9/11 - The Third Tower

[TheBramble]

"Wisdom is knowing how little we know." Socrates

Sweet, sweet irony...LOL

 

[JTrader]

do you believe in UFO's?

UTB

Not worth responding to. I thought better of you......



But as it goes, our solar system is part of the milky way galaxy. If the Milky Way galaxy were shrunk down to the size of North America, our solar system would fit inside a coffee cup. The sun is one of about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, called the Milky Way.

Galaxies are enormous swarms of stars, dust, gas, and dark matter held together by gravity. The sun is one of about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, called the Milky Way. If you think that’s incredible, imagine this: The Milky Way is just one of billions in the observable universe!

Most galaxies are found in clusters of about 150 galaxies, bound together by each other’s gravity. Our Milky Way is part of a small cluster of some 30 galaxies called the Local Group. Clusters of galaxies are often collected in superclusters. Our Local Group is part of the Virgo Supercluster, which contains several thousand galaxies.

Galaxies range in size, containing anywhere from 100,000 to 3 trillion stars! They also come in different shapes.

Therefore i'd be extremelly surprised if other forms of life, (if not many, at least one!) similar to ours on planet earth, did not exist. Wouldn't you?

Whether or not such civilisations have made it into our earths atmosphere is somewhat unknown. I've seen no compelling evidence.

But i certainly do not doubt that there is a high chance of life outside our solar system, and life inside and outside our galaxy, the milky way.

Kidzworld :: Our Solar System | Planets | Milky Way | Black Hole | Stars | Overview
Understanding the Universe - Galaxy Tour - Things to Know - Discovery Channel School

 

[the blades]

Not worth responding to. I thought better of you......



But as it goes, our solar system is part of the milky way galaxy. If the Milky Way galaxy were shrunk down to the size of North America, our solar system would fit inside a coffee cup. The sun is one of about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, called the Milky Way.

Galaxies are enormous swarms of stars, dust, gas, and dark matter held together by gravity. The sun is one of about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, called the Milky Way. If you think that’s incredible, imagine this: The Milky Way is just one of billions in the observable universe!

Most galaxies are found in clusters of about 150 galaxies, bound together by each other’s gravity. Our Milky Way is part of a small cluster of some 30 galaxies called the Local Group. Clusters of galaxies are often collected in superclusters. Our Local Group is part of the Virgo Supercluster, which contains several thousand galaxies.

Galaxies range in size, containing anywhere from 100,000 to 3 trillion stars! They also come in different shapes.

Therefore i'd be extremelly surprised if other forms of life, (if not many, at least one!) similar to ours on planet earth, did not exist. Wouldn't you?

Whether or not such civilisations have made it into our earths atmosphere is somewhat debatable. I don't know, how could i. But i certainly do not doubt that there is a high chance of life outside our solar system, and life outside our galaxy, the milky way.

Kidzworld :: Our Solar System | Planets | Milky Way | Black Hole | Stars | Overview
Understanding the Universe - Galaxy Tour - Things to Know - Discovery Channel School

it wasn't a dig - don't take it that way.

I just think many people don't like boring truths.

I agree there's a high likelyhood of life on other planets - but laugh at the idea that they travel a gerzillion miles to say hello, then dn't actually bother in the end. Or that our governments would be smart enough to keep such intelligence quiet. Your subsequent post is only relevent should you believe there's some likelihood of "UFO's".

That some people actually believe this is, erm, interesting. And a high % of these people go along with most other conspiracy theories, I suspect.

UTB

 

[trendie]

when tragedies unfold, it is the unpreparedness that results in people reacting in ways that seem, at the time, to be inappropriate. people also interpret things in terms of their own experiences.

how many times have you heard people describing a bang, when it was a gunshot, as a "car backfiring"?
when was the last time you heard a car backfire? its a (stereotypical) term used to explain something that is outside someones experience. In LA, I dare say some, used to gunfire, wouldnt make that mistake.

the hearing of "explosions" in the towers could be the building "creaking" under the strain of floors falling, or metal buckling.
if people are unaware of what happens to buildings under stress, they will interpret things in terms of their own experiences.
have you ever heard a house "settling"? the little creaks and sounds are not "small explosions".

"Pull it": you are attributing a specialised phrase used by demolition experts to a businessman. This rich guy probably never did a days hard labour in his pampered life, yet he is supposed to use terms which are being interpreted in a context that he may not have meant.
I am sure there are many everyday terms which may have specific meaning in specialised jobs.
This has to be seen in the same way that "Break a leg" doesnt mean "I hope you fracture your femur".

as per dd and the baldes, people are incompetent, and make silly mistakes. thats not a conspiracy.
unless...

 

[JTrader]

9/11 Chronicles Part 1: Truth Rising

9/11 Chronicles Part 1: Truth Rising

Alex Jones' new doc. on the surging rise of the the 9/11 truth movement. Seven years after the attacks of September the Eleventh, a global awakening has taken place, the likes of which the world has never seen. As the corporate-controlled media dwindles into extinction, a new breed of journalists and activists has emerged. Shot unlike anything you have ever experienced from Alex Jones' cinema verite' style, this masterpiece not only exposes the mistreatment of our 9/11 heroes, but also shows how a growing number of people around the world are questioning the official version of events that day. Featuring interviews with Willie Nelson, Rosie O'Donnell, Jesse Ventura, George Carlin, Martin Sheen, as well as confrontations with many political figures including Bill Clinton, David Rockefeller and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Down with the NWO!!!«

William Rodriguez: 9/11 Hero




Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com Alex Jones and Jason Bermas Respond to the BBC

 

[Atilla]

Hey guys,

To cut the chase simple question...

If you see two buildings side by side one being demolished and the other collapsing due to fire would you not question?

1. The speed of the fall
2. Where is the fire
3. Spread of debri
4. Type of construction
5. Structure of building

Keep it simple. Two buildings falling side by side - one due to demolition another due to a raging fire so intense it melts metal causing it to bend (Metal that is built to be resistantto fires).

EVENLY - in timed SEQUENCE... through out the building.

Keep it simple.

Does this make plausible sense? Think of the Spanish sky scraper with fire raging through 7-10 floors with half the building caving in after 24 hours.

Contemplate and think about what you are laughing at here...

 

[dick_dastardly]

when tragedies unfold, it is the unpreparedness that results in people reacting in ways that seem, at the time, to be inappropriate. people also interpret things in terms of their own experiences.

how many times have you heard people describing a bang, when it was a gunshot, as a "car backfiring"?
when was the last time you heard a car backfire? its a (stereotypical) term used to explain something that is outside someones experience. In LA, I dare say some, used to gunfire, wouldnt make that mistake.

the hearing of "explosions" in the towers could be the building "creaking" under the strain of floors falling, or metal buckling.
if people are unaware of what happens to buildings under stress, they will interpret things in terms of their own experiences.
have you ever heard a house "settling"? the little creaks and sounds are not "small explosions".

"Pull it": you are attributing a specialised phrase used by demolition experts to a businessman. This rich guy probably never did a days hard labour in his pampered life, yet he is supposed to use terms which are being interpreted in a context that he may not have meant.
I am sure there are many everyday terms which may have specific meaning in specialised jobs.
This has to be seen in the same way that "Break a leg" doesnt mean "I hope you fracture your femur".

as per dd and the baldes, people are incompetent, and make silly mistakes. thats not a conspiracy.
unless...

What people heard on that day was the sound of two cultures colliding, the west ( America ) and the Islamic world.

This collision is by no means over and the worst is yet to come.

Yes people make mistakes and boy oh boy did the US Gov and security services seriously fcuk up !

Not just the lapses in security and the missed chances to stop what happened on that day but the way in which the US/UK reacted afterwards.

There was no state to take revenge on like there was after December 7th 1941 but the American people brought up on a diet of Macdonalds and Chuck Norris movies needed their instant gratification.

Yes it was about oil, but the invasion of Iraq was more than that, it was about satisfying the need to go and kick some muslim ass after 911 and by doing so we allowed the terrorists to play us like puppets ( and when I say we I blame the UK gov for not talking Bush out of going to war with Iraq which a true friend would have done ).

Somebody said that all this conspiracy nonsense diverts attention away from the tragedy which is unfolding now in Iraq and Afganistan, I agree with that.

dd

 

[Crap Buddist]

Ban Depleted Uranium 238

Somebody said that all this conspiracy nonsense diverts attention away from the tragedy which is unfolding now in Iraq and Afganistan, I agree with that.

dd

Agree- There was a huge amount of depleted uranium shells,bullets spent in Iraq. I did read that the Atomicity is off the scale compared to hiroshima, but there is a growing amount of radiation sickness hitting the people. And it is set to get worse.

There is a lot of pressure to get DU weapons banned,because its hitting the innocent people ,again, when all the fighting stops. (all life forms) Crimes against humanity , well some say it is yes.


WARNING-THIS VIDEO SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND UPSETTING.

YouTube - Depleted Uranium - US weapons causing Iraqi birth defects


How long does it last ? I hope this is a joke but, I'm seeing contamination ,if not cleared, lasting 4.5 Billion years ?

 

[the blades]

Hey guys,

To cut the chase simple question...

If you see two buildings side by side one being demolished and the other collapsing due to fire would you not question?

1. The speed of the fall
2. Where is the fire
3. Spread of debri
4. Type of construction
5. Structure of building

Keep it simple. Two buildings falling side by side - one due to demolition another due to a raging fire so intense it melts metal causing it to bend (Metal that is built to be resistantto fires).

EVENLY - in timed SEQUENCE... through out the building.

Keep it simple.

Does this make plausible sense? Think of the Spanish sky scraper with fire raging through 7-10 floors with half the building caving in after 24 hours.

Contemplate and think about what you are laughing at here...

I can't answer that, I'm not clever enough.

A simple question for you now - do you honestly believe that there are hundreds of people who together agreed to kill thousands of their own in order to start a religious war that would kill hundreds of thousands of others? Do you honestly believe that they could, to a man, keep it to themselves. Not tell the wife, loved ones, freinds - whilst pissed or on their death beds etc?

It is simply laughable, isn't it?

As I asked above, through ongoing government incompetence, lost files on this and that, don't you find it strange that these files contain nothing other than personal details or information about spies? How can that be when we are being controlled and manipulated in the ways that, certainly Jtrader if not others, actually believe?

UTB

 

[strongboes]

I can't answer that, I'm not clever enough.

A simple question for you now - do you honestly believe that there are hundreds of people who together agreed to kill thousands of their own in order to start a religious war that would kill hundreds of thousands of others? Do you honestly believe that they could, to a man, keep it to themselves. Not tell the wife, loved ones, freinds - whilst pissed or on their death beds etc?

It is simply laughable, isn't it?

As I asked above, through ongoing government incompetence, lost files on this and that, don't you find it strange that these files contain nothing other than personal details or information about spies? How can that be when we are being controlled and manipulated in the ways that, certainly Jtrader if not others, actually believe?

UTB

not laughable at all fella, people kill for a pittance, why do you think that just because the people who had the power to pull it off wouldn't? do you think that if you become the president of the usa that you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if this happened?

do you think that the people who actually were involved in demolishing these buildings gave a s**t, ok guys, we're gonna blow some buildings up, people are gonna die, but your each gonna get 5 or 10 or 50 or 100 million in gold that we're going to take at the same time. when money is involved morals go out the window, and your assuming that they had morals to start with, big mistake!

if someone offered me 50 million to set some explosives, i'd do it, and i'm an upstanding citizen.

the people who want to believe it wasn't all a set up are just unable to face up to the reality that we all live in. power and money corrupt. if you cant comprehend this then your one of the many incredibly naive people who currently occupy the planet.


ROLS! this is a question specifically for you and one that you can surely answer although you do not seem to respond to any factual posts at all. why didn't the paper in the pentagon, catch fire and burn, what about the monitor?

also, why was a jet engine that doesn't belong to any of the planes that crashed into the tower found nearby????????????????? please answer this question, please! i specifically want you to answer this question! can you explain this in any way shape or form??

 

[the blades]

not laughable at all fella, people kill for a pittance, why do you think that just because the people who had the power to pull it off wouldn't? do you think that if you become the president of the usa that you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if this happened?

do you think that the people who actually were involved in demolishing these buildings gave a s**t, ok guys, we're gonna blow some buildings up, people are gonna die, but your each gonna get 5 or 10 or 50 or 100 million in gold that we're going to take at the same time. when money is involved morals go out the window, and your assuming that they had morals to start with, big mistake!

if someone offered me 50 million to set some explosives, i'd do it, and i'm an upstanding citizen.

the people who want to believe it wasn't all a set up are just unable to face up to the reality that we all live in. power and money corrupt. if you cant comprehend this then your one of the many incredibly naive people who currently occupy the planet.


ROLS! this is a question specifically for you and one that you can surely answer although you do not seem to respond to any factual posts at all. why didn't the paper in the pentagon, catch fire and burn, what about the monitor?

also, why was a jet engine that doesn't belong to any of the planes that crashed into the tower found nearby????????????????? please answer this question, please! i specifically want you to answer this question! can you explain this in any way shape or form??

that's not my point though strongboes - clearly people are corruptable - no doubt money exchanges hands and people get there heads blown off. But that takes 2 individuals + some cash.

You say you'd buy in for £50M. What if you were reliant on 100 others to keep quiet, and if they didn't you'd be in a gas chamber?

By Jtrader's admission, a plot like this could involve "as few as a hundred people" - you can't approach them all and them all agree. You can't pay them all a billion. Where are those who were asked but refused - why aren't they dining out on the TRUE stories? How much would that story be worth? Why aren't they cashing in?

And an ongoing question - why do the conspiracy theorirsts accept that governments can keep these extremely complicated plots quiet, but can't look after a DVD with NI numbers on.

It's utter bollox, but more interesting than birth / existence / death.

UTB

 

[strongboes]

that's not my point though strongboes - clearly people are corruptable - no doubt money exchanges hands and people get there heads blown off. But that takes 2 individuals + some cash.

You say you'd buy in for £50M. What if you were reliant on 100 others to keep quiet, and if they didn't you'd be in a gas chamber?

By Jtrader's admission, a plot like this could involve "as few as a hundred people" - you can't approach them all and them all agree. You can't pay them all a billion. Where are those who were asked but refused - why aren't they dining out on the TRUE stories? How much would that story be worth? Why aren't they cashing in?

And an ongoing question - why do the conspiracy theorirsts accept that governments can keep these extremely complicated plots quiet, but can't look after a DVD with NI numbers on.

It's utter bollox, but more interesting than birth / existence / death.

UTB

well if you think that the sort of person who loses ni numbers is going to be involved in something like this then you'd be wrong, surely you cant draw a parallel.

how much gold was there in there again??

do you really think that you couldn't find 50+ people to do this and not talk, i could find 10 mate quite easily

 

[the blades]

well if you think that the sort of person who loses ni numbers is going to be involved in something like this then you'd be wrong, surely you cant draw a parallel.

how much gold was there in there again??

do you really think that you couldn't find 50+ people to do this and not talk, i could find 10 mate quite easily

And that's the point at which we'll never agree - I don't believe you could find 10 people who really would. 10 people who think they would, yes.

People are full of flaws. They let things slip. They sell out for greed. They shaft each other. They die, and have nothing to lose on their death beds. Their balls get so full they'd say anything to empty their tins.

On top of this, these people that have such iron wills and are part of a mystical controlling body, are trained experts in strapping dynamite to RSJ, but above carrying DVD's with personal data on?

Back to an original point - there'll be a massive correlation between those who believe in religion, green men, ghosts, JFK plots and hidden lakes of oil.

There in lies the answer, for me.

UTB

 

[JTrader]

And that's the point at which we'll never agree - I don't believe you could find 10 people who really would. 10 people who think they would, yes.

People are full of flaws. They let things slip. They sell out for greed. They shaft each other. They die, and have nothing to lose on their death beds. Their ******** get so full they'd say anything to empty their tins.

On top of this, these people that have such iron wills and are part of a mystical controlling body, are trained experts in strapping dynamite to RSJ?

Back to an original point - there'll be a massive correlation between those who believe in religion, green men, ghosts, JFK plots and hidden lakes of oil.

There in lies the answer, for me.

UTB

Maybe you haven't looked properly at any of the posted sources yet?

Your lame reasoning doesn't really deserve much of a response. But you've got them anyway. The sources speak volumes for themselves.
Maybe you can't be bothered to look at them in any detail, but yet offer your naive opinion anyway.



Do you imagine these 100 people were your average Joes civil servants types, who catch the bus to work, do the odd bit of overtime. Or, were they the people at the top of the NWO illuminati power pyramid, people who'd already proved themselves to be psychopathic, or at the very least sociopaths, in order to reach their position of power.

It wouldn't have been a case of - Bob, do you fancy over-time, this weekend, we're wiring out the trade centers for a big explosion?

The people involved will have been the psychopaths in powerful positionsat the top of the pyramid. People who do not care about anyone but them, their family, and the people who pay for their existence. Besides, anyone from this group who'd refused would most probably be offed.

It would seem unlikely that Office Administrators, Office Juniors, Admin Officers, Caretakers etc. would be recruited into "Black ops."
TruthMove - Black Ops

Black ops refer to covert actions and activities that are held secret due to their questionable ethical or legal implications. In this context we are concerned with black ops in relation to government, military, and intelligence agencies, funded by US tax dollars, that receive little public or government oversight.

Terrorist-style actions such assassinations, sabotages, supporting of resistance movements, false flag operations and so on—usually fall under the heading of black ops.

Black operations are almost never officially acknowledged, remaining the highest of secrets long after their completion. “Plausible deniability” and the compartmentalization of various duties are integral to this process.

Plausible deniability is the process by which a country, agency, or individual maintains the ability to deny involvement in an operation. For instance, if there is no record that you received a memo, you could read the memo but still profess ignorance. Compartmentalization of our government agencies allows secret project groups to set up exclusive lines of communication. In this way the most powerful people are able to coordinate the actions of many who have no knowledge of their role in a covert plan.

Black ops are inherently secretive, deceptive, and undemocratic—there is no oversight by the people; a small anointed few decide what to do and hide their role from the wider public. Deconstructing black operations is a centerpiece of the Truth Movement. Examining black ops can give us a more accurate understanding of how governments actually work. Because of the shadowy nature of black ops, one must seek out alternative sources, do active research, and think for oneself.

Again, see this video.

Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population






Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com The Third Tower - A Critical Review

The Third Tower - A Critical Review

9/11 Blogger
Wednesday, July 9, 2008

The Third Tower
A Critical Examination

On July 6, 2008, BBC released a documentary examining the collapse of World Trade Center 7, on September 11, 2001. The film purported to “solve the final mystery” of 9/11 in regards to whether the collapse of the building was due to fire or controlled demolition. The film used interviews of people from both sides of the argument, as well as stock footage and reconstructions to show the viewer the cases to be made for each theory. This is the second film the BBC has created on the subject of alternative theories of 9/11.

The film is highly charged and controversial, with emotions running deep. In this review I will attempt to remove the emotional side of the film and simply look at the facts and opinions offered, their validity, and the BBC’s attempt to make a “balanced” film.

Act I

The film opens with a quick introduction that thrusts the viewer into the chaos of 9/11 - the plane impacts and subsequent destruction of the World Trade Center towers that we are all familiar with. But in a rare event, the BBC finally choose to now focus their attention on the little known collapse of World Trade Center 7, almost a decade after the fact. Up until this point in time, WTC7 has largely been ignored in the media - with very small clips here and there, but never telling the whole story. In fact in its previous film, the BBC discussed WTC7 as a small side event and dismissed the controlled demolition claim purely on the word of a Popular Mechanics researcher. Now the BBC has returned and vows to do justice to the subject.

After a fast introduction in which we are introduced to various commentators on the subject, the film opens with a discussion of Loose Change and a government conspiracy. The film then goes on to a brief description of WTC7 as a government building, with the Office of Emergency Management, CIA, Secret Service, and others. The film then goes on to its first use of the term “some say” in reference to the use of WTC7 as a command post for the attacks on the WTC. I say this because the producers are fond of using the term “some say” to inject speculative, spurious and emotionally charged rhetoric into the film, often in a way that paints “conspiracy theorists” as irrational and vitriolic people. The term is used constantly in the film to make it sound like the 9/11 truth movement believes that the FDNY, NYPD, CDI, and others are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to destroy WTC and cover it up. To this of course the producers then turn to members of these institutions for their response, which of course are angry rebuttals to these depraved conspiracy theorists. These attacks serve to victimize those members and engender sympathy from the viewer. It is quite telling that NONE of the guests offering an alternative theory of 9/11 ever use this language themselves or make these charges. Instead the BBC is reduced to citing totally anonymous sources for the accusations. As many in the 9/11 truth movement know, no serious proponent of alternative theories believes that the firefighters or police officers were involved that day. In fact many in the movement support these rescuers attempt to get proper medical treatment and admission of guilt by the government for the EPA air scandal (a fact which BBC is loathe to mention at all) The only place you’ll find that charge is from nameless posters on forums who are looking to be flamed. It is also interesting that these ’some say’ attacks are only portrayed as coming from the conspiracy camp, and not supporters of the official story. If they had included that we may have heard something along the lines that “Some say Steven Jones’ research is a sham since he is a Mormon with odd religious beliefs” or that “Some say Dylan Avery is a stupid kid” to accurately reflect some of the random forum postings that supporters of the official story have made over the years. Instead the BBC paints only ‘conspiracy theorists’ as making such remarks.

Continuing, the film correctly discusses the fact that WTC7 was omitted from the 9/11 Commission report and that the initial FEMA team was unable to come up with a conclusive hypothesis on its destruction. The film then shows a side by side comparison of WTC7’s collapse and a standard commercial demolition which is very informative for the viewer to compare and contrast. We are then introduced to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, people “who understand buildings”. This a remarkable statement for the BBC to make, who along with most media up until this point, have largely ignored or denigrated those with credentials who speak supporting alternative theories.

The film then mentions the fact that all of the steel evidence from this unique event was totally destroyed, an explosive fact that the film treats as almost a mundane triviality. No discussion is ever made in the film as to the who, what, where, when, and why of the steel’s destruction. This would have been a very good opportunity for the filmmakers to exercise some investigative journalism. Surely after talking to Gene Corely, Shyam Sunder, and Mark Loizeaux the filmmakers could have simply asked each of them why the steel was destroyed so quickly and what their opinion is on the legality/methodology of destroying crime scene evidence. Instead the question is ignored - and later the producers will claim that no evidence was found for controlled demolition - even though they are admitting that much of it was destroyed.

The single corroded steel member from WTC7 is then shown, and is presented as a mysterious piece of evidence to entice the viewer. The piece will be forgotten for almost the entire film, until it makes a reappearance in the film’s final act as merely an example of natural corrosion (more on this later).

Act II

The film’s next act opens with the BBC correctly mentioning that the fire suppression system in WTC7 was disabled for testing on the morning of 9/11, with judgment left to the viewer as to whether it was routine or malicious. Barry Jennings is introduced and he begins to tell the story of his experience in WTC7. Barry talks of how he went up to the OEM, the still hot coffee, and the phone call he received to get out. He then talks of an explosion on the 6th floor that destroys the landing and traps him in building 7. Unfortunately at this point, the film becomes very loose with it timelines. Barry’s interview is interspersed with a chronology of the day, misleading the viewer into believing that the two are linked. I do not know if this is intentional, but at the very least it seems designed to suggest to the audience that the explosion that Barry witnessed was the South Tower collapsing - even though in his interview with Dylan Avery he claims that both towers were still standing at this point. The fact that the coffee was still hot also suggests that Barry was in the OEM center shortly after 9am, since the order came down to evacuate it after WTC2 was hit. It collapsed almost an hour later at 9:59 am, so what was Barry doing hanging around in an abandoned center for a whole hour? The whole timeline is nonsensical. It is also telling that the film never explicitly says that the explosion was WTC2’s collapse - instead it is left to slick editing to create this illusion. This reeks of playing fast and loose with the facts. Interestingly the BBC also makes no mention of Michael Hess, who was with Barry Jennings that day - even though in his interview to the BBC he mentions ‘we’ several times when talking about being trapped.

Next, Richard Gage is introduced and the severity of fires in other skyscrapers over the years is shown. Interestingly the film also shows the results of the Cardington tests performed in the mid 1990’s on steel framed structures and correctly explains that very little sagging was observed and that steel structures were more robust than commonly believed at the time. As an aside, have engineers forgotten these results when formulating WTC collapse theories?

Next the film talks to Fire Chief Peter Hayden about the events surrounding WTC7’s imminent collapse that day. Interestingly he talks about a ’specific engineer’ who accurately predicted the collapse down to a T. By the way he says it, it sure sounds like a whole team of engineers was consulted that day and he was the only one who predicted the collapse! It would have been nice for the BBC to identify and interview this engineer, since he seems to have a better understanding of the building’s collapse mechanisms than all the engineers at NIST! He single handedly predicted the collapse, in advance, and with limited understanding of the situation. NIST in a multi-million dollar, multi year investigation has yet to come to a definitive collapse hypothesis! It would have been very informative for the public to know the specific evidence and reasons this engineer had for making his prediction. Alas, he remains unnamed and forgotten by the filmmakers.

Next Silverstein is introduced, but interestingly the BBC makes no mention of the fact that he only acquired the buildings in July, 2001. They mention the insurance policy, but try to explain it away as a normal action for him to take. Unfortunately they do not mention that since 9/11 Silverstein tried to collect twice on the policy and was subsequently awarded ~1.5 times instead. They also mention his “pull-it” statement but thankfully little is made of it and Richard Gage correctly leaves it to the audience to decide.

Daniel Nigro is then introduced and discusses his experiences that day. He mentions that he cordoned off building 7 at about 3 pm that day and that he did not need to consult with Silverstein on whether or not to do this, which is or course logical. Nigro then injects himself into the fray by claiming that there is no conspiracy since it would imply that he was part of it, which would be “obscene”. However, very few people have suggested that Nigro was involved. It is very unlikely that the FDNY or any other rescue services were involved that day, but it is a constant source of delight by debunker’s to promote the idea that 9/11 Truthers believe the fire fighters were involved.

Then the BBC turns to its own reporting that day and the anomalous report of WTC7’s collapse before the fact. However the BBC leaves the simple question of what its source was in favor of dramatic license. As will be seen later, the film is carefully and deliberately structured to present an overload of mysteries in the first half - and then in the second to have official experts weigh in and solve all the mysteries in one fell swoop, leaving the viewer satisfied that the mystery is solved.

Act III

Next the actual collapse of WTC7 is discussed, but not before the BBC injects the statement that at “5:21 pm Tower 7 finally collapses”, clearly biased in support of the fire theory. Richard Gage then goes on to explain that the collapse is not produced by a natural process since buildings typically fail by following the path of least resistance. At this point it would have behooved the BBC to simply show pictures and videos of other buildings destroyed in earthquakes or in failed controlled demolitions. It would have clearly shown the viewer that indeed buildings often have enormous reserve strength are very rigid - even when toppling.

Instead, the BBC goes into a technical description of WTC7 and various A&E 9/11 engineers’ opinion on the impossibility of total complete, symmetrical collapse. Next, Danny Jowenko, a CD expert is presented with his opinion that WTC7 was demolished. The BBC rebuts him by saying it is “not a view shared by other demolition experts”, and introduces Mark Loizeaux of CDI. Interestingly, the BBC makes no mention of these “other” experts and Loizeaux is the only one presented.

Loizeaux mentions the fact that it takes months of design and preparation to bring a building down, and that usually you gut all the walls where the explosives are placed. There are also the hundreds of charges and miles of cable needed. This is all true for a standard commercial demolition, where the goal is to bring the building down safely, with little environmental impact, and for the cheapest cost, but not when safety and cost are irrelevant. Additionally only one floor would need to be rigged low down in the building so most tenants are not likely to notice. Also remember that Jowenko himself hypothesized that it would not have been too difficult to bring WTC7 down quickly: Only a single floor of explosives plus some quick cutting in the upper floors. Therefore we have a debate of experts, but as will be seen shortly, Loizeaux appears to let his emotions cloud his judgment.

Next Steven Jones is introduced as well as the thermite and super thermite hypothesis. Jones’ dust analysis is discussed including the microspheres. It is also mentioned that one of the samples was taken only 20 minutes after the collapse, yet this does not stop the filmmakers from trying to suggest only seconds later that the spheres could have come from cleanup operations! Do the filmmakers even pay attention or do they just parrot any explanation? They also try to explain the spheres away as a natural product of the collapse or even as a result of other construction in the city! Of course no data, or even expert opinion is provided on these points, so the filmmakers simply grasp at straws to try to “balance” Jones.

Next Loizeaux rebuts thermite by claiming quite condescendingly that he saw it as a kid and that “I’ve never seen anyone use a material which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don’t see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time.” This is an AMAZING statement from Loizeaux. He is trying to say on one hand that engineered thermite cutter charges would be unable to melt all the columns with the correct timing to properly implode the building, but on the other hand that random office fires disbursed on multiple floors had enough precision to do just that - BY CHANCE. The contradiction in logic is simply laughably, and yet this kind of double-think is passed off without second thought. Think for a second: Loizeaux’s claim that the building fell due to fire is contradicted by his later statement that thermite charges would be unable to fell the building! But it gets worse for Loizeaux. Jones next brings up the fact that no one ever discusses nano-thermite and its cutting abilities - they instead choose to be ignorant of it and only consider standard incendiary thermite. What does Loizeaux do in rebuttal? He DENIES the existence of nano-thermite! In fact he calls it “fantasy land” because he would have clearly heard about it! It is quite likely that nano-thermite would not be in used in commercial demolitions, but it is in active R&D by Lawrence Livermore labs since the late 1990’s at the earliest. Thus his statement is provably false - nano-thermite exists and has been molded into sol-gels capable of cutting large steel members. Conspirators with access to these materials would have been able to use them in the destruction of the buildings for the very reason that they are more silent and do not leave tell tale physical and chemical signatures of standard RDX.

Act IV

At this point the filmmakers switch gears. For largely the remainder of the film, they will now focus their attention on proponents of the official story. First the film explores how much damage was inflicted on the building. Several accounts are given by both firefighters and Steve Spak, a photographer who was able to get close enough to take pictures. Most of the information presented here is not new, although it was only recently discovered what the full extent of damage was to the south side. Spak also calims that he witnessed smoke and fire on almost every floor in WTC7, a point which Richard Gage disputes. Gage points to the fact that the winds were northerly that day and that as the wind whipped around WTC7, it created a zone of low pressure air on the south side. This had the effect of drawing smoke up from the rest of the WTC complex (which was still on fire) and creating the illusion that all of the smoke was coming from WTC7. Gage does not dispute that there were fires and that some of the smoke is from WTC7, just that it appears that a large part of it is from neighboring buildings. In fact there is strong evidence to support Gage’s hypothesis: Pictures clearly show that the smoke and debris from WTC2’s destruction were also sucked into a low pressure zone and clung to the south side of WTC1. The effect is quite pronounced and in fact one could be forgiven for believing that every floor on WTC1 was on fire! (See http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-53.jpg and http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-55.jpg).

Next the BBC again attacks conspiracy theorists by alleging that they claim that ‘not just the government and foreign intelligence, but police, fire service and even the media’ are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Again, it must be reiterated that very few “conspiracy theorists” believe that the rescue services or even the media were actively involved in the cover-up, and that they were duped like everyone else. As usual, the filmmakers have no direct source for this statement, and in fact do not even attribute it - merely saying it as a statement of fact. Finally, the BBC attempts to answer its report of WTC7’s collapse ahead of time. Richard Porter of the BBC discusses how the confusion of the day led to the report and that “[our] investigations very strongly suggest we were working on the basis of an incorrect news agency report.” They then mention that Reuters also had put out a false report. However, it was never in question that only the BBC put out the report, since CNN also made the report. Porter never directly claims that the BBC source was Reuters either. The question still remains as to the actual source of the report! The only thing the BBC can say is that it was an erroneous local story - but of course that day EVERY story from New York City was a local news story! Therefore the source of the report is still left unanswered. Why can’t the BBC simply investigate the matter with the supposed due diligence they are famed for? Simply track down the original source - who it was and where it came from. This is exceedingly simple - and yet the inability of anyone to take any responsibility is amazing. Even more amazing, the filmmakers then try to exploit the situation by interviewing Jane Standley - who opines at the emotional torment caused by crazy conspiracy theorists. Again, the filmmakers bring in the emotions to try to demonize all “conspiracy theorists.” Instead of sticking to the topic at hand - the investigation of the destruction of WTC7 - they continually roam into editorializing.

Next the filmmakers talk about the Barry Jennings controversy about dead bodies in the lobby, with the clear spin that “conspiracy theorists” constantly misrepresent witnesses. Thankfully Jenning’s actual interview is allowed to be played and helps demonstrate to the viewer the actual situation, which is mostly blown out of proportion by the filmmakers.

Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: “it was attacked by a liquid slag… a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen.” The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile. However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

Finally, we are introduced to Shyam Sunder and NIST. Sunder first tries to deflect criticism of the length of time required for the WTC7 report saying that “we’ve been at this for a little over two years, and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual.” While this is completely true, the reason the criticism is leveled at NIST is because they have constantly set and broken their own deadlines over the years. They continually promise a 6 month release, but have yet to produce. Their investigation is opaque and the progress updates are very vague and lacking in any detail. Sunder also claims that they are moving as fast as possible but that they require high fidelity computer models and a certain level or rigor in the analysis. This is almost laughable considering the massive gaps in NIST’s original WTC 1&2 report, in which they pruned scenarios and in the end had to throw out all their data in order to declare that floor sagging caused massive inward bowing (see my post on the subject (Is the NIST hypothesis supported by evidence? | 911blogger.com) as well as the Journal of 9/11 Studies (Journal of 9/11 Studies) for more detail). What is also funny is that NIST had already concluded it was fire - before the investigations began. When one starts with assumption the truth of what one is trying to prove, the results are always the same. Finally NIST states its hypothesis, that as the fire progressed some of the steel members simply sagged and disconnected from the core columns - leaving a longer unsupported length and leading to global collapse. Of course the Cardington tests results may conflict with this hypothesis and it will be interesting to see if NIST contrasts these empirical data with its computer generated models. As to the how and why of total, rapid, and complete implosion, NIST has only this to say: “it turns out than when you have connections that essentially don’t have strength for the loads they are being subjected to and you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time - the structure has lost all integrity at that point in time.” It seems quite likely that NIST has not modeled the actual collapse - as this sounds almost exactly the same as their explanation for column instability in the WTC towers. We shall have to see, but this explanation just does not cut it, no pun intended. If it takes demolition teams months of planning and careful execution to implode buildings half the size of WTC7, you can be sure that fires could not do it - otherwise CDI would be out of business! Let us hope the NIST report is more detailed than this, once it comes out that is.

Finally even Richard Clark gets in on it and asserts that the government is incompetent and can’t keep secrets. As well the filmmakers conclude with interviews with Ronald Wieck and Mark Roberts, who denigrate conspiracy theorists as true believers, unable to ever accept data which contradicts their position. The film ends with Daniel Nigro opining conspiracy theory as fiction, fund to read, but fiction.

Well, let us do a tally at the end of the documentary of the data presented for each side:

Pro Demolition

* It looked like a typical controlled demolition
* The building collapsed at free fall speed
* The evidence was rapidly destroyed so that no proper forensic investigation could be carried out
* Some eyewitnesses both outside an in the building reported explosions and damage, which has been suggested to have been the collapses of WTC2 - but not established.
* Danny Jowenko, a CD expert believes it was demolished
* Iron rich spheres were found in the dust - with NO prosaic explanation yet proffered that is even plausible
* Unreacted thermite (of a very fine quality) appears to have be found in the dust as well
* Super thermite exists in a sol gel form, capable of being molded and cutting steel
* Surface temperatures of the rubble pile were in excess of 700C
* Corroded steel members were found, a prosaic explanation of gypsum is possible, as is an explanation of thermate

Anti Demolition

* A specific engineer in the OEM predicted the collapse time
* The building appeared unstable during the time up to its collapse
* Some eyewitnesses report not hearing explosions, others have
* Daniel Nigro claims that if it was demolition he would know
* Mark Loizeaux claims the building could not have been rigged quickly or covertly (although if only a single floor is needed this may be possible)
* Loizeaux claims that thermite is not precise enough, but fires are (by implication of course)
* Loizeaux claims there is no such thing as super-thermite that could be used to fell a building
* Many of the commentators do not believe it was demolished and that conspiracy theories are disgusting

Pro Fire

* The building was on fire and not fought that day
* It was an unusually designed building
* Computers models suggest that some of the floor beams may have failed, which may have lead to column instability in particular columns, which may have lead to global collapse, which may have occurred rapidly

Anti Fire

* Fire is highly unlikely to implode a skyscraper, as teams of experts with hi tech tools are normally required to do this. If the fire hypothesis is true, controlled demolition would not be necessary.
* No other tall building has ever collapsed from fire, let alone in the manner of WTC7
* While the building was on fire, there is little evidence to suggest that the entire building was engulfed, nearby fires in WTC 5 and 6 would cloud the view
* WTC7 was damaged, but as far NIST can determine this was localized to an exterior column running the length of the building and the south west corner - the building purportedly failed in the east side.
* Loizeaux statement that thermite would not be precise enough to cut all the columns at the same time implies that fire would also not be precise enough to do the job

Conclusion

The final score does not seem good for the pro fire theory. There is no hard data on it, and the historical record does not support it. Plus even Loizeaux has by implication testified against it. The pro demolition theory also outweighs the arguments against it. Many of the contrary arguments are also based on personal opinions rather than data.

Thus, in the end the balance of evidence both supports the demolition theory and counts against the fire theory. Although it is clear the BBC attempted at the end to put a pro fire spin on its documentary, it is interesting to note that by the numbers, the film actually supports the demolition theory! Overall this film was much better than the BBC’s first film, which was completely laden with straw men, personal attacks, and charged emotions. Unfortunately, this film also suffers from this disease in parts, and the filmmakers appear to try to magnify its effect. Overall the film is educational for those who have not seen the evidence on WTC7, although the clear bias is designed to assuage the average viewer’s curiosity and imply that the mystery is solved. What is clear though is this: When viewed on the balance of evidence, the logical hypothesis is that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, and that it is likely, just like the 9/11 attacks themselves, that the hand of man was actively involved.

 

[the blades]

The people involved will have been the psychopaths in powerful positionsat the top of the pyramid.

fortunately for the fantasists, they'll be at the top of the world order, AND experts in building demolition.

And as the gloves are off

you're right - I can't be arsed to follow the links. They'll be full of other fantasists - the type who will announce retirement on message boards for a response, but never go away because they're "making so much easy money" from the thing that's boring them to death:whistling

Back to sleep for me

UTB

Edit - after wasting few minutes of my life on the video, it did raise a question - as the whole thing was about "control of the oil fields", at what point do they gain control, and will the oil price collapse to the levels when they started, or better? It hasn't worked yet, has it?

 

[rols]

ROLS! this is a question specifically for you and one that you can surely answer although you do not seem to respond to any factual posts at all. why didn't the paper in the pentagon, catch fire and burn, what about the monitor?

also, why was a jet engine that doesn't belong to any of the planes that crashed into the tower found nearby????????????????? please answer this question, please! i specifically want you to answer this question! can you explain this in any way shape or form??

The paper obviously came from another floor above as did the monitor. One of the articles below mentions how difficult it actually is to keep fire burning if the fire isn't directly underneath.

As for the engine - IF the engine found was a different engine from the Boeing and it's a big IF I am certain there is a logical explanation. What do you think? I wasn't there, I didn't see the engine, I am not an expert on jet engines. How do we know those pictures are correctly presented. Why are you so many eager to believe the conspiracy over the logical?

Amazing how many people became demolition, fire, physics, and aeronautical experts overnight.

I just don't see the logic in any of this.

If the Government had really wanted to blow up the WTC there are a million better ways they could have done it and then framed all the most wanted people from 'the axis of evil'.

For every conspiracy site there is an anti-conspiracy site - thank God!

Some good ones here.

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

Skeptic: eSkeptic: Monday, September 11th, 2006

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

This is my final say on this matter.

I have a feeling this could go round and round ad nauseam in perpetuity.

 

[strongboes]

lol, religion is just for weak minded humans who have no concept or ability to deal with why we are here, that we are mortal. people like to belong, they like to be in communities, we are no different to any other communal species. imo religion can be discounted fairly swiftly, every different civilization that has existed on this planet has believed in some higher power or another. i mean the greeks had a god for everything. it's a glaring human weakness, the need to belong or believe in something, anything, even football. if you were arguing the toss in a court of law, a religious believer would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what they believed in actually existed. think back even just a couple of hundred years and how did news spread, internet, phone, papers! no, word of mouth, go back 1000's of years and how different do you think it was then. basically Chinese whispers but on a mammoth scale, easy to understand how uneducated simple folk could be led to believe pretty much anything.

green men? are you not open minded enough to believe that we are not the only planet with life on, in an infinite universe? come on


mate the sort of people who are going to be doing this kind of thing would be your sas type, not some random stamp licker!

it's clear from your post that even with some irrefutable evidence you are unwilling to accept that it might have been a put up job. there's nothin else i can say, except why dont you answer the questions i put to rols in the above post

 

[strongboes]

The paper obviously came from another floor above as did the monitor. One of the articles below mentions how difficult it actually is to keep fire burning if the fire isn't directly underneath.

As for the engine - IF the engine found was a different engine from the Boeing and it's a big IF I am certain there is a logical explanation. What do you think? I wasn't there, I didn't see the engine, I am not an expert on jet engines. How do we know those pictures are correctly presented. Why are you so many eager to believe the conspiracy over the logical?

Amazing how many people became demolition, fire, physics, and aeronautical experts overnight.

I just don't see the logic in any of this.

If the Government had really wanted to blow up the WTC there are a million better ways they could have done it and then framed all the most wanted people from 'the axis of evil'.

For every conspiracy site there is an anti-conspiracy site - thank God!

Some good ones here.

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

Skeptic: eSkeptic: Monday, September 11th, 2006

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

This is my final say on this matter.

I have a feeling this could go round and round ad nauseam in perpetuity.

lol, what kind of logical explanation is there for an aircraft engine dropping out of the sky? ............donnie darko was a movie fella

oh and so the plane hit, big mess, big fire, aviation fuel everywhere, and the paper and monitor from the floor above, bided their time b4 making a run for it?

this is like arguing with a kid who says he didn't break the vase, it wasn't me mum, honest, i didn't do it, this man came in and took the football out of my room, kicked it against the vase and now he's gone!

yeah we've all been that kid but at some point mature

 

[the blades]

green men? are you not open minded enough to believe that we are not the only planet with life on, in an infinite universe? come on

no, but they don't travel the universe then refuse to reveal themselves, or be kept quiet in lockers in "Area 52"

mate the sort of people who are going to be doing this kind of thing would be your sas type, not some random stamp licker!

aha, I get it. Trustworthy SAS types. You're right, they're good at keeping shtum. I've got a few books on my shelf by Andy McCnab telling me all about it.

UTB

 

[the blades]

there's nothin else i can say, except why dont you answer the questions i put to rols in the above post

I don't really understand, but are you suggesting that the people at the top of this world order, who hatched a plot that they planned to keep secret from billions of people, couldn't match the jet engine with the planes that crashed? Were they on a budget or something?

UTB