will later note that one photograph developed by the FBI shows one of the men, Sivan Kurzberg, holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the burning WTC in the background. [New York Times, 11/21/2001]

CLICK VIDEO: "Dancing Israelis" on Israeli talk show, Oded Ellner says: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." How did they know there was going to be an event?

Police transmission here

Police transmission confirmed here in Norman Mineta report

And here is NYC Officer Scott Decarlo describing the confrontation with the guys in the van:


CLICK VIDEO: Officer Scott Decarlo

[nutsy54]

Voodoo: Your comprehension of the word "Evidence" is laughably flawed. Your non-stop reposting of the same lies is no longer worth responding to. I truly feel sorry for anyone who ignores all the Facts presented in this thread, and chooses to believe your falsified fairy tales instead.

[dlaliberte]

Your video:

Thanks for that. There will be more...

My standard policy is to watch such videos until the first lie is presented.... Here goes.

Not fair. We have to wade through all the lies of the official conspiracy theory.

By the way - How the hell is someone with a PhD in Comparative Religion cited as a subject matter expert on building demolition?

He might be considered an expert on figuring out whether people are lying.

4:20 "This building was not struck by a plane"... Bizarre statement, since nobody has ever asserted that it was, but a common strawman to put forth. Nevertheless, he doesn't dwell on that, and moves on.

Did he say anyone claimed "WTC 7 was struck by a plane"? No, in fact, it is a strawman argument for you to claim there was ever such a claim.

But you don't seem to know what a strawman argument really is. The point of a strawman argument is to set up something weak (a strawman) that you can easily knock down. To be pedantic about it, here is a strawman argument:

"Those silly official conspiracy theorists must be claiming that WTC 7 was hit by a plane, but everyone knows that didn't happen."

And here is an elaboration of your strawman argument for comparison:

"Those silly Truthers must be claiming that we are asserting WTC 7 was struck by a plane, but nobody has ever asserted that it was."

The reason for reminding people about the lack of an impact with a plane is to make it clear that all the excuses for why WTC 1 and 2 fell (because of being supposedly weakened by the high-speed impact and explosion of the planes) don't apply to WTC 7. That should be fairly obvious.

I expect to never hear this accusation of us using a strawman argument about the lack of a plane impact, when it is really YOUR strawman argument about what we are saying. Pass it along.

8:00 And the tired old argument of "The BBC knew about the plot and planned events in advance" is brought up. Once again, utterly stunning that these "experts" can't comprehend that incorrect information was reported during the largest and most chaotic breaking news event in modern history...

Again, as I said before, no one is claiming this one "mistake" is enough to prove the case. It is the compounding of all of them that adds up.

You want to call this a mere mistake, which might be understandable since, we agree, mistakes do happen. However, it was not just a random mistake, but one that presented information that is fairly consistent with other reports at the time. So the mistake appears to be passing on mistaken information about the collapse that had not yet occurred. If further reinforces the evidence that people were talking about the imminent collapse, which should not have been known given the unpredictable nature of the collapse.

Strange that the world Press, knowing exactly what was to happen that day, didn't get the hysteria rolling as early as posible, with foreknowledge that a commercial jumbo jet had actually impacted...

Strawman argument. (You do seem to know how to create strawman arguments, even if you don't know what they are.)

Who claimed that the world press knew exactly what was to happen that day? Who claimed that even the BBC knew what was happening, other than just reporting what they were just told moments before?

13:00 He now claims "the collapse couldn't have been predicted" -

NIST essentially makes the claim that the collapse of WTC 7 could not have been predicted. The report shows how it was exceedingly unlikely for WTC 7 to collapse at all. And it was exceedingly unlikely to know when it would happen, based on knowing how far along it was. NIST could barely make up a sloppy excuse for why it did happen at all.

Now, it is correct that figuring out how the collapse happened after the fact is different from being able to tell that it is about to happen. This is your only hope of an argument - that the firefighters could tell that it was about to fall, given their firemens' intuition, or whatever it is. Those firefighters somehow knew what was about to happen, or so you believe. OK...

Even though this thread has quoted multiple on-scene firefighters who could clearly see and understand that a collapse was likely. {Hell, he even quotes those firefighters later in the video!} How difficult is it to believe that someone saying "That building is about to collapse", ended up mis-stated or mis-reported by someone else as "That building has collapsed"?

I imagine that is how a misunderstanding could have happened. So it sounds like we are agreed that it doesn't take very many people knowing what is about to happen, or sounding like they knew what happened, passing that along to others, in order to create the desired news story.

The trouble is that no firemen would have had such an intuition about the likely collapse of WTC 7 because IT NEVER HAPPENS with steel structured buildings, and they knew that, which is why they normally do go into steel structured buildings when there is a fire. And even if there were some structural weakness that they could see, any failures would be asymmetric and partial, and relatively slow. Instead, they were backing crowds away to a distance of several blocks, far enough to get away from the dust that would result from the complete collapse of a controlled demolition.

It seemed that what the firemen KNEW was not that it would fall on its own, but that it was about to be brought down intentionally.

Did you miss the several quotes from people saying they heard it might be brought down intentionally?

14:00 From the NIST report "This is the first time in history such a collapse has occurred"... No sh*t, Sherlock. It's also the first time in history such a building suffered that damage, on that scale, in that scenario. There were a lot of "first" actions that day - so why are we surprised there were "first" results"?

You again exaggerate the damage, but even if there was that much damage, WTC 7 would not have failed in that way, completely and symmetrically.

17:40 He now flat-out states that people had foreknowledge.

Well, it looks like you have a problem. On the one hand, you want to deny that there was any foreknowledge. On the other hand, you are arguing that the firemen did have foreknowledge because they could tell the building was about to collapse. So you don't really disagree with him that people had foreknowledge, do you? The question is how much foreknowledge there was, and how they got it.

No longer a supposition, he's now stating as Fact, to better support his bizarre and baseless claims. Then he rambles on for several minutes, pretending that an incorrect report was actually "foreknowledge".

But you were also arguing that the mistaken BBC report could have been due to a misunderstanding based on foreknowledge from firefighters that the building was about to collapse. Right? So you agree that foreknowledge was a fact.

20:20 He now focuses on "detail"... Which makes no sense, since "It's gonna collapse" is not detail. Nobody provided a detail of how or when it would collapse.

"WTC 7 on the verge of collapse" doesn't sound like more detail about the time of collapse to you? Hmm. Doesn't that sound a bit more definitive then "WTC 7 may collapse"?

24:00 He continues this endless surprise that professional firefighters could look at the damage to WTC7, and understand that it would eventually collapse.

Ah, now you are back to foreknowledge by the firemen that it would eventually collapse. But hours before, could they see the eventual collapse that far in advance? Cool!

Ironically, this is during his exploration of "Certainty" - even though nobody knew when the hell it would come down, since his various quotes cover a period of hours.

Are you confusing these two kinds of certainty: *certainty that it would eventually collapse* and *certainty that it is about to collapse*?

There were both kinds of certainty going on that day. Earlier, people were certain that it would collapse eventually. Later, as the time drew closer, people were increasingly confident that it was about to collapse, with some people hearing, incorrectly, that it had already collapsed.

This is where I have to stop. He's twisting history to match what he wants to believe, while ignoring all logic and common sense - the useless collapse of a useless building, insanely advertised to a seemingly endless number of public and private organizations throughout the world.

Who is claiming that it was a useless collapse of a useless building? You?

The collapse of WTC 7 was indeed "advertised", at least on that day. Stupid move, because at least some people noticed immediately, and many more eventually figured out that it was a controlled demolition. I wonder if those same firemen could have predicted that we would eventually figure this out.

Why do you suppose the collapse of WTC 7 was not reported on after 9/11, and no one wants to show it on broadcast TV? Just a useless building?

[Rowbro]

That's what disinfo does, please see the "25 Rules of Disinformation and Truth Suppression". The good news is it means you are right, ijjy. Why bother with a bunch of kooks who want to believe what they believe? You only bother with people who are closing in on something, which could lead to lethal injections for war criminals. The $2.3 trillion announced missing from the Pentagon on the day before 911, never to be mentioned again, might suggest how they pay for a disinfo operation. When you commit mass murder of 3000 people just going to work, you better DAMNED sure have a propaganda machine to cover your tracks for the next 50 years.

Now, since the Official Conspiracy nuts ignored my evidence that Marvin Bush was complicit (my last post here). Let's talk about something else: what was Israeli MOSSAD doing there?

BTW, Here is another 911 witness to explosions who "commits suicide." Make no mistake, these are killers. But they'll swing on a rope at the end.

911 witness commits suicide:
http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/0...kills-himself/

Is my talk about "disinfos" tin foil?" Read and judge. We know they have the software.

"]Salon.com Glen Greenwald:


AND NOW, ABOUT MOSSAD. What's with the buried story of the "Dancing Israelis" who turned out to be Mossad agents who were high-fiving and flicking cigarette lighters in front of the burning towers? They had set up a camera on a tripod prior to the attacks. Based on police transmissions their van, which was full of explosives, had a mural on it showing the towers being hit by a plane. When the media got wind of it, the Bush administration rounded up around a thousand Arabs in New York on minor immigration violations, to bury the Dancing Israeli story, and they had them released over the objections of the local FBI.

Wow you seem to know a lot about this topic. Maybe you should, like, do something about. I dunno just a thought you ****ing degenerate troll. Seriously even if your intent is not to annoy people, you're still trolling in the colloquial sense that you're trying to reel in people to support whatever your ideas are. GTFO of here old man, go write a thesis if you feel so strongly about this I am sick and tired of your constant lies, truth-dodging and deception.

[tonschk]

Is there some sorta scientific rule to this or is it your opinion?

After many years of NIST investigation and Billions of US dollars wasted, in the first released NIST report about the fall of WTC building Seven, Shyam Sunder argued that there was NO free fall in the destruction of WTC building 7 because, AS HE SAID " free fall is IMPOSSIBLE without ZERO STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE and in a progressive collapse, there is always SOME resistance that avoid free fallto happen" . What did he mean by that?

And their defense of this FIRST claim about LACK OF FREE FALL on building Seven was that the fall time of WTC Building Seven was 40% longer than it would have been with free fall, which they determined by *averaging* the velocity of the motion of the top of the tower over a longer period of time. Does that calculation make sense to you? That's what they tried to get away with in the draft of their FIRST report about Building Seven.

But LATER when they were FORCED to admit that there actually was free fall during a few seconds of the WTC Building Seven collapse, did they change their model to explain the free fall? It appears they merely declared that their model was consistent with free fall. Do you see a problem here ? in the First report NIST claim their model is inconsistent with free fall acceleration, but then after admitting free fall did occur, suddenly their model is consistent with free fall. How does that work? therefore you can see that NIST obviously and clearly is cheating the US people and the whole world

[Mr Beer]

So you admit to being one-sided and entirely uncompromising on the simplest of issues which you have no self-awareness of. Basically you are what you claim the "conspirators" are: an ignorant slave to the conspiracy,

Indeed, there are no sheeple as blindly gullible and accepting of what they are spoon fed than the CT Sheeple. 'Baaa! Tell us more Glen Beck! Baaaaaa!'. Their docile acceptance of whatever paranoid talking head engages their attention sits in stark constrast to their enraged belligerence when confronted with a sceptic. The fury of the herd mentality at work.

[voodoo101]

Indeed, there are no sheeple as blindly gullible and accepting of what they are spoon fed than the CT Sheeple. 'Baaa! Tell us more Glen Beck! Baaaaaa!'. Their docile acceptance of whatever paranoid talking head engages their attention sits in stark constrast to their enraged belligerence when confronted with a sceptic. The fury of the herd mentality at work.

Is Glen Beck pro 911 Truth now?

[voodoo101]

Indeed, there are no sheeple as blindly gullible and accepting of what they are spoon fed than the CT Sheeple. 'Baaa! Tell us more Glen Beck! Baaaaaa!'. Their docile acceptance of whatever paranoid talking head engages their attention sits in stark constrast to their enraged belligerence when confronted with a sceptic. The fury of the herd mentality at work.

Is Glen Beck a 911 Truther now? interesting. sweet rant.

[Mr Beer]

Is Glen Beck a 911 Truther now? interesting. sweet rant.

Whoever, I don't keep up with which particular puppet you get spoon fed from. Keep drinking the Kool Aid though.

[voodoo101]

can we all look at a firefighter who was really there, in the N tower when it came down? heard explosions, saw burned people, and says the tower was "disintegrating from the core." Schroeder says he believes there was more than planes and fires.

[Rowbro]

Dlaliberte, your argument would be pretty strong if all the events you describe occurred exactly as you described them (except for the BBC thing, nusty has posted a real argument there, no it's not a straw man). However your claims that WTC 7 was not badly damaged is not true, as I can show shortly. Also to submit to the theory that Building 7 was demolished by explosives is to ignore the fact that part of the building collapsed first, and the rest collapsed outside of its own "shadow" or perimeter, actually damaging surrounding buildings. In truth, arguments centered around the supposed demolition of building 7 can not really lay any claim to the demolition of WTC 1 and 2, because they were two similar but distinct events that require distinct explanations.

To start off, here we have evidence of the immediate catastrophic damage to the surrounding buildings as soon as the Twin Towers collapsed. This is a photo of the damaged Bankers Trust Building, note the lack of fires, also consider the construction of the building (a key point to make when analyzing differences between buildings that were damaged and survived, and buildings that collapsed).



So obviously, whatever the cause of the collapse of the twin towers may be, they did undeniable damage to many surrounding buildings. This is mainly due to the theory of "pancaking" floors, where the most damaged floors sagged and eventually gave out, causing each floor to be stripped away from the perimeter steel support columns (an example given in the source compares it to cutting the edges of a milk carton and watching the sides fall down) and cutting the stabilization of the outer supports, eventually resulting in them falling down into adjacent buildings.

Now, here is a picture of the actual damage to the building, which can be found with the video it was taken from at the source: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

[imghttp://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg[/img]

Compare that with the southwest corner of the building, which does not even show the extent of the damage on the other side:



"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"
-http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/

So according to the reports by the firefighters, there was a large area on one side that was very much damaged, as well as another separate area with even more extensive and high-reaching damage, at least to the 18th floor of the building. Much of this damage is the result of the steel perimeter columns falling during the WTC collapse.

Now we can fast forward to the actual collapse of the building. What most conspiracy theorists show is a video of the building falling freely down, and I'll admit myself the first time I saw this video I thought WOW maybe there is a shred of credibility to these theories. However I realized my mistake as soon as I researched just a little bit: that section of the building collapsed SECOND. The most highly damaged area of WTC 7 began to collapse at about 5:20 according to officials on the scene, who reported bucking in one of the corner support columns. Here is a video of the collapse. I'm truly sorry but right now I legitimately can't find the video showing the part of the tower that collapses first. Here is a video showing a plume of smoke on the opposite side, where that part fell down seconds before the entire building collapsed. Again very sorry, I will find that video I know it's online somewhere:

[voodoo101]

WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T LISTEN TO FIREFIGHTER JOHN SCHROEDER! That's why the little treasonous bastard buried it in a wall of image inside of 3 minutes... WOW! Schroeder ran out of the South tower with his firefighter brothers 2 minutes before it collapsed. He deserves a hearing.

He says it wasn't just the fires and the jets, "something else was going on."

[tonschk]

On 911 The controlled Demolitions of the World Trade Center buildings and Also the demolition of WTC building Seven was a INSIDE JOB, Organised Orchestrated and Executed by the US goverment to find out a EXCUSE for the ILLEGAL/CRIMINAL invasion of Iraq


.

[Bushmaster]

I always ignore you. Cliff note what the video says, if you even know, I don't have time for your nutsy rabbit holes leading to nowhere.

No you don't. You ignore me when you know you can't refute anything I've said maybe, but you're too big of an attention whore (just like all other truthers) to ignore everything.

But ok, you want cliffis of the video? Ok - Burning jet fuel will melt steel.

[MURDR]

On 911 The controlled Demolitions of the World Trade Center buildings and Also the demolition of WTC building Seven was a INSIDE JOB, Organised Orchestrated and Executed by the US goverment to find out a EXCUSE for the ILLEGAL/CRIMINAL invasion of Iraq


.

Where's your proof? I hate idiots who make dumb statements based on what they heard from some wackjob conspiracy theorist on the talking box.

EDIT: Also, Stop Capitalizing The First Letter In Every Word. It Makes You Look Stupid.

[frasersteen]

[iabs]

I'm one of the ones who doesn't believe laughably stupid conspiracy theories... which one are you?

Interesting.... I'm pretty sure you also omit the possibility of alien life in the universe because that's a laughable statement, right? I mean flying saucers and green men lol, we know it all we are the center of the fuking universe...

you should read a couple of history books and open your eyes to the atrocities man kind has done in the past and is capable of doing in the present, what makes us so much more benevolent now?

as of my stance in the matter, I do not discard the possibility of either one, why you ask? well, since there is one too many wholes in facts and statements that should be accurate reports of the events and yet are not, it will naturally leave space for doubt, and that is why this thread was created.

[voodoo101]

Wow you seem to know a lot about this topic. Maybe you should, like, do something about. I dunno just a thought you ****ing degenerate troll. Seriously even if your intent is not to annoy people, you're still trolling in the colloquial sense that you're trying to reel in people to support whatever your ideas are. GTFO of here old man, go write a thesis if you feel so strongly about this I am sick and tired of your constant lies, truth-dodging and deception.

Of course I know a lot about it. I'm an American and no fukkin traitors are going to take over my country, send my brothers to war for a false flag, and bankrupt and ruin what was a beautiful experiment in democracy. *******. It's my business to know.

Truth-dodging and deception? From Mr. "The tower cores were made of concrete?" Here's where you said that (LINK) and where I slapped you down like a prison bitch. I guess you like that and need it again. Again you think Americans are stupid enough to believe anything, so you can explain why a solid piece of 60-story steel core plunged straight down after starting to tip to one side. Watch the video. What is "pancaking" it? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up. Smoking gun that you strenuously or dismiss with retarded bullsh!t like "the falling mass of MASSIVE tons of concrete falling around it!"

I bet you were the kid who got his head toilet-flushed in grade school for saying sh!t like that.

CLICK VIDEO: North Tower "Spire" demolition



Why is it people go from believing the Official Conspiracy theory to doubting it, never the other way around? They never say, "Oh now I see how a flight school flunk-out can suddenly start flying like a Blue Angel and do a 280 degree precision dive into the Pentagon, even leveling out at 50 feet at 500 MPH and scoring a bulleye within a 30 foot margin for error. Now I get it!" They don't say this because truth is truth and people aren't as stupid as you think.

Other evidence given in the last few pages you disinfos have strenuously ignored:

- The rocks of melted steel fused with concrete and rebar, putting the lie to your "there was no molten steel." You guys say it was "compressed" (and you lump all "truthers" together so I'm going to do the same for you.) Hilarious, but fine, let's take it to a lab and determine whether it was melted and cooled, or "compressed." Agreed? It's sitting right in the 911 museum.

FROM Molten Steel & Extreme Temperatures at WTC


Dead silence again about Marvin Bush's company holding the security contract, allowing access to anywhere in the building 24/7? Because you guys love to smart-mouth "Hey truthtards! How did they manage to sneak into the buildings with all those explosives! LOL!" Then someone presents you with information of George Bush's treasonous little brother, and you ignore it.

You guys know very well what to ignore and not touch with a ten foot pole, and insist on trying to keep people going around in circles on issues that can't be resolved BECAUSE YOU DESTROYED THE FUKKING EVIDENCE! (which is another issue put to you a dozen times which you refuse to touch.)

The same way you ignore the question: Why didn't Dick Cheney evacuate the Pentagon, when he saw Flt.77 coming in on radar for 20 minutes, all documented in testimony before the 911 Commission? You would rather go in circles about whether the standing order was an order to shoot or to stand-down. You ignore the one thing we know for sure. Cheney saw it coming at the Pentagon and didn't order it evacuated, after the White House and the Capitol had already been.

Justice is coming you should probably give it up, don't let yourself be associated with defending that hog of an official conspiracy theory full-time. Someone might start digging and try to paint the disinfos as accomplices.

And now back to a big one: Nothing about why confirmed Israeli MOSSAD agents were in Liberty Park dancing giving high-fives and flicking cigarette lighters while they filmed the towers burning? How did they know to set up the camera trained on the towers BEFORE the first plane hit? It looks like enough people have made up their minds that the official conspiracy theory is garbage, so now we are on to the WHO and WHY.

Oh, here is interesting article on disinfo, starring Cass Sunstein whom everyone on this site knows and loves!

Salon.com Glen Greenwald:

"Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs...In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and psuedo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here." - Greenwald Destroys Cass Sunstein and the Idea of "Cognitive Infiltration"

The Bush administration rounded up thousands of Arabs in New York on minor immigration violations, to bury the Dancing Israeli story. The administration then had them whisked out of the country over the objections of the local FBI.

From WhatReallyHappened.com (with links to news sources)

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.


The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)


Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)

They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)


"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)

From HistoryCommons.org

Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police

A homemaker living near Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey sees three men behaving strangely on a nearby roof and alerts the authorities. This homemaker, who has given only her first name Maria, is called by a neighbor shortly after the first plane has hit the WTC and is told about the impact. She has a view of the WTC from her apartment building so she gets her binoculars and watches the disaster. However, she also notices three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. Maria will later recall, “They seemed to be taking a movie.” They are taking video or photos of themselves with the WTC burning in the background. But what strikes Maria is their expressions: “They were like happy, you know… They didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange.” She writes down the license plate number of the van and calls the police. ABC News, 6/21/2002

The lawyer for the five men will later note that one photograph developed by the FBI shows one of the men, Sivan Kurzberg, holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the burning WTC in the background. [New York Times, 11/21/2001]

CLICK VIDEO: "Dancing Israelis" on Israeli talk show, Oded Ellner says: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." How did they know there was going to be an event?

Police transmission here

Police transmission confirmed here in Norman Mineta report

And here is NYC Officer Scott Decarlo describing the confrontation with the guys in the van:


CLICK VIDEO: Officer Scott Decarlo


Join US Senator Mike Gravel in his new drive for 911 Justice:
http://9-11cc.org