On the Building 7 Snowjob

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

In my most humble opinion, the NIST report and the responsible Engineer's statements regarding the complete failure of World Trade Center Building 7 is a disgrace to all thinking Americans....This piece of pseudo-mechanical engineerspeak fails to do what it was intended to do...pull the wool over America's eyes....The most massive blatant political snowjob I've ever witnessed....How sad for all of us that we put up with this kind of behavior...

[PaceAdvantage]

We've been down this road before on this website, and it never amounts to much. You will never convince those who believe the official story that anything else could have been going on.

In my opinion, I will never again be sold on any controversial "official" story about ANYTHING.

All you have to do is think over the centuries how many things that were DEVOUTLY BELIEVED to be the truth, in fact turned out to be false. Just think of all the times our own US government has lied to us about all sorts of things. How corporations have tried to cover various truths about harmful products just to make a buck. How the US government has conducted secret experiments on its own citizens.

If any of us TRULY KNEW what goes on or has gone on in this world, we'd probably be sitting in the corner, silently rocking back and forth, forever in a state of shock.

The official explanation as to why those buildings fell was NOT because an airplane hit them (hell, one of them wasn't even hit by an airplane), but by FIRE.

Never before and never again in history has fire brought down a skyscraper. Skyscrapers have burned for almost 24 hours and didn't fall down. Hell, skyscrapers that weren't even FINISHED BEING BUILT have burned for orders of magnitude LONGER then any of the WTC buildings and STILL didn't fall down.

That's enough for me to question official explanations.

[Fager Fan]

They explained many times how the buildings collapsed. There are hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects who would have all seen the impossibility if it was impossible and called us on it. They haven't.

What exactly do you think would've been the point anyway for our gov to do this? It makes zero sense, and I do mean zero.

[PaceAdvantage]

They explained many times how the buildings collapsed. There are hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects who would have all seen the impossibility if it was impossible and called us on it. They haven't.Well no, they sort of have...maybe not hundreds of thousands, but close to 3,000....

http://www.ae911truth.org/

As for your closing comment/question, let's take one thing at a time.

[Clocker]

They explained many times how the buildings collapsed. There are hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects who would have all seen the impossibility if it was impossible and called us on it. They haven't.



The hotter you heat structural steel, the weaker it gets, losing its ability to support weight. Eventually it fails. The conspiracy crazies never address this issue.

Conspiracies just don't pass the smell test. They all involve secret operatives wiring the buildings for demolition. It would take hundreds of people thousands of hours to do that job. And not one of the thousands of people that worked in those buildings ever noticed?

More incredibly, after 15 years, none of those hundreds of people involved in blowing up the buildings have let slip a single word about it. That is the least believable part of the whole thing. Unless all those people were killed or disappeared. And no one noticed that either? :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

The hotter you heat structural steel, the weaker it gets, losing its ability to support weight. Eventually it fails. The conspiracy crazies never address this issue. So why do they go through all the trouble of wiring all those explosives and paying all that money to demolition firms when they can simply set a few fires and let them burn for an hour or so?

Or in the case of a building not hit by a plane, let it burn for a few hours longer...

In any event...I'm not sure why you throw the "crazy" label out there. I'm certainly not crazy, and I don't dismiss alternative viewpoints, especially from what I can gather, are a group of highly educated and respected engineers and architects (see link in my prior reply)...PRECISELY the people the Fager Fan claims HAVEN'T spoken up!

[PaceAdvantage]

And why haven't any of the skyscrapers both BEFORE and AFTER 9/11, that have been CONSUMED by fires lasting for 10+ hours and sometimes almost an entire day...not collapsed like a house of cards?

OK, you can say WTC 1 & 2 were unique and built in a certain way that made them prone to such a thing (of course the designers didn't think this was the case, but whatever). But you can't say that about #7.

What you're really saying here is that these three buildings were probably FAULTY in terms of construction. They were designed to withstand airplane strikes...fires...and probably pretty sizable earthquakes...yet we see as a result that they couldn't withstand ANY of these things (in the case of building 7 and the claim that it was weakened by debris falling on it from 1 & 2, I would liken this to earthquake damage).

[Fager Fan]

Well no, they sort of have...maybe not hundreds of thousands, but close to 3,000....

http://www.ae911truth.org/

As for your closing comment/question, let's take one thing at a time.

2500 is a small number for something like this. There are millions in the two fields.

But let's put that aside. Let's say the government wanted to blow up these buildings and blame it on terrorists so we can go to war (I assume that's the logic). I can think of dozens of problems with the idea, but let's start with the first one: wouldn't it have been far easier to just blame the explosives on the terrorsts than recruiting Saudi hijackers to concertedly fly jets into the buildings?

[PaceAdvantage]

I would think putting your name on that list in public like that wouldn't be too beneficial to one's career, first of all. So you'll never get hundreds of thousands even if hundreds of thousands agreed.

As for your second point, as has already been stated elsewhere, who would believe that terrorists would have had the kind of access it would take to rig all three buildings?

[dartman51]

We've been down this road before on this website, and it never amounts to much. You will never convince those who believe the official story that anything else could have been going on.

In my opinion, I will never again be sold on any controversial "official" story about ANYTHING.

All you have to do is think over the centuries how many things that were DEVOUTLY BELIEVED to be the truth, in fact turned out to be false. Just think of all the times our own US government has lied to us about all sorts of things. How corporations have tried to cover various truths about harmful products just to make a buck. How the US government has conducted secret experiments on its own citizens.

If any of us TRULY KNEW what goes on or has gone on in this world, we'd probably be sitting in the corner, silently rocking back and forth, forever in a state of shock.

The official explanation as to why those buildings fell was NOT because an airplane hit them (hell, one of them wasn't even hit by an airplane), but by FIRE.

Never before and never again in history has fire brought down a skyscraper. Skyscrapers have burned for almost 24 hours and didn't fall down. Hell, skyscrapers that weren't even FINISHED BEING BUILT have burned for orders of magnitude LONGER then any of the WTC buildings and STILL didn't fall down.

That's enough for me to question official explanations.

I was 15 years old, when JFK was assassinated. When the Warren Commission Report came out in paperback, I bought a copy. About half way through the book, I told my mother that our Government was lying to us. That report was full of so much BS, that from that day forward, I have had a healthy distrust for our Government. After coming home from Vietnam, and hearing all the BS the media was putting out about the war, I developed a lack of trust in the media. That's why, to this day, I don't trust either of them. :mad:

[Clocker]

So why do they go through all the trouble of wiring all those explosives and paying all that money to demolition firms when they can simply set a few fires and let them burn for an hour or so?

Or in the case of a building not hit by a plane, let it burn for a few hours longer...


Just guessing, setting a fire in an abandoned building is not as controllable or predictable as a demolition. Also, as I remember the discussions, the fires in the towers were much hotter than a typical building fire, because of the jet fuel and the explosive effect of the plane crash immediately fed by the tons of fuel (paper, furniture, etc.) in the building.

For me, the "official story" answers all the questions sensibly. The conspiracy stories leave too many gaping holes, like how was it done, who did it, why did no one notice, why did no one talk, and why was it done. I have never heard answers to those questions that passed the smell test. And my first reaction about anything is not to trust what my government tells me.

[thaskalos]

What exactly do you think would've been the point anyway for our gov to do this? It makes zero sense, and I do mean zero.
Wow...that's quite a powerful argument you've put up there. :ThmbUp:

[ReplayRandall]

The answer to what happened to Building 7, is known by one person--->Larry Silverstein

"In July of 2001, 2 months before the attack, Larry Silverstein, the new leaseholder of the Twin Towers and Building 7 took out a huge insurance policy on his buildings. In it, there was a special clause 'in case of terrorist attack'. As a result of the collapse of Building 7, Larry Silverstein pocketed almost $1 Billion, $500 million of it in profits. For the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he also owned, Silverstein argued in court that he should be compensated twice because two separate airplanes flew into his two separate buildings. And this, according to his argument, constituted two terrorist attacks. He won this argument, and was awarded $7 Billion for the Towers' collapse, quite a return for his initial investment.

It is worth noting that on the morning of 9/11, all of the buildings making up the WTC complex not owned by Larry Silverstein managed to remain upright, despite equally heavy fire and structural damage."

Dr. Steven E. Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Complete article:
http://911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm

[davew]

The answer to what happened to Building 7, is known by one person--->Larry Silverstein

"In July of 2001, 2 months before the attack, Larry Silverstein, the new leaseholder of the Twin Towers and Building 7 took out a huge insurance policy on his buildings. In it, there was a special clause 'in case of terrorist attack'. As a result of the collapse of Building 7, Larry Silverstein pocketed almost $1 Billion, $500 million of it in profits. For the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he also owned, Silverstein argued in court that he should be compensated twice because two separate airplanes flew into his two separate buildings. And this, according to his argument, constituted two terrorist attacks. He won this argument, and was awarded $7 Billion for the Towers' collapse, quite a return for his initial investment.

It is worth noting that on the morning of 9/11, all of the buildings making up the WTC complex not owned by Larry Silverstein managed to remain upright, despite equally heavy fire and structural damage."

Dr. Steven E. Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Complete article:
http://911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm


Are you saying the guy committed mass murder for insurance fraud?

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, the Silverstein angle would be better if he actually had collected all that money, which he hasn't. Plus he rebuilt...rebuilt a building that by its very nature isn't going to be having people banging down his door to be tenants...there are a lot of problems with the Silverstein angle, although I will admit, it's juicy at first glance considering the timing and all.

And you forgot to mention that WTC 1 & 2 were not only losing money, but they were no doubt sooner or later going to be slapped with a mandated huge asbestos removal requirement that would have cost Larry a ton...and he just bought the place.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you saying the guy committed mass murder for insurance fraud?Not exactly. But if you accept that some people are indeed soulless, and given all the existing problems with WTC 1 & 2, it's not out of the realm of possibility that all this made him more amenable to the idea and therefore more prone to go along with it...

[Stillriledup]

Are you saying the guy committed mass murder for insurance fraud?

When a crime is committed the first question the investigators ask is.

Drumroll please.

Who stood to profit or who stood to gain in some fashion.

[Fager Fan]

Without researching the Silverstein stuff, something's wrong here. A person cannot get more than the value of the insured object. If his outlay just 2 months prior was $5, then he can only collect $5.

And a lease is a lease, not actually ownership of the buildings.

[Fager Fan]

When a crime is committed the first question the investigators ask is.

Drumroll please.

Who stood to profit or who stood to gain in some fashion.

And the second thing they look? Arson. The insurance company would fight hard to prove this was arson so as to not pay out. The insurance angle if anything backs up the case that this was exactly what it appeared to be - a terrorist attack.

[ReplayRandall]

Without researching the Silverstein stuff, something's wrong here. A person cannot get more than the value of the insured object. If his outlay just 2 months prior was $5, then he can only collect $5.

And a lease is a lease, not actually ownership of the buildings.

I only gave the research of Dr. Jones, as it may indeed be flawed in some areas.....

[OTM Al]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Beaten to death and pointless.

[PaceAdvantage]

Somebody posted something pretty good about the whole insurance thing the last time we had this discussion a few months ago.

Silverstein never got anything like is being reported in this thread, if I recall correctly.

It should also be noted that by sheer coincidence, Larry Silverstein's wife reminded him he had a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, or else he would have been having breakfast at Windows on the World with new tenants, as usual, and probably would have met his demise.

In addition, Silverstein's son and daughter, who both worked with/for him, were "running late" on the morning of 9/11, or they also would have been in the towers when the planes hit.

These are just a few of the "happy coincidences" that spared some people of importance both associated and not associated with Larry.

[PaceAdvantage]

I knew Al would show up here eventually... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a list of steel-structure buildings that burned both more intensely and for much longer than Building 7...some even had some floors collapse...but the buildings never fell...and certainly never fell at near free-fall speed collapsing into their own footprint:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

[VigorsTheGrey]

So how exactly did the police know the building was going to fail when they were telling people to move away on camera?

And exactly how does fire take out ALL THE FOUNDATION SUPPORTS simultaneously, such that Building 7 fails and falls at free fall rate? This is EXACTLY how it would fall in a controlled demolition.....

If fire was the cause, IT WOULD IN NO FASHION fail this way, the building would not fail in this manner, a portion of it might, but not the entire structure, globally as it did....

...and exactly what did Silverstein mean when he told reporters that "they made the decision to pull it"... which is the language that demo crews use?

[MutuelClerk]

When a crime is committed the first question the investigators ask is.

Drumroll please.

Who stood to profit or who stood to gain in some fashion.

CNN Breaking News.....Trump profits from Twin Towers coming down.

[azeri98]

Here's a list of steel-structure buildings that burned both more intensely and for much longer than Building 7...some even had some floors collapse...but the buildings never fell...and certainly never fell at near free-fall speed collapsing into their own footprint:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
This is my biggest issue, the planes hit the buildings on the upper floors. I don't believe it is possible that a building that size and built to withstand tremendous force would collapse in on itself being struck that high. On top of that the wrong country was invaded and toppled. I can only speculate as to why the government would be involved but there is no sure answer. The plan the terrorists had needed everything to go right, and it did, hard to believe that the intelligence community failed that badly.

[Stillriledup]

This is my biggest issue, the planes hit the buildings on the upper floors. I don't believe it is possible that a building that size and built to withstand tremendous force would collapse in on itself being struck that high. On top of that the wrong country was invaded and toppled. I can only speculate as to why the government would be involved but there is no sure answer. The plan the terrorists had needed everything to go right, and it did, hard to believe that the intelligence community failed that badly.

Oil is valuable.

So is war.

Good post about the upper floors.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... On top of that the wrong country was invaded and toppled. ..

As far as 9/11 conspiracy goes, this is the only part that even remotely attracts my interest.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What percentage of Americans have even heard of Building 7....? And of those how many are engineering saavy? And of those how many like a paycheck? And of those how many work for the government, the military, education, clergy? How many are businessmen? To even raise this as an issue can cause others to view you in a dimmer light. Most do not want to know the facts....it might cause them to......think.

[Fager Fan]

Oil is valuable.

So is war.

Good post about the upper floors.

You know, you can think Bush was a terrible President, but do you really believe that man intentionally killed 3000 innocent people so he could have an excuse to go to war? Really? And there were dozens if not hundreds of other people who were on board with such an evil plan? Really? And they found a group of terrorists to go along with their plan? really?

And it wasn't as hard as you think to pull off kamikaze missions. I have a number of friends who are pilots. All training up to 911 revolved around terrorists putting bombs into checked luggage. Luggage didn't remain on a plane if the owner didn't make the flight. They didn't think someone would blow themselves up. They even talked of the main threat being bin laden. They were sadly mistaken on the willingness of these people committing suicide.

[Racetrack Playa]

A Few bad men, with bad mad friends.
Security issues @ the airports
Building 6?,,
drills always drills on the BIG DAYS it seems,
the damn building could have been rigged from the getgo, or in 1996.
The air traffic control tapes are interesting, if real.

The media was a disgrace of disinformation , and chronological nonsense. new news that's really no news just propaganda

Just a clueless horseplayer, we can't believe much , and I don't assume
anything . I just know that I don't know, and .....

No reason for 7 to fall like that

War Is Americas Business
and DRUGS

[Fager Fan]

The bastion of partisan politics called Popular Mechanics describes how the building failed.

And it's a whole lot easier to believe than the conspiracy theory.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

[Racetrack Playa]

So the furniture caught on fire , I understand now thanks.

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

Fire alone did not bring down WTC 7. Watch the video....The building does not pancake down. The bottom drops first and the upper floors remain intact all the way down....

[Racetrack Playa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-oJt_5JvV4
no explanation ..for no investigation
Vigors don't get caught up in this stuff, the truth will come out .

[Stillriledup]

So the furniture caught on fire , I understand now thanks.

Isn't it amazing that no matter how many sharp posters congregate any message board in cyberspace, you'll always get the 'born last night' crowd. Can't shake em ! :D

[Tom]

But ya gotta luv the avatar! :cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

I obviously don't have any answers...just questions. Just doubts.

It is absolutely inconceivable to me, given ALL the evidence, that ALL THREE buildings would fall in the manner in which they fell. Completely and within SECONDS from the top to the ground.

Hit by a plane or not hit by a plane. Didn't matter. One tower falls in less than an hour. The other falls in less than two hours. And the third falls a few hours later. All demolition-style, and building 7 in almost EXACT demolition style, despite NOT being hit by a plane. It's inconceivable. These weren't mud huts built in Nairobi. These were modern skyscrapers built to withstand hurricanes, earthquakes and in the case of WTC1 & 2, the impact of modern jet airliners. They completely FAILED. And QUICKLY.

What are the odds of that happening?

Forget about the unbelievable nature of the attacks. If I had told you before 9/11 that two planes would hit WTC 1 and WTC2, and in less than two hours both towers would crumble to the ground, and a few hours later, a third building, NOT hit by a plane, would collapse in an almost exact demolition-style, you would think I was out of my mind. And if I also told you the planes and fire were the sole cause of such a rapid spectacle, you'd probably have me committed. And yet, most of us now believe that this was the natural outcome of such an event.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It is absolutely impossible for fire to have weakened the area around the foundation support structure of all of the columns in such a way that a simultaneous elimination of resistance would occur. If a fire was burning hot enough to have melted the metal columns at the base (which is not possible with the heat of just burning office furniture alone) the columns would have deformed in some significant manner over longer periods of time such that the building would begin to lean in one direction or another and slump over without the entire structure failing all at once .

There was crumbling in the top portion of the building immediatle prior to collapse which is consistent with implosion techniques and a tell-tale indicator, but the resistance was eliminated globally at the lower levels as well... the entire structure moves downwards at free fall velocity....this would not have happened if fire was the only source of the destabilization....IMO, the NIST report is a flat-out cover-up and a deliberate falsification of an event that was NEVER adequately explained to the public.

On many levels of legitimate inquiry, hundreds of engineering and architectural professionals are not satisfied with the conclusions of the NIST report on the structural failure of WTC Building 7.

[Tom]

It is absolutely impossible for fire to have weakened the area around the foundation support structure of all of the columns in such a way that a simultaneous elimination of resistance would occur. If a fire was burning hot enough to have melted the metal columns at the base (which is not possible with the heat of just burning office furniture alone) the columns would have deformed in some significant manner over longer periods of time such that the building would begin to lean in one direction or another and slump over without the entire structure failing all at once .

You should do some research before you misstate what happened as it iwere fact.

[Fager Fan]

Again, how the buildings failed has already been explained yet you continue to say it's inexplicable so you won't budge on that.

So let's look at why and who. No one answered me before. Do you really think Bush is that evil? You really think dozens or hundreds more are that evil, and none of them have had regrets or let it slip since? You really think that in staging an attack on ourselves, THAT is really what they would've come up with when hundreds of other plans would've been far easier to pull off? You think that all the video and audio of bin laden taking responsibility were faked? You think the insurance companies wouldn't have found evidence of explosives and fought tooth and nail to not pay out? The list is long of reasons why it makes no sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

Again, how the buildings failed has already been explained yet you continue to say it's inexplicable so you won't budge on that.

So let's look at why and who. No one answered me before. Do you really think Bush is that evil? You really think dozens or hundreds more are that evil, and none of them have had regrets or let it slip since? You really think that in staging an attack on ourselves, THAT is really what they would've come up with when hundreds of other plans would've been far easier to pull off? You think that all the video and audio of bin laden taking responsibility were faked? You think the insurance companies wouldn't have found evidence of explosives and fought tooth and nail to not pay out? The list is long of reasons why it makes no sense.Don't bother looking at why or who until you address the concerns of many in the engineering and architecture community at the link I have posted here. These aren't crackpot internet conspiracy guys sitting in their mother's basement posting on a blog.

I'm not a crackpot internet conspiracy guy sitting in my dead mother's basement posting on a blog.

It's funny how some guys don't believe a word of the Warren Commission, but believe every word of the 9/11 commission.

Quite frankly, I don't see how any intelligent human being doesn't still have questions as to how all three buildings fell in the manner they did, as quickly as they did (both in terms of from time of impact and also the collapse itself from top to bottom).

The available evidence from other towering infernos certainly raises questions. The fact that a good majority of the JET FUEL ignited and was SPENT upon IMPACT (just watch those fireballs go up the moment the planes hit) tells you there couldn't have been THAT MUCH jet fuel left to fuel the fires inside the towers...let alone cause jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts as we have been told.

Still, building 7 and the Pentagon are the two smoking guns in my opinion. I'll grant you no argument can really be made against the two towers simply because never before in history have two skyscrapers been hit by commercial airliners, so we have nothing to compare it to...plus the WTC 1 & 2 were quite unique in their construction.

Then again, all the molten steel found beneath the rubble days and weeks after the collapse raise huge questions in my mind and they should also raise questions in yours.

The official explanation leaves a lot to be desired and is woefully inadequate in explaining what happened. But I don't want to rehash what has already been out there on the internet for years, if you know where to look and you avoid the really crazy stuff (like the planes not being real...only holograms...etc.etc...stuff {misinformation} that is only out there to try and completely discredit, by association, other legitimate and reasonable questions/concerns).

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't believe Bush had any hand in 9/11...for the record...and I don't know why people immediately jump to that conclusion when anyone starts questioning the official explanation.

A better, possible explanation is that this WAS solely a foreign terrorist event, but that the terrorists breached our security more than anyone could possibly imagine or believe...and any admission of such would be pretty devastating and a complete and utter embarrassment...more so than it already is.

[Clocker]

It is absolutely impossible for fire to have weakened the area around the foundation support structure of all of the columns in such a way that a simultaneous elimination of resistance would occur .

You have questioned the credentials of others as to their ability to address such issues. What are your professional qualifications to state that this is "absolutely impossible"?

[Clocker]

A better, possible explanation is that this WAS solely a foreign terrorist event, but that the terrorists breached our security more than anyone could possibly imagine or believe

That at least would answer the motive question.

One of the most ironic aspects of some of these conspiracy theories is that many who raged about Bush being a bumbling, incompetent idiot also credit him with master-minding one of the biggest, most complex conspiracies ever, and getting away without a clue left behind.

[PaceAdvantage]

I offer this as an answer to your rather pointless question as to the credentials of some anonymous guy on a horse racing message board (Vigors):

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

and

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, those signatures also come with a statement about 9/11. You should check out some of the statements from people who have graduated from places such as Harvard, etc...

[Clocker]

I offer this as an answer to your rather pointless question as to the credentials of some anonymous guy on a horse racing message board (Vigors):

The point was to give him a dose of his own medicine, and to show that the entire discussion is idle speculation. :p

[PaceAdvantage]

Comments from some of the architects and engineers listed on that page that have graduated from some of the most prestigious architecture and engineering schools in the world...

Harvard: "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard to comprehend."

Harvard: "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did."

Yale: "The free-fall collapse of the fire protected steel-frame structure of World Trade Center #7 could not have been caused by the limited structural damage and office fires which were observed prior to collapse. The actual scientific/forensic evidence (i.e. Thermate particles in the dust and molten steel during debris extraction), calls into question the official 9/11 Commission report (NIST) and points to a professionally controlled demolition by incendiary devices."

UC Berkeley: "Having reviewed a great amount of the published findings associated with the 9/11 events - official and otherwise - I find myself compelled to seek a revisiting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the event in order that a more definitively exhaustive and conclusive accounting of this significant episode in the history of our country might be forthcoming. Upon much reflection I sincerely believe that to stand by and allow the 'fog of war' to interfere in the attainment of the 'truth' is 'unpatriotic' and inexcusable on my part as a taxpaying and law-abiding US Citizen and a member of the architecture profession. The 'official' accounting as rendered by the 9/11 Commission/NIST has been measured and found to be somewhat lacking as regards scope. All of the buildings, WTC 1, 2 & 7, appear to have fallen far too fast. WTC 7 was not even 'hit' and it collapsed straight down into its footprint. Dante Amato, Architect"

UC Berkeley: "This has always seemed strange to me, along with the Pentagon attack where no photographs actually show penetration by an airplane. Whether there was a conspiracy or not, when the government hides facts and information there must be more investigation."

Rice: "I have known from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them."

Yale: "There appear to be too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is fully merited."

Rice: "After reviewing the data presented by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Organization and through my independent assessment of the data I have reviewed, and based on my 40+ years of professional experience, I have concluded that it would be nearly impossible for any of the principal World Trade Center Towers to collapse in the manner or in the recorded time frame as a result of any fire or explosion caused solely by the impact of terrorist-guided aircraft alone. Braced steel frame buildings simply don't collapse in a symmetrical manner with a uniform plume of debris in 102 or 56 minutes respectively with modern structural design standards and state-of-the-art life-safety systems which must be continuously inspected by local building inspectors based on ever increasing performance standards centered on human survival."

Univ of Penn/Stanford: "Examining the evidence clearly indicates controlled demolition of the three towers. The most telling evidence is the collapse of the third building without impact by a plane."

MIT: "Do not attribute to deviousness, what can be explained by stupidity. (Lew Wallace, while Territorial Governor of New Mexico). I have no doubt that controlled demolition played an essential role in the collapse of all three buildings. But I can imagine scenarios in which the explosives were placed (for stupid reasons) without expecting the attack by airplanes and then were implemented in response to that attack (again for stupid reasons). Conspiracy requires a level of intelligence not in evidence. Cover up is the primal response to stupidity."

Harvard: "I have always wondered about the inconsistency of heat and damage mid-structure and structural failure at the base of the buildings. After this evidence, I am convinced that more investigation is needed."

UC Berkeley: "From the moment I first saw the tower collapse on TV it seemed clear and obvious that only a planned demolition could have achieved the observable results, so I was surprised by the conclusions of the official 9-11 report. At this point I reviewed the evidence, which only substantiated my initial impressions. The ample video and photographic evidence combined with a basic knowledge of structural engineering leaves little doubt about the collapse being caused by anything other than a planned demolition."

Columbia: "It's a hard pill to swallow. Honest, truth seeking people cannot avoid thinking of the horrendous consequences that necessarily accompany facing the facts of a controlled demolition. For years, like many, I ignored the evidence, not because it wasn't obvious. It is obvious only once you focus on the facts. It was because I, like so many millions, took the official story for granted, without question. The evidence is overwhelming for anybody who cares to face the horrible truth."

Columbia: "Clearly, from the visual evidence and information acquired to date, 7 WTC was demolished on purpose, not as an accident due to collateral damage resulting from the WTC collapses. The ultimate questions to be answered are who caused this to happen and for what reason? Paul Broches FAIA"

Univ of Penn: "The official reports of this incident are implausible and some simple fact finding insinuates an ensuing cover up. 10,000# of jet fuel incinerates millions of cubic yards of reinforced concrete? And just like that, 3 buildings collapse 'against a path of greatest resistance.'
It was difficult to witness, impossible to imagine and warrants greater explanation."

There are plenty more on that page...

[OTM Al]

I offer this as an answer to your rather pointless question as to the credentials of some anonymous guy on a horse racing message board (Vigors):

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

and

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Stillriledup]

You have questioned the credentials of others as to their ability to address such issues. What are your professional qualifications to state that this is "absolutely impossible"?

The only qualification you need is to have been born before last night.

[PaceAdvantage]

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

ZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzGood stuff Al. You always post things that get me to doubt my doubts.

[OTM Al]

Good stuff Al. You always post things that get me to doubt my doubts.
Site's been up for over 10 years I think. You want real answers, it covers them along with the Popular Mechanics site if it is still operational after all this time. Watch the videos they have on there. That building was a goner from the first. I understand the human urge to need to find some deeper reason to explain such events that are so awful our minds can't deal with them, but really answers are generally pretty simple. Having seen that first hand and a close as I was, it really angers me when people are trying to make a name and money off that day.

[PaceAdvantage]

People will sell their grandma for a buck, you know that.

Hell, I remember the single greatest NY Post headline ever (even better than Headless Body found in Topless Bar) right after 9/11:

ASH HOLES ! ! !

About people selling the ashes from 9/11 shortly after September 11th...

I actually bought a few copies and still have them because I thought it was brilliant.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What are your credentials? I have read some of the topics and threads you have started...you seem to be very politically oriented in your interests. My speculation is that your background is that if some gatekeeper of sorts, someone in the profession of the analysis of public information and communications....I could be wrong but it would be interesting to know why your interest here on this site is overwhelmingly, off-topic.

[PaceAdvantage]

What are your credentials? I have read some of the topics and threads you have started...you seem to be very politically oriented in your interests. My speculation is that your background is that if some gatekeeper of sorts, someone in the profession of the analysis of public information and communications....I could be wrong but it would be interesting to know why your interest here on this site is overwhelmingly, off-topic.Was this directed at me? :lol:

[VigorsTheGrey]

Was this directed at me? :lol:

No it was for Clocker.....I know that you are the gate keeper par excellance!

[azeri98]

That at least would answer the motive question.

One of the most ironic aspects of some of these conspiracy theories is that many who raged about Bush being a bumbling, incompetent idiot also credit him with master-minding one of the biggest, most complex conspiracies ever, and getting away without a clue left behind.
I really don't think Bush had anything to do with it but some in his staff might have. In the end its all speculation but like I said in earlier posts the way the buildings fell and the extent of the operation without the intelligence community finding out baffled me. Either members of the government had something to do with the attack or they knew about it and let it happen to further some agenda in the Middle East, in other words an excuse to go there.

[Fager Fan]

I don't believe Bush had any hand in 9/11...for the record...and I don't know why people immediately jump to that conclusion when anyone starts questioning the official explanation.

A better, possible explanation is that this WAS solely a foreign terrorist event, but that the terrorists breached our security more than anyone could possibly imagine or believe...and any admission of such would be pretty devastating and a complete and utter embarrassment...more so than it already is.

Ok, that's far more plausible to take out the government conspiracy (except to cover up the extent of what really hapoened).

But that leads me to two questions.

1. If they went to all the trouble to bomb and bring down the buildings using explosives, why go through all the trouble and possible things that could go wrong by having planes fly into the buildings? Just blow them up. That'd have the desired effect.

2. Again, what about the insurance company? The only way they'd pay out and keep it quiet is to be paid off. So our government would've seen supposed "increased embarrassment" worth that additional cost?

I posted earlier the Popular Mechanics article with explanation. What can you and other doubters refute (and with evidence to do so)?

[Stillriledup]

Ok, that's far more plausible to take out the government conspiracy (except to cover up the extent of what really hapoened).

But that leads me to two questions.

1. If they went to all the trouble to bomb and bring down the buildings using explosives, why go through all the trouble and possible things that could go wrong by having planes fly into the buildings? Just blow them up. That'd have the desired effect.

2. Again, what about the insurance company? The only way they'd pay out and keep it quiet is to be paid off. So our government would've seen supposed "increased embarrassment" worth that additional cost?

I posted earlier the Popular Mechanics article with explanation. What can you and other doubters refute (and with evidence to do so)?

I think that if you go brick by brick, you can find so many things that don't 'add up'. For example, why was the surveillance video from the gas station next to the pentagon confiscated immediately? What was that all about? There are dozens of "little things" like this that don't have answers.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Ok, that's far more plausible to take out the government conspiracy (except to cover up the extent of what really hapoened).

But that leads me to two questions.

1. If they went to all the trouble to bomb and bring down the buildings using explosives, why go through all the trouble and possible things that could go wrong by having planes fly into the buildings? Just blow them up. That'd have the desired effect.

2. Again, what about the insurance company? The only way they'd pay out and keep it quiet is to be paid off. So our government would've seen supposed "increased embarrassment" worth that additional cost?

I posted earlier the Popular Mechanics article with explanation. What can you and other doubters refute (and with evidence to do so)?

What insurance company was it again?
When was the policy taken out?
Who sold the policy to Silverstein?
Who pays for losses to insurance companies?
When did Silverstein receive the windfall?
Did the insurance company ever dispute the official story line?
Who was in charge of investigating the legitimacy of the claim?
What financial impact did the "loss" have on the insurance company?
Did the insurance company go out of business as a result of the claim?
Who was the CEO of the insurance company immediately prior to 911?
Who was on the board of directors?
Is the insurance company part of a larger umbrella of corporations?

[Fager Fan]

Ok, so I read up on the insurance issue. It turns out that he had a lease that put him at full responsibility for the buildings, meaning he'd even have to pay the costs to rebuild should the buildings be destroyed.

Silverstein's insurance coverage was LESS than it should've been, and as a result, he ended up being paid LESS than it cost to rebuild. He actually LOST money initially, though it appears the PA made a deal with him to use some of their insurance money to go towards the cost to rebuild.

The insurance companies fought pretty hard against the payouts as well, and there should be no doubt they would've fought very, very hard should there have been any evidence that arson was involved.

[Fager Fan]

I think that if you go brick by brick, you can find so many things that don't 'add up'. For example, why was the surveillance video from the gas station next to the pentagon confiscated immediately? What was that all about? There are dozens of "little things" like this that don't have answers.

Why do you find that strange? Why wouldn't they confiscate the video of every available source they could locate? I would if I was investigating what happened.

[PaceAdvantage]

And apparently, 15 years later, the only confiscated video that has been released (via FOIA request) was some inkblot-looking thing where you can't tell what the heck you are supposed to be looking at...

[Stillriledup]

And apparently, 15 years later, the only confiscated video that has been released (via FOIA request) was some inkblot-looking thing where you can't tell what the heck you are supposed to be looking at...

Exactly

[PaceAdvantage]

ExactlyThis is in addition to the one video they DID release voluntarily, which is basically a color inkblot...but a little better than the black & white inkblot they released through FOIA...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Yea right! An airliner for sure hit the pentagon...no bodies...no engines...no luggage...no black box...just little bits of scraps...that pentagon personnel quickly and hurriedly when around picking up....despite the fact that it was a potential crime scene....and I presume video cameras all around...this IS the Pentagon after all....one would think there would be lots of surveillance video...to show the public and dispel any speculation that it was anything other than a jetliner...

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc

Side by side comparisons.

[Fager Fan]

Yea right! An airliner for sure hit the pentagon...no bodies...no engines...no luggage...no black box...just little bits of scraps...that pentagon personnel quickly and hurriedly when around picking up....despite the fact that it was a potential crime scene....and I presume video cameras all around...this IS the Pentagon after all....one would think there would be lots of surveillance video...to show the public and dispel any speculation that it was anything other than a jetliner...

Boy. You all just take it further and further. I e tried to be respectful but this is why people lose patience and start calling what appears to be a wacko a wacko.

They identified the remains of almost all who were killed. And yes, people were around the site trying to help or find survivors. It's a normal human reaction.

And they found the black box too.

[Fager Fan]

And apparently, 15 years later, the only confiscated video that has been released (via FOIA request) was some inkblot-looking thing where you can't tell what the heck you are supposed to be looking at...

None of you answer the questions, and you ignore when proven wrong like the guy who supposedly made billions when he actually lost money.

What videos? Who needs these videos? No one. There were plenty of video being taken from camera crews to amateurs. What is it you think some video from a nearby store shows that wasn't very likely caught in the hundreds and thousands of other videos? You're thinking it shows the team of men in black going to the basement to detonate the building and themselves?

[PaceAdvantage]

Who needs these videos?Who needed to see the towers hit a gazillion times and fall a gazillion and one times?

Have you ever watched the video they released of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Ask yourself this. The most heavily surveillanced building, possibly in the entire world, and THAT'S the only video they have of the single greatest military strike against the USA EVER on its own soil?

And yes, since it was the Pentagon, I'd call it a military strike.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Boy. You all just take it further and further. I e tried to be respectful but this is why people lose patience and start calling what appears to be a wacko a wacko.

They identified the remains of almost all who were killed. And yes, people were around the site trying to help or find survivors. It's a normal human reaction.

And they found the black box too.

There is no reason to call me a wacko...I don't call you a wacko do I? There are millions of Americans that have legitimate concerns and questions regarding the events of 911.....Do not try to discredit me by calling me names...I am a sincere person with very sincere questions...it is very rude of you to call me wacko...

[davew]

Yea right! An airliner for sure hit the pentagon...no bodies...no engines...no luggage...no black box...just little bits of scraps...that pentagon personnel quickly and hurriedly when around picking up....despite the fact that it was a potential crime scene....and I presume video cameras all around...this IS the Pentagon after all....one would think there would be lots of surveillance video...to show the public and dispel any speculation that it was anything other than a jetliner...

What else could it have been? A missile? a Bush placed bomb made to look like an airplane? an unrelated gas leak?

[VigorsTheGrey]

What else could it have been? A missile? a Bush placed bomb made to look like an airplane? an unrelated gas leak?

I'm not sure...it could have been an airplane...it could have been a drone...I don't know....it just seems like there should have been more debris.....luggage, etc...there should have been large sections of the wings since the hole it punch in the building was round and small...there should have been more pieces of the airliner found...I also have question about how an inexperienced saudi pilot could make this pinpoint perfect hit at such a low angle of trajectory...almost like the thing was computer guided...Do you think you could have flown a huge airliner like that into the pentagon? Maybe a very experienced pilot could but so much could go wrong in this flight path and nothing did...The angle which the airliner came in leaves little room for human error...

[Fager Fan]

There is no reason to call me a wacko...I don't call you a wacko do I? There are millions of Americans that have legitimate concerns and questions regarding the events of 911.....Do not try to discredit me by calling me names...I am a sincere person with very sincere questions...it is very rude of you to call me wacko...

But you're questioning whether something like 144 people really died. You seem to look at just a small tidbit of the the information but don't follow through with answering all the questions your theories raise. It could've been a drone? So 144 people and their families are just pretending to be dead?

[VigorsTheGrey]

But you're questioning whether something like 144 people really died. You seem to look at just a small tidbit of the the information but don't follow through with answering all the questions your theories raise. It could've been a drone? So 144 people and their families are just pretending to be dead?

Can you show me the list of the families that have lost loved ones...I've never seen any of the family members on the media talking about what happened that day. Maybe I can contact them and put my doubts about the Pentagon plane to rest? That is a good point...I'd like to talk to some of them.

But even if it was an actual passenger liner, I still have my doubts about how this complicated flight path could be executed without computer guidance systems and at the hands of a human, presumably saudi operator...there is a chance that the planes computer guidance systems were commandeered using drone guidance technology.

[Fager Fan]

http://pentagonmemorial.org/explore/biographies

[VigorsTheGrey]

http://pentagonmemorial.org/explore/biographies

Yes people died on 911...And hundreds of thousands have died in the aftermath....and 15 years of continuous warfare. The violence never ends.

This thread was started to focus on Building 7, the smoking gun, that will not go away...But I do not want to conflate the whole monstrous 911 ball of pure misery.... and stick a fork in it to reopen the still healing wound...that is not my purpose..

In fact, I only brought it up because I was responding to the subject on another thread and PA felt that it might be opened elsewhere if anyone really needed to explore it further....But PA no doubt feels 911 topics lead nowhere, and we have all been down this road before, so....I would like to put this thread to rest, as I see little point in developing it further....

We all have our own opinions regarding the events of 911.... including WTC 7 and most that I speak with now have little patience for exploring it further...

I personally consider this to be a tragedy, and I will never forgive our governmental representatives for not being more forthright...

There are still many things about 911 that are classified and are withheld from the world's people, These facts need to see the light of day...but probably never will.... at least not for a much longer.... period of time....

Either foreign countries hate us, or our own government is complicit in criminality, war crimes, and warmongering, and probably all of the above...does any of it surprise me? No!

All one has to do.... is be a student of history....to see tragedies of all sorts....This is not to excuse them...

[OTM Al]

Can you show me the list of the families that have lost loved ones...I've never seen any of the family members on the media talking about what happened that day. Maybe I can contact them and put my doubts about the Pentagon plane to rest? That is a good point...I'd like to talk to some of them.

But even if it was an actual passenger liner, I still have my doubts about how this complicated flight path could be executed without computer guidance systems and at the hands of a human, presumably saudi operator...there is a chance that the planes computer guidance systems were commandeered using drone guidance technology.
These are not the words of a sincere person. A sincere person does not call up people to question them about an incredibly traumatic event for his own self edification. That is what a whacko does. That is what that guy that claimed the Newton school shooting was a fake did. All these questions have been answered again and again and again. The problem here appears to be you, not the answers.

[thaskalos]

Have you ever watched the video they released of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Ask yourself this. The most heavily surveillanced building, possibly in the entire world, and THAT'S the only video they have of the single greatest military strike against the USA EVER on its own soil?


The most reasonable question that's ever been asked regarding 9/11...and no answer forthcoming even after all these years. :ThmbUp:

[OTM Al]

The most reasonable question that's ever been asked regarding 9/11...and no answer forthcoming even after all these years. :ThmbUp:
Not really. Think about it. Where would you put the surveillance? You'd put it at all the normal entryways, covering those entries, not pointing out. However, you would rely more on human eyes watching and checking IDs and patrolling. There weren't simple digital cameras back then and who knows how old the technology was for whatever surveillance they did have. Given government procurement processes, it's hard to believe the tech was even modern by 2001 standards. This question is another Hollywood visualization of a far more mundane reality.

[delayjf]

I also have question about how an inexperienced saudi pilot could make this pinpoint perfect hit at such a low angle of trajectory...almost like the thing was computer guided...Do you think you could have flown a huge airliner like that into the pentagon? Maybe a very experienced pilot could but so much could go wrong in this flight path and nothing did...The angle which the airliner came in leaves little room for human error...

They did have some flight training and simply flying a jet is not as hard as you might think. Flying a jet correctly, on speed on heading on altitude does require experience. But just to aim a jet at an object is not that difficult.

[PaceAdvantage]

But you're questioning whether something like 144 people really died. You seem to look at just a small tidbit of the the information but don't follow through with answering all the questions your theories raise. It could've been a drone? So 144 people and their families are just pretending to be dead?I'm glad Vigors is winding down this thread now.

But, the answer to your question is easy. IF the conspiracy "wackos" are in the least bit correct, then what you have are complete and utter monsters controlling what happened on 9/11...not simply crazed radical religious believers.

And hypothetical complete and utter monsters such as these would have no qualms about getting rid of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon in some secret fashion, and killing everyone on board at some other location...then replacing the plane with perhaps a missile of some sort - guaranteeing a strike. It's really quite simple, IF you believe the "wackos."

[thaskalos]

Not really. Think about it. Where would you put the surveillance? You'd put it at all the normal entryways, covering those entries, not pointing out. However, you would rely more on human eyes watching and checking IDs and patrolling. There weren't simple digital cameras back then and who knows how old the technology was for whatever surveillance they did have. Given government procurement processes, it's hard to believe the tech was even modern by 2001 standards. This question is another Hollywood visualization of a far more mundane reality.

I've thought about it, and I can't be persuaded that the released video of the Pentagon attack is the best footage that we have available. The military isn't exactly forthright with the truth in controversial cases, Al...as we all saw with the Pat Tillman affair. If it comes from the military...then it's probably a lie.

[VigorsTheGrey]

These are not the words of a sincere person. A sincere person does not call up people to question them about an incredibly traumatic event for his own self edification. That is what a whacko does. That is what that guy that claimed the Newton school shooting was a fake did. All these questions have been answered again and again and again. The problem here appears to be you, not the answers.

I assure you OTM AL, I am a decent honest and honorable man...I consider it quite rude your response to me I that I'm some sort of wacko...There is nothing "wrong" with me or my question and responses to blogs...I hope that someday you can find in your heart a place for someone else's thoughts and opinions...I do not call you a wacko do I? I try my best to be cordial but like everyone else in the world, I am not a perfect person....I have my short comings just like everyone else....

[OTM Al]

I assure you OTM AL, I am a decent honest and honorable man...I consider it quite rude your response to me I that I'm some sort of wacko...There is nothing "wrong" with me or my question and responses to blogs...I hope that someday you can find in your heart a place for someone else's thoughts and opinions...I do not call you a wacko do I? I try my best to be cordial but like everyone else in the world, I am not a perfect person....I have my short comings just like everyone else....
A decent and honorable person would not call relatives of dead people so he could feel better about himself. I consider people who would even consider something like that completely clueless and extraordinarily rude. Only a whacko can rationalize something like that.

[OTM Al]

I've thought about it, and I can't be persuaded that the released video of the Pentagon attack is the best footage that we have available. The military isn't exactly forthright with the truth in controversial cases, Al...as we all saw with the Pat Tillman affair. If it comes from the military...then it's probably a lie.
Do you recall what high tech security cameras looked like then? Most would shoot a frame or two a second onto VHS or beta tape. All you are going to get is one or two frames of blur. I consider the Tillman thing a very different sort of situation and get why they would be less than honest there. But think about comparing the two. How many people knew what happen to Tillman? A handful, and it got out. If there was better tape being hidden away, it would have gotten out because far more people would have been involved. Simple math.

[thaskalos]

Do you recall what high tech security cameras looked like then? Most would shoot a frame or two a second onto VHS or beta tape. All you are going to get is one or two frames of blur. I consider the Tillman thing a very different sort of situation and get why they would be less than honest there. But think about comparing the two. How many people knew what happen to Tillman? A handful, and it got out. If there was better tape being hidden away, it would have gotten out because far more people would have been involved. Simple math.
It isn't so simple, Al. Yes...the Tillman situation "got out"...but the medical findings of the body did not exactly match the Pentagon's account of the events that led to Tilman's demise. And Tillman's diary mysterious went missing...thus depriving his family of certain details which might have explained what happened to their loved one. You say that you get why the military was less than honest there...but have you ever imagined YOURSELF in a situation such as the one that the Tillman family found themselves in? If you had...then I bet you wouldn't consider the military's stance in the matter to be so "understandable".

And, no...we don't expect a high-tech video image of that plane crashing into the Pentagon. A grainy image such as the one that we saw of the twin towers would do the trick very nicely.

[OTM Al]

You mean the image that never would have been recorded at all if there hadn't by chance been a film crew in the area that day? And that's in the middle of one of the worlds most populous cities. The argument you are trying to make just doesn't have a basis other than you just think it should be that way.

[VigorsTheGrey]

A decent and honorable person would not call relatives of dead people so he could feel better about himself. I consider people who would even consider something like that completely clueless and extraordinarily rude. Only a whacko can rationalize something like that.

I said that I would LIKE TO....Not that I would...I think the same way on this as you...believe me I value other people's privacy as much as my own...I have had loved ones die in my family for horrible reasons so I know exactly what it feels like....I just would like to speak to others who lost loved ones to learn how they feel about 911 and the tragedy that befell ALL OF US....

We are all victims of these events and believe me, I too have deep psychological scars...so my desire stems more from commiseration than from any presumed "selfish" motives "so I could feel better about himself"

Nothing could be further from MY TRUTH as a sincere, kind, loving, and deeply caring person...hopefully as I blog and as you read my blogs, that reading of me will come through to you....

I, for my part, will try much better to convey to all, just that!

I thank you for your response to my blogging...I consider it an opportunity for learning and growth as an individual....

I clearly have much to learn from all of you and I hope that some might even learn something from me.

I don't know what I would do if I thought that I never had anything interesting to say, that somebody else would be interested in....perhaps that is MY GREAT CONCEIT...in thinking that what I have to say might be important too!

[Tom]

These are not the words of a sincere person. A sincere person does not call up people to question them about an incredibly traumatic event for his own self edification. That is what a whacko does. That is what that guy that claimed the Newton school shooting was a fake did. All these questions have been answered again and again and again. The problem here appears to be you, not the answers.

Sanity has been cancelled for this year.
Thank you for being a human being.

[PaceAdvantage]

An interesting video for this thread:

T2XV3Edd2dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

[thaskalos]

You mean the image that never would have been recorded at all if there hadn't by chance been a film crew in the area that day? And that's in the middle of one of the worlds most populous cities. The argument you are trying to make just doesn't have a basis other than you just think it should be that way.

This is the Pentagon...and there were clearer surveillance cameras used at my neighborhood 7-Eleven...even in 2001.

[PaceAdvantage]

Then again, reading the Major General's bio above, he was heavily into psychic soldier stuff, and himself attempted to find a way to "walk through walls" but apparently, wasn't successful.

Maybe he's a goof...but at least he's a forward thinker... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

This is the Pentagon...and there were clearer surveillance cameras used at my neighborhood 7-Eleven...even in 2001.I think it was claimed that people were making cell phone calls from the hijacked planes...I can't even do that today with 2015-2016 technology.

I guess they were all using those "Airfones"...although I'd be a nervous wreck trying to get one of those working...fumbling with my credit card and all that...whatever

[thaskalos]

I said that I would LIKE TO....Not that I would...I think the same way on this as you...believe me I value other people's privacy as much as my own...I have had loved ones die in my family for horrible reasons so I know exactly what it feels like....I just would like to speak to others who lost loved ones to learn how they feel about 911 and the tragedy that befell ALL OF US....

We are all victims of these events and believe me, I too have deep psychological scars...so my desire stems more from commiseration than from any presumed "selfish" motives "so I could feel better about himself"

Nothing could be further from MY TRUTH as a sincere, kind, loving, and deeply caring person...hopefully as I blog and as you read my blogs, that reading of me will come through to you....

I, for my part, will try much better to convey to all, just that!

I thank you for your response to my blogging...I consider it an opportunity for learning and growth as an individual....

I clearly have much to learn from all of you and I hope that some might even learn something from me.

I don't know what I would do if I thought that I never had anything interesting to say, that somebody else would be interested in....perhaps that is MY GREAT CONCEIT...in thinking that what I have to say might be important too!

Either you are putting us on...or you are taking the criticism here much too seriously. I hope, for your sake, that it's the former.

[thaskalos]

I think it was claimed that people were making cell phone calls from the hijacked planes...I can't even do that today with 2015-2016 technology.

I guess they were all using those "Airfones"...although I'd be a nervous wreck trying to get one of those working...fumbling with my credit card and all that...whatever
"Whatever" is right. We are arguing over spilled milk. But it burns my ass to see people laugh off-hand at "conspiracy theories", at a time when the politicians are telling us nothing but lies...about every topic under the sun.

It isn't the conspiracy theorists who are at fault. The fault lies with our esteemed leaders...who can only blurt out the truth by accident. If there is no trust...there will be conspiracy theories.

[VigorsTheGrey]

An interesting video for this thread:

T2XV3Edd2dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

Thank you, PA, for providing this video. An amazing testimony from a key individual...Vigors.

[Fager Fan]

I'm glad Vigors is winding down this thread now.

But, the answer to your question is easy. IF the conspiracy "wackos" are in the least bit correct, then what you have are complete and utter monsters controlling what happened on 9/11...not simply crazed radical religious believers.

And hypothetical complete and utter monsters such as these would have no qualms about getting rid of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon in some secret fashion, and killing everyone on board at some other location...then replacing the plane with perhaps a missile of some sort - guaranteeing a strike. It's really quite simple, IF you believe the "wackos."

Of course, the biggest hole in that theory - one so big you drive an airliner through it - are all the cell phone calls to family among people on the flight telling what was happening. When did they get a chance within SECONDS to land and hide the plane and kill and dispose of all the passengers and crew?

Another major hole is the radar following the planes.

The theory that this airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon is DOA.

Which leads me to wonder why some feel the need to see any video at all?

[Stillriledup]

"Whatever" is right. We are arguing over spilled milk. But it burns my ass to see people laugh off-hand at "conspiracy theories", at a time when the politicians are telling us nothing but lies...about every topic under the sun.

It isn't the conspiracy theorists who are at fault. The fault lies with our esteemed leaders...who can only blurt out the truth by accident. If there is no trust...there will be conspiracy theories.

Good post!
Politicians lie about everything except 9/11? This is the one time they're telling the truth? :D

[VigorsTheGrey]

Either you are putting us on...or you are taking the criticism here much too seriously. I hope, for your sake, that it's the former.

Thaskalos, It is indeed the later...I have not yet developed the kind of "skin" required to survive in the "blogosphere"...I am relatively new to blogging...in fact I only started to email only a few months ago...which I'm sure many of you would find virtually unbelievable...but it is the truth...so I am not accustomed to "things" like trolls, flaming posters, deceitful blogs, spyware, identity theft issues, malware, obnoxious persons, etc, etc...

I have said elsewhere that I hate deception in all forms....so it is very disturbing for me when someone questions my sincerity....which, IMO, is one of my chief values...I also am disturbed by persons who purposely flame, or degrade others for their own satisfactions...I find this to be very demeaning to other persons...so no, I am not putting you or anyone else, on.

I know that I have been rash and said mean things also to people but I'm trying really hard to curb that kind of behavior and learn how the effectively convey my ideas and thoughts without putting people off....You, Thaskalos, are well beyond me in that respect and even though I'm slightly older than you, I do look up to you, and I am not afraid to admit that....

You can tell a lot about a person by how well they are able to express themselves with the written word, but one can also be deceived...there is no point in me deceiving anybody about anything....My goal in my communication is to be as honest and transparent as I possiblely can....which is sometimes very difficult for someone who, at times, has quite an imagination, and is idealistic....Vigors

[Stillriledup]

Thaskalos, It is indeed the later...I have not yet developed the kind of "skin" required to survive in the "blogosphere"...I am relatively new to blogging...in fact I only started to email only a few months ago...which I'm sure many of you would find virtually unbelievable...but it is the truth...so I am not accustomed to "things" like trolls, flaming posters, deceitful blogs, spyware, identity theft issues, malware, obnoxious persons, etc, etc...

I have said elsewhere that I hate deception in all forms....so it is very disturbing for me when someone questions my sincerity....which, IMO, is one of my chief values...I also am disturbed my persons who purposely flame, or degrade others for their own satisfactions...I find this to be very demeaning to other persons...so no, I am not putting you or anyone else, on.

I know that I have been rash and said mean things also to people but I'm trying really hard to curb that kind of behavior and learn how the effectively convey my ideas and thoughts without putting people off....You, Thaskalos, are well beyond me in that respect and even though I'm slightly older than you, I do look up to you, and I am not afraid to admit that....

You can tell a lot about a person by how well they are able to express themselves with the written word, but one can also be deceived...there is no point in me deceiving anybody about anything....My goal in my communication is to be as honest and transparent as I possible can....with is sometimes very difficult for someone who, at times, has quite an imagination, and idealistic....Vigors

Most people on message boards don't know how to respectfully disagree, so, if you don't have a thick skin, this place might not be for you. It's not for everybody.

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course, the biggest hole in that theory - one so big you drive an airliner through it - are all the cell phone calls to family among people on the flight telling what was happening. When did they get a chance within SECONDS to land and hide the plane and kill and dispose of all the passengers and crew?

Another major hole is the radar following the planes.

The theory that this airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon is DOA.

Which leads me to wonder why some feel the need to see any video at all?The radar? Didn't radar lose contact with that plane for 36 minutes? Yes they did in fact.

Ten minutes after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was hit by Flight 11, the transponder on Flight 77 is turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft is lost. During radar blackout Flight 77 turns east, unnoticed by flight controllers. When primary radar information is restored at 9:05, controllers searching for Flight 77 to the west of its previous position are unable to find it.[16] Flight 77 travels undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east toward Washington, D.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

Interesting fact, don't you think? Why turn off the transponder only to turn it back on?

In addition:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123822&page=1

[PaceAdvantage]

Thaskalos, It is indeed the later...I have not yet developed the kind of "skin" required to survive in the "blogosphere"...I am relatively new to blogging...in fact I only started to email only a few months ago...which I'm sure many of you would find virtually unbelievable...but it is the truth...so I am not accustomed to "things" like trolls, flaming posters, deceitful blogs, spyware, identity theft issues, malware, obnoxious persons, etc, etc...You'll be ok. This isn't a blog.

[Fager Fan]

I think it was claimed that people were making cell phone calls from the hijacked planes...I can't even do that today with 2015-2016 technology.

I guess they were all using those "Airfones"...although I'd be a nervous wreck trying to get one of those working...fumbling with my credit card and all that...whatever

Actually, this is a point that I haven't seen explained/addressed like it should.

I flew a lot in those days including flying home from NYC the previous night. This is as true then as it is now. Don't follow the instructions to turn your phone off on the next flight you go on. Just turn off the ringer. You will see that you have service until some point between 5000 and 10,000 feet.

That people on the different flights were reaching loved ones on the ground tells us that the planes were flying low - no more than 10,000 feet, and likely lower. The reason is obvious to me - they were using sight to steer the planes. Plotted in advance, what are the targets that send a message that are also easiest to see from the air? The tallest and twin buildings in NYC, and the Pentagon. Spotting the White House would've been far more difficult.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, It is indeed the later...I have not yet developed the kind of "skin" required to survive in the "blogosphere"...I am relatively new to blogging...in fact I only started to email only a few months ago...which I'm sure many of you would find virtually unbelievable...but it is the truth...so I am not accustomed to "things" like trolls, flaming posters, deceitful blogs, spyware, identity theft issues, malware, obnoxious persons, etc, etc...

I have said elsewhere that I hate deception in all forms....so it is very disturbing for me when someone questions my sincerity....which, IMO, is one of my chief values...I also am disturbed by persons who purposely flame, or degrade others for their own satisfactions...I find this to be very demeaning to other persons...so no, I am not putting you or anyone else, on.

I know that I have been rash and said mean things also to people but I'm trying really hard to curb that kind of behavior and learn how the effectively convey my ideas and thoughts without putting people off....You, Thaskalos, are well beyond me in that respect and even though I'm slightly older than you, I do look up to you, and I am not afraid to admit that....

You can tell a lot about a person by how well they are able to express themselves with the written word, but one can also be deceived...there is no point in me deceiving anybody about anything....My goal in my communication is to be as honest and transparent as I possiblely can....which is sometimes very difficult for someone who, at times, has quite an imagination, and is idealistic....Vigors

Fear not. Now that you've grown accustomed to posting in the off-topics, you'll get used to getting insulted real fast. I was a stranger to this sort of treatment myself at the beginning, but I got used to it...and I now take a perverse pleasure in participating in these free-for-alls. The trick, I believe, is to resist the temptation to always be the "good guy" in these debates. Relax a little bit, and let your "evil" side make an appearance here now and then. Take it from me...it's a lot more fun being the "bad guy"...in the off-topic, at least.

You've shown that you got the vocabulary. Now...all that remains is for you to USE it. :)

[Nutz and Boltz]

Thank you, PA, for providing this video. An amazing testimony from a key individual...Vigors.


According to his wikipedia biography , wouldn't you think that Stubblebine is a little "off the wall"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine


A character ("General Hopgood") in the 2009 film The Men Who Stare at Goats — a fictionalized adaptation of Ronson's book — is loosely based on Stubblebine as head of the project to walk through walls.

[PaceAdvantage]

According to his wikipedia biography , wouldn't you think that Stubblebine is a little "off the wall"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine


A character ("General Hopgood") in the 2009 film The Men Who Stare at Goats — a fictionalized adaptation of Ronson's book — is loosely based on Stubblebine as head of the project to walk through walls.Yeah, I already touched on this. Post #95 in this thread.

But is that enough to discount his pretty vast military experience and expertise? I don't think so. After all, it's not like the military kicked him out...they gave him the ability to research some of his so-called "off the wall" theories.

[Nutz and Boltz]

Yeah, I already touched on this. Post #95 in this thread.

But is that enough to discount his pretty vast military experience and expertise? I don't think so. After all, it's not like the military kicked him out...they gave him the ability to research some of his so-called "off the wall" theories.

Sorry, missed that post. If he was giving expert testimony on some specific item , I would more likely give him credence . But he is painting a broad picture of everything that happened that day like the rest of the conspiracy theorists. Just sayin'.
I have no opinion on whether he is right or wrong.

[azeri98]

Some people just like to go through life with blinders on and believe everything their government tells them, its easier than having to think. Most people refuse to believe their government would ever lie to them. That's why they will always lie instead of telling the truth.

[OTM Al]

Some people just like to go through life with blinders on and believe everything their government tells them, its easier than having to think. Most people refuse to believe their government would ever lie to them. That's why they will always lie instead of telling the truth.
Some people just like to go through life believing the government is made up of all powerful, nameless, faceless people, who have incredible powers that allow them to pull off unbelievable acts of evil and get away with it. Unfortunately, this government you speak of is 99.9% made up of people like the guy who lives next door to you and I would guess some regular posters on this board. The basic thing that people do, perhaps not including the paranoid whacks, is talk to each other. So despite the fact the things described would take thousands to execute, not a one has spoken. Take off your blinders.

[Fager Fan]

Some people just like to go through life with blinders on and believe everything their government tells them, its easier than having to think. Most people refuse to believe their government would ever lie to them. That's why they will always lie instead of telling the truth.

Others have said similar in this thread and I don't get it. Where is this blinders-on blind belief in this thread? I don't see it anywhere. One can look at government with a skeptical eye yet believe that 911 is exactly what it seems to be.

[Nutz and Boltz]

All you need to know...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/index.html

[classhandicapper]

The best argument for it happening the way it has been reported is that our government is incompetent enough to allow some nitwit terrorists to pull it off and too incompetent to have pulled it off itself.

Seriously though, I'd bet anything there are things we do not know about how it was pulled off, who knew beforehand, who backed the operation etc... that our government won't come clean about because of foreign policy.

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

The 1st link is the Silverstein statement on a youtube link,
and the 2nd is a short but very interesting article..

Since it is obvious, IMO, that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, it would have had to have been rigged for demo prior to 911...

Read the article provide in the link, what do you make of the third alternative?

"A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition."

[Stillriledup]

Others have said similar in this thread and I don't get it. Where is this blinders-on blind belief in this thread? I don't see it anywhere. One can look at government with a skeptical eye yet believe that 911 is exactly what it seems to be.

Seems like you don't really look at govt w skeptical eye.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Really cool video on controlled demolitions :)

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheLoizeauxGroupLLC?feature=mhum#p/u/0/-TARNVwF7Yg

Walks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck
....must be an.....elephant in the room!

[Fager Fan]

The best argument for it happening the way it has been reported is that our government is incompetent enough to allow some nitwit terrorists to pull it off and too incompetent to have pulled it off itself.

Seriously though, I'd bet anything there are things we do not know about how it was pulled off, who knew beforehand, who backed the operation etc... that our government won't come clean about because of foreign policy.

I don't really blame the gov. We didn't feally understand the enemy. We might not be surprised by anything this evil does now, but we were all shell-shocked the morning of Sept 11, 2001.

I can't lay too much fault in not protecting against what doesn't even enter your mind as a possibility. While I get pissy at our gov for doing and not doing many things, this isn't one of them.

[Fager Fan]

Seems like you don't really look at govt w skeptical eye.

Yeah, that's why I am so pissed that I want Trump in office. Do I really come across here as a naive bumpkin?

I don't believe the conspiracy theories on 911. It doesn't make any sense at all, and I've blown hole in all listed here though I notice the opposing side just keeps on with their theory rather than following the lines I throw out, following them to their logical conclusions.

How do they explain people on the airliners, talking to people on the ground, telling them what was happening, right up til impact, yet still think this airliner didn't crash into the pentagon?

[Stillriledup]

Yeah, that's why I am so pissed that I want Trump in office. Do I really come across here as a naive bumpkin?

I don't believe the conspiracy theories on 911. It doesn't make any sense at all, and I've blown hole in all listed here though I notice the opposing side just keeps on with their theory rather than following the lines I throw out, following them to their logical conclusions.

How do they explain people on the airliners, talking to people on the ground, telling them what was happening, right up til impact, yet still think this airliner didn't crash into the pentagon?

If the govt are generally liars by nature, isn't this the most likely thing they would lie about? They lied about the JFK assassination too, could you imagine the outcry if people really knew it wasn't a 'lone gunman'? Also the jack ruby situation, a rough underworld figure was so 'distraught' the pres was shot he went and killed Oswald? That's less believable than the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Govt will lie when there are HUGE political ramifications. If it ever came out what really happened there would be mass chaos in the country, it's better to just believe a few Arabs flew planes into buildings and it's better to believe a lone gunman decided on his own to kill JFK.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Yeah, that's why I am so pissed that I want Trump in office. Do I really come across here as a naive bumpkin?

I don't believe the conspiracy theories on 911. It doesn't make any sense at all, and I've blown hole in all listed here though I notice the opposing side just keeps on with their theory rather than following the lines I throw out, following them to their logical conclusions.

How do they explain people on the airliners, talking to people on the ground, telling them what was happening, right up til impact, yet still think this airliner didn't crash into the pentagon?


The following is from a youtube video on 911 events:

Robin Weigel11 months ago

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives. they are:

Rapid onset of collapse
Sounds of explosions (DOZENS OF WITNESSES)
Symmetrical structural failure
Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:
FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reportedexplosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expandingpyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
Show less
Reply

[Fager Fan]

Yet again illustrating how you just ignore what doesn't fit into your theory.

Maybe you can continue to fool yourselves by ignoring the gaping holes, but you'll never convince anyone else if you can't close up those holes.

[PaceAdvantage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

The 1st link is the Silverstein statement on a youtube link,
and the 2nd is a short but very interesting article..

Since it is obvious, IMO, that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, it would have had to have been rigged for demo prior to 911...

Read the article provide in the link, what do you make of the third alternative?

"A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition."I don't buy this. Sorry. I think the explanation given for "pull it" makes perfect sense. He was talking about the operation to put out the fires and/or rescue anyone trapped inside #7. He was talking about pulling the firefighters out...the key "tell" here is that immediately before he says "pull it" he talks about the tremendous amount of lives lost already that day...meaning he doesn't want to risk losing any more lives trying to put out the fires.

Although...curiously...why would the building owner/leaser have any sway over this kind of thing? Wouldn't this be the call of only the battalion chief or whoever happened to be in command over those men on that day?

[Fager Fan]

I don't buy this. Sorry. I think the explanation given for "pull it" makes perfect sense. He was talking about the operation to put out the fires and/or rescue anyone trapped inside #7. He was talking about pulling the firefighters out...the key "tell" here is that immediately before he says "pull it" he talks about the tremendous amount of lives lost already that day...meaning he doesn't want to risk losing any more lives trying to put out the fires.

Although...curiously...why would the building owner/leaser have any sway over this kind of thing? Wouldn't this be the call of only the battalion chief or whoever happened to be in command over those men on that day?

I'm sure it wasn't his decision but instead that if the fire department. But I wouldn't be surprised either if fire departments look for permission for legal reasons until/unless continuing to try to save the building is too dangerous. I can't imagine it was needed in this case, but the owner's opinion was that he agreed that they should just let the building go.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I don't buy this. Sorry. I think the explanation given for "pull it" makes perfect sense. He was talking about the operation to put out the fires and/or rescue anyone trapped inside #7. He was talking about pulling the firefighters out...the key "tell" here is that immediately before he says "pull it" he talks about the tremendous amount of lives lost already that day...meaning he doesn't want to risk losing any more lives trying to put out the fires.

Although...curiously...why would the building owner/leaser have any sway over this kind of thing? Wouldn't this be the call of only the battalion chief or whoever happened to be in command over those men on that day?

The article says:
"an alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building."

No one died in WTC 7 because no one was in it...the whole building was evacuated, But when?....When was the order to evacuate WTC7 given...this building was designed to be the command center for addressing any disasters in the complex and had strategic floors structurally reinforced so they were almost like bunkers....Debris from the Twin Towers supposedly fell upon it causing significant damage and starting fires such that after 7 hrs the entire building was fully engulfed in flames...no active fire fighting crews were working the fire because there was no water available...Exactly WHEN DID THE DEBRIS FALL ON WTC7 such that nobody was killed or even injured?and WHEN WAS THE ORDER TO EVACUATE GIVEN?

Silversteins comments boggle the mind..."I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

He clearly links these 2 ideas: pull it and collapse, in one short sentence.

[Fager Fan]

The article says:
"an alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building."

No one died in WTC 7 because no one was in it...the whole building was evacuated, But when?....When was the order to evacuate WTC7 given...this building was designed to be the command center for addressing any disasters in the complex and had strategic floors structurally reinforced so they were almost like bunkers....Debris from the Twin Towers supposedly fell upon it causing significant damage and starting fires such that after 7 hrs the entire building was fully engulfed in flames...no active fire fighting crews were working the fire because there was no water available...Exactly WHEN DID THE DEBRIS FALL ON WTC7 such that nobody was killed or even injured?and WHEN WAS THE ORDER TO EVACUATE GIVEN?

Silversteins comments boggle the mind..."I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

He clearly links these 2 ideas: pull it and collapse, in one short sentence.

You're reading into it what you want to read into it. They did decide to pull any further efforts and did watch it collapse, so where's the mystery?

The building was evacuated hours earlier just as all the surrounding buildings were evacuated. Again, no mystery.

In addition, you need to figure out which story you're going with - was it the giv who conspired to commit this horror, or was it Silverstein's dastardly plan concocted with the help of terrorists? Which one are you going with? Because the fire department isn't going to know a thing about the building being illegally wired, and the city sure isn't giving a demolition permit for an occupied building.

[VigorsTheGrey]

You're reading into it what you want to read into it. They did decide to pull any further efforts and did watch it collapse, so where's the mystery?

The building was evacuated hours earlier just as all the surrounding buildings were evacuated. Again, no mystery.

In addition, you need to figure out which story you're going with - was it the giv who conspired to commit this horror, or was it Silverstein's dastardly plan concocted with the help of terrorists? Which one are you going with? Because the fire department isn't going to know a thing about the building being illegally wired, and the city sure isn't giving a demolition permit for an occupied building.

Next time you want to demo a steel high-rise just fly a remote controlled airliner full of gas into it and watch it collapse! Hek, you don't even have to do that...fly it into the highrise next door to it..then a fire will start and it will collapse just due to the fire!

[Fager Fan]

Next time you want to demo a steel high-rise just fly a remote controlled airliner full of gas into it and watch it collapse! Hek, you don't even have to do that...fly it into the highrise next door to it..then a fire will start and it will collapse just due to the fire!

Except that wouldn't be too cost effective, would it?

Why do you have such a hard time believing all the many people and explanations out there?

Why do you have a hard time believing the video and audio of Bin Laden taking credit for the attacks?

Sometimes the answer really is the easiest and most logical answer.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Except that wouldn't be too cost effective, would it?

Why do you have such a hard time believing all the many people and explanations out there?Fires

Why do you have a hard time believing the video and audio of Bin Laden taking credit for the attacks?

Sometimes the answer really is the easiest and most logical answer.

This debate is not about me and what I think or believe...you seem to want to stifle me and my opinions...This is about the facts of building 7, not about me....Fires do not bring down high rises the way building 7 fell down from the bottom up...The fires would have had to have melted all the bottom floor connections to the foundation all at the exact same time...office fires do not get hot enough to do that...if anything some parts of the building would have simply slumped over due to deformation of some steel members....you can't tell me other wise...and you can't tell thousands of licensed architects and structural engineers and demolition experts that have said the exact same thing either....so please do not try to use ad hominem tactics or conflations or redirecting or kitchen sinking with me any longer...tell what you want to all the architects and engineers....find out what they have to say.....

This is not about me....please don't turn this 15 year old quagmire into something personal, because it is not.....If you have a different opinion fine....let others have theirs also..

[Fager Fan]

This debate is not about me and what I think or believe...you seem to want to stifle me and my opinions...This is about the facts of building 7, not about me....Fires do not bring down high rises the way building 7 fell down from the bottom up...The fires would have had to have melted all the bottom floor connections to the foundation all at the exact same time...office fires do not get hot enough to do that...if anything some parts of the building would have simply slumped over due to deformation of some steel members....you can't tell me other wise...and you can't tell thousands of licensed architects and structural engineers and demolition experts that have said the exact same thing either....so please do not try to use ad hominem tactics or conflations or redirecting or kitchen sinking with me any longer...tell what you want to all the architects and engineers....find out what they have to say.....

This is not about me....please don't turn this 15 year old quagmire into something personal, because it is not.....If you have a different opinion fine....let others have theirs also..

So, in other words, you're just going to continue to ignore the monstrous holes in your theories because you aren't interested in debate and discussion and thought. You just want to steadfastly hold on to your theory no matter what.

Who even gives a damn if building 7 was demolished? No one was killed, and it has ZERO bearing on the fact that terrorists flew planes into the twin towers, pentagon and a field in PA.

My God, earlier in this thread you disputed that the plane flew into the pentagon, saying there was no plane and no remains. Wrong, there were both. Do you even bother to say you're sorry and that you were drastically wrong?

[davew]

I'm not sure...it could have been an airplane...it could have been a drone...I don't know....it just seems like there should have been more debris.....luggage, etc...there should have been large sections of the wings since the hole it punch in the building was round and small...there should have been more pieces of the airliner found...I also have question about how an inexperienced saudi pilot could make this pinpoint perfect hit at such a low angle of trajectory...almost like the thing was computer guided...Do you think you could have flown a huge airliner like that into the pentagon? Maybe a very experienced pilot could but so much could go wrong in this flight path and nothing did...The angle which the airliner came in leaves little room for human error...


Seeing pictures of the FlyDubai 737 that crashed on the runway In Russia does not show many large pieces - amd that was on a flat runway / grass approach. If that happened in a 3 story office building, I am not sure what you would expect to see with the walls, desks, filing cabinets, floors and other stuff from the building - which was on fire wasn't it?