Inside Job.... - Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) Discussion

[–] KungFuVooDoo 13 years ago

The odd thing about this is, when you make a comment like, "in reality things are not perfect" you are aware of the fact that three buildings pancaked in on themselves perfectly, right? And one of them hadn't even been hit by an airplane. I can't calculate human behavior. It's a variable that defies being assessed a value. I can however, calculate variables in physics, and myself along with a host of architects and mathematicians agree, something is not adding up with the 9/11 scenario we've been presented with. Is it an alien conspiracy? Did Elvis do it? Did Elvis AND the aliens do it? Hell if I know, but I know two planes didn't take out three buildings perfectly....

She's gone from suck to blow!

reply

[–] B2-Spirit 13 years ago

you are aware of the fact that three buildings pancaked in on themselves perfectly, right?

I would hardly call the collapse of the south tower perfect. The top of the building was displacing horizontally and debris was being ejected far beyond the perimeter of the WTC complex.

Anyway my comment was referring to the ability if the government (or whoever) to execute the attacks without being exposed, or likewise keep it secret with the amount of people that would have had to be involved.

a host of architects and mathematicians agree

For every one of these, many more agree that the collapses/aftermaths were consistant with a strike by an airliner.

The problem is that if piece of the jigsaw was missing then whole conspiracy would fall apart i.e. one leaked document, one person who was involved making a mistake.

Hell NASA make mistakes from time to time and they are constantly meticulous with their preparation and execution. With 9/11 you are talking about a plan on a simular level of complexity with the downside that it has never been attempted before. So no learning from trial and error like NASA or any other high level company or science lab.

It seems like for the conspiracy to work it has to be the exception from all these rules

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough

reply

[–] greatwareagle 13 years ago

Yes. It is one thing to say that there are individuals within the U.S. government who can live with the idea of an inside job; killing thousands of innocent people, destroying lower Manhattan, the Pentagon, crippling the airline industry and our nation's economy, and then covering it all up.

But it's an entirely different thing to actually pull it off. It is an unprecedented logistical clusterfvck which would require everyone involved to perform their roles flawlessly and to keep their mouths shut for life.

reply

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

greatwareagle,

"It is one thing to say that there are individuals within the U.S. government who can live with the idea of an inside job..."

Check out Operation Northwoods

"...killing thousands of innocent people,"

That number would only be known in hindsight. The Twin Towers stood for 56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1. This might have been thought to have been time enough to evacuate many more people. The Pentagon just happened to strike the only side that was being rennovated so there were much fewer casualties then if it had struck any other side. (125 people died. 800 people were in that area as opposed to 4500 people who would have usually been there had it not been for the renovations. (stats from wikipedia)

"...and our nation's economy..."

The destroyed economy led to an unprecedented bailout of money from the taxpayers to the big businesses.

"But it's an entirely different thing to actually pull it off."

The US government and its powerful agencies have a long history of and expert training and resources for covert activities. They are not a bunch of bumbling beurocrats struggling to tie their own shoes.

"...which would require everyone involved to perform their roles flawlessly..."

Silverstein saying 'pull it,' was flawless?
Bush saying he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV was flawless?
Rumsfeld saying "..."the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." was flawless?

"...and to keep their mouths shut for life."

If this was a political operation then the people who did it,solemnly believed it was somehow necessary in order to provoke wars in the Middle East that in the long run could lead to the protection of the US from future attacks from a dangerous middle eastern region. In their minds the deaths would be seen as incedental much in the same way that the 1000s of civilians dying in Iraq or Afghanistan is largely seen to be incedental.

So what motive would any of these guys have to open their mouth?

What do you think would happen if they did?

If it were just one do you think anyone in the world other than the supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement would believe them?

reply

[–] Last_Conservative 13 years ago

I'm going to preface myself with a disclaimer here that essentially states that I'm fairly sure you'll never change my mind, and I'm equally sure that I'll never change yours. That however, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss this. In fact, I think it means the exact opposite. In addition, I should say that as a rule, I use the IMDB message boards to exercise my juvenile delinquent demons and troll and flame for no other reason than to spread discontent. Since you seem willing to discuss this subject intelligently and civilly, I think we should proceed. Having said that....

I have heard the "Secrets can't be kept" argument before, and personally, I've never felt it held water, due to two specifics points, which I will relate here. First off, secrets with many players CAN be kept by the government and kept quite well. The original radar invisible air plane design was begun in the mid 40's. It was kept, to the best of my knowledge and research, a complete secret well into the 80's. The design and construction included a huge amount of individuals.
The second, and in my mind, the more important point is that we have no idea how many secrets the government has kept perfectly. That is akin to asking who was the greatest counterfeiter to ever live? Well never know as the best would never be caught. To use an ad absurdum line of argument, how many invisible, totally undetectable flying rhinos are in the sky? You don't know simply because you can't know.
I understand that there is an additional variable such as, "Well, something of this moral magnitude would make somebody break cover." I'm not sure that is accurate. Honestly, how many people would it take to orchestrate this? To hear the Non-Conspiracy group tell it, six people passengers and a handful of other people pulled it off and kept the secret perfectly.

Ultimately, I have to throw out all speculative arguments and stick with the facts I can replicate and validate (however, personal testimonies are a different subject). There was thermite found at the scene. The buildings did pancake in on themselves, which may not be in direct violation of the laws of physics, but certainly breaks some ordinances. Payne Stewart, a minor player in politics but a major player in golf had a plane that went off course and intercept planes were launched 15 minutes after they lost contact. Finally and in my mind, most importantly, this attack was used to take a massive chunk of our civil liberties away. Think about that for a second. We have allowed the single largest intelligence gathering network history has ever seen to be trained on American citizens, the people that own it. That fact alone should warrant a second, third and possible fourth look. Personally, I feel we aren't getting the whole story.

reply

[–] B2-Spirit 13 years ago

In addition, I should say that as a rule, I use the IMDB message boards to exercise my juvenile delinquent demons and troll and flame for no other reason than to spread discontent

Lol, something funny about the way you put that

The original radar invisible air plane design was begun in the mid 40's. It was kept, to the best of my knowledge and research, a complete secret well into the 80's. The design and construction included a huge amount of individuals

The problem I have with this is that in my mind this cannot be compared to a supposed 9/11 coverup...

Firstly, military technology or otherwise can be kept in a controlled and confined environment well away from the public's prying eyes. With the 9/11 conspiracy all of this apparant technology was used 'out in the open' with a huge number of variables that might have gone wrong.

Secondly, with your example there would be a far fewer number of people that would need to be involved and in many ways more reliable people.

Let me explain this, with a military technology the main people that would be involve would be military governing the facility, military scientists, aspects of the government, US Air force personnel or US army (depending on the Tech) and possibly the CIA.

With a 9/11 conspiracy you would need involvement of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, the investigators who picked through the rubble etc.

The difference other than the obviously increased number of people in the 9/11 case is that there are far more 'ordinary' individuals (i.e. those that did not sign up for a career in secrecy as did those in my first example). You mentioned the 'moral' issue and I believe it is particularly relavant here:-

Secret technologies is one thing, murder of thousands of innocent civilians is something else

we have no idea how many secrets the government has kept perfectly

I'm not going to argue with that since it is a valid point.

The only thing i will say is that the government (and those around the world) prove time and time again that information security is only as strong as its weakest link (and there are many weak links with the 9/11 conspiracy)

Honestly, how many people would it take to orchestrate this?

See above

There was thermite found at the scene

There are many docs and clips around showing that you would need approx 100 pounds of thermite in order to effect one steel column. This is not to mention how the demolition experts would be able to perform a huge amount of work in the WTC without anyone exposing it. You could say that the WTC employees were brought in on it (remember my weakest link comment)

Surely the governemnt would have expected there to be a report afterwards so why didn't they ensure that no trace of the chemical was found, they seem to be in control of everything else.

The buildings did pancake in on themselves, which may not be in direct violation of the laws of physics, but certainly breaks some ordinances

They were 110 storey towers that were struck by airliners causing considerable internal damage. Heat from the fires caused the steel supporting columns to fail (Steel loses 50% of it's tensile strength at 1100 degrees, it doesn't need to melt). The huge weight of the upper floors could no longer be supported initiating the collapse. There are many videos and photos showing the core still standing for a brief period after the collapse, this would not happen in a demolition.

These are my summarised thoughts on the situation, do with them as you please

Payne Stewart, a minor player in politics but a major player in golf had a plane that went off course and intercept planes were launched 15 minutes after they lost contact

I can't be bothered to write everything here so let me point you towards this link, scroll down and look at number 3 if you would

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Finally and in my mind, most importantly, this attack was used to take a massive chunk of our civil liberties away

An unfortunate side effect of the biggest terrorist attack in history. If they had done nothing in regards to intelligence gathering after 9/11 then there would have been a public outcry, 'why aren't they taking this seriously?'

Personally, I feel we aren't getting the whole story

I'm not implying for one minute that the government 'comes clean' with us on everything, yes there are things that the government would like to keep secret. However, we are talking about an inside job here with so many aspects that could have gone wrong, so many weak links that it is preposterous to think that the government carried it out flawlessly.

Human beings are programmed in a way that we make mistakes and then we learn from them. For an conspiracy like the one you propose to have been successful, we would have to ignore everything in our nature

thanks for reading

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough

reply

[–] greatwareagle 13 years ago

Also, keeping a secret nowadays is much tougher as we are in the information age.

We are able to discuss this here on IMDB and watch vids on youtube and websites about 9/11; wikileaks, etc... whereas prior to the mid 1990's, such free and publicly readily-available information was almost impossible to share without corporate media, which was much slower and more filtered.

reply

[–] Last_Conservative 13 years ago

Okay, I'm not going to rehash everything, just say that I DID read it, and you make very valid points. The point I'm most interested in though, is the thermite portion. I've heard varying theories on the amount required, but 100 pounds is the heaviest. Can you give me a source on that? (I'm not being confrontational, I'm really quite interested in reading more on that particular point.) While that certainly wouldn't bring me over to the believers side (or non-believers, whatever the going nomenclature is these days) I'd certainly make me re-examine old evidence that I've already gone over. Well written though.

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

I appreciate the mutual respect present in this conversation. I'd like to address some of the areas of discussion mentioned earlier. First, about how it was possible for a group to gain access and plant the explosives. The security company in charge of world trade tower center security was presided over by President Bush's cousin, Marvin Bush. A number of unusual circumstances such as area shut downs occurred within the towers during the weeks leading up to 911. Here is a website that explains this in detail: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

Secondly, regular thermite clearly could not produce the implosive results witnessed in the towers destruction. The videos that debunkering sources use show the vast failure of regular thermite, but are also rather deceptive. Our movement does not claim regular thermite was used. Rather, we suspect that a government-grade nanothermite was used for the demolition. Is it that hard to believe that the government could develop such a compound? After all, we are a military obsessed nation. Trillions of dollars have been spent through the defense budget on research and development for thousands of weapons and other technologies.

On a side note, is it really a good idea to give the government that immense amount of money, technology, and power. We can only speculate on the advanced technologies they have uncovered. Furthermore, we can only hope that those technologies will not be used on us.

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

"The security company in charge of world trade tower center security was presided over by President Bush's cousin, Marvin Bush."

Electronic security, not physical security. Try again.

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

why do you protect the guilty? what is your motivation? seriously, you make me sick. Brainwashed people like you are exactly why evil forces succeed.

Heres your answer *beep*
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

Try again lol

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

Yes, try again: Securacom was only contracted to the WTC for electronic security. Mr. Bush wasn't even with Securacom in 2001.

http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

reply

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

B2-Spirit,

"With the 9/11 conspiracy all of this apparant technology was used 'out in the open' with a huge number of variables that might have gone wrong."

There are always little things that can go wrong with any complex covert operation. Anyone in the military knows that a good soldier needs to improvise. Anything that goes wrong is simply offered some kind of explanation to the media. if anyone, even large amounts of people, think the explanation is suspicious, simply ignore them or denounce them as conspiracy theorists. Where is the risk?

"Let me explain this, with a military technology the main people that would be involve would be military governing the facility, military scientists, aspects of the government, US Air force personnel or US army (depending on the Tech) and possibly the CIA."

Most of these people wouldn't need to be involved. There would need to be plants within these agencies, the rest would be fooled into accepting the mainstream version of events. Still many others would suspect foul play but either do nothing because they couldn't prove anything and didn't want to risk/lose their job, or they would speak out. Many military, CIA, FBI, firefighters, and others are speaking out.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

"With a 9/11 conspiracy you would need involvement of demolition experts"

You mean like Controlled Demolitions Incorporated? The one that did the clean up for both 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing?

"the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre"

Stratesec? Securacom? The ones that Wirt Walker and Marvin Bush worked for?

"Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains)"

Exactly

"The difference other than the obviously increased number of people in the 9/11 case is that there are far more 'ordinary' individuals (i.e. those that did not sign up for a career in secrecy as did those in my first example)."

The vast majority of those people may have had some small role somewhere down the line but that involvement would be known only to the planners. Peole within most of these agencies usually are very compartmentalized and are rarely given the whole picture about anything. Their job is to follow orders without asking questions or they wouldn't be in those positions. Certain indidviduals may know big pieces but not the whole picture. Allow me to illustrate my point by giving you a couple of hypothetical examples:

There may be 50 or 60 people within the USAF and FAA that are aware that United 93 was shot down but know nothing about anything else. These people might be sworn to secrecy having been told that shooting down the plane was the right thing to do to save lives, and squealing to the families would just bring even more undue mental suffering to what they are already feeling. I have little doubt that if given the order to remain silent in order to protect the feelings of the victims' families, they would do so.

There may have been 50 or 60 people within the military that witnessesd or subsequently found out about the stand down order. This too may have been rationalized to them by saying that at the time the command came from a sincere belief that the planes were going to be taken to some destination for refueling and that there might be a chance to resolve the event without the loss of life to innocent passengers.

Fire fighters, police, and news reporters who witnessed secondary explosions that they may have felt were definately bombs may have been told to keep quiet because they are not bomb experts and that their speculations could jeopardize ongoing investigations.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

I think it is a mistake to assume that those who were somehow involved in the events of that day would certainlty know the whole story. It is also a mistake to underestimate the number of those people who suspect something but feel that there is nothing they can do to prove it so don't want to throw away their career for what everyone around them would label as conspiracy theory.

"...murder of thousands of innocent civilians is something else"

Politics not malice. (This is not meant to condone such actions just explain them.)

"There are many docs and clips around showing that you would need approx 100 pounds of thermite in order to effect one steel column.:

Yes, and they were proven false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

"Surely the governemnt would have expected there to be a report afterwards so why didn't they ensure that no trace of the chemical was found, they seem to be in control of everything else."

How? They did everything they could possibly do to hide this. They rapidly cleaned the site, got rid of the vast majority of the steel, locked up the small number of remaining pieces, and ensured that no government agency to date has dome chemical testing on the metal despite a huge public outcry to do so. What more could they do?

"There are many videos and photos showing the core still standing for a brief period after the collapse, this would not happen in a demolition."

Depending on the timing of the explosions, why wouldn't it?

"An unfortunate side effect of the biggest terrorist attack in history. If they had done nothing in regards to intelligence gathering after 9/11 then there would have been a public outcry, 'why aren't they taking this seriously?'"

You are assuming that these erosions to our civil liberties are making us safer. According to Noam Chomsky and many other outspoken historical experts, the government has only used these attacks as a means to exert more discipline upon its own population which, I must say, sometimes exhibits behaviour that is defiant to authority. You are also assuming that these erosions to our civil liberties makes the threat of terrorism in the US so much more difficult. Now no-one will ever be able to blow something up or put something in the water. Don't be silly.

"...it is preposterous to think that the government carried it out flawlessly."

According to a recent world poll (conducted in 2008) 54% of the world now does not believe that Al Qaeda alone was responsible for 9/11. This is your definition of 'flawlessly?'

reply

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

B2-Spirit,

"Anyway my comment was referring to the ability if the government (or whoever) to execute the attacks without being exposed, or likewise keep it secret with the amount of people that would have had to be involved."

You are assuming that if 9/11 were indeed orchestrated by a faction of some government (lets say American), that it would need to be kept a secret indefinately. Is 9/11 a secret? Type in '9/11 inside job' into the search engine. Zero hits right? Still think its a secret? The point is that just like with any covert military action, the secrecy only needs to be maintained long enough to clean the crime scene, (in this case dispose of the vast majority of the building steel from the wtc complex), and hold the whitewash investigation whether it be the 9/11 or the Warren Commission or many others.

Also, who said that 9/11 has not been exposed? There are a huge amount of whistle blowers:

Susan Lindauer
Bob Kerry
Richard Grove
Sibel Edmonds
William Bergman
Coleen Rowley
J Michael Springmann
Robert Wright
Indira Singh
John M Cole
John Vincent
Behrooz Sarshar
Mike German
Gilbert Graham
Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer
Dick Stoltz
Bogdan Dzakovic
Linda Lewis
Mark Burton
Colonel Don de Grand-Pre
Stanley Hilton
David Schippers
Randy Glass
Robert Horten

(just to name a few.)

"The problem is that if piece of the jigsaw was missing then whole conspiracy would fall apart i.e. one leaked document, one person who was involved making a mistake."

There are many pieces missing and it has fallen apart. This doesn't change the fact that there is no political will to do anything about it.

There are many other major crimes that the American public openly acknowledge have been commited by the Bush administration (which is not to say that prior administrations did not conduct covert or illegal activities.) For example it is well known that torture is illegal. One cannot simply change the definition of torture to say that waterboarding is now going to be considered an enhanced interrogation technique.

Im sorry to wander from the topic at hand but the point is that your notion is that if one problem were to occur with a 9/11 plot, the media would quickly expose it (without fear that it would be too politically sensitive to report on) and the police would rush in and arrest everyone. They would all but put in front of a firing squad. I am sorry but this just isn't the case regardless of what evidence gets out.

Let me ask you this question. If one of the actual conspirators did decide to go public, what do you think would more likely happen:

A) The 9/11 Commissioners would promptly admit they were all wrong and a real investigation would be launched, performed, and followed by a series of arrests of members of whoever was involved regardless of their political ties.

B) The whistleblower would be ignored, gagged, marginalized, and 'debunked.'

C) The whistleblower would have some kind of accident like Barry Jennings, Madam Palfrey, and a few others that had sensitive information and/or were planning on testifying.

My vote is B or C. A has no credibility.

What do you think?

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

Look, the lynch pin is World Trade Tower 7. It fell with no resistance, at free fall speed. The only way that could happen is in demolitions. It was 47 stories, took up an entire city block, and was used by a number of government agencies including the SEC, CIA, and US Secret Service. Furthermore, polling suggests that approximately half of the American population is still unaware of building 7. It was left out of media coverage and public consciousness for a reason.

Check out this website: http://rememberbuilding7.org/
It was set up by a number of 9-11 victims family members.

I look forward to hearing an explanation.

reply

[–] Last_Conservative 13 years ago

Much agreement here. This one has always baffled me, if for no other reason than, it was largely overlooked and completely forgotten about. My wife, who is a college graduate and very intelligent and I were discussing this and she had no idea about building 7. When I brought it up, she asked, "You mean the Pentagon?"
Of course, this in itself proves nothing, but it IS rather strange. One building implodes at free fall speed, sure. It beats odds, and would be unprecedented but still within reason. Two buildings go down like that and it's exceedingly unusual. Three buildings go down like that and one of them wasn't even hit by an airplane and the odds reach the astronomical level.

reply

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

Turnoff_Rolling,

"Three buildings go down like that and one of them wasn't even hit by an airplane and the odds reach the astronomical level."

I agree with you.

I know you are not speculating anything further than wanting to know what happened to these buildings. I think there should be more inquiry and debate about WTC 7. If there is any preserved metal anywhere in a museum or anywhere I think there should be chemical testing on it for incendiaries and explosive residues.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions either about the implications if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. It would just mean to me that the government is hiding something. Who was responsible would be subject matter for a real investigation.

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

"World Trade Tower 7 ... fell with no resistance, at free fall speed"? That's impossible outside a vaccum. Did someone put a giant invisible dome over the building and suck all the air out?

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

Nice rebutal, your really nailed that one..... NOT LOL

It is an undeniable fact that building 7 fell at nearly free-fall rate. Even the government has admitted that. Why don't you try again and come up with a real argument.

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

"World Trade Tower 7 ... fell with no resistance, at free fall speed."

"It is an undeniable fact that building 7 fell at nearly free-fall rate."

So which is it?

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

This is a pathetic attempt to avoid the real issue at hand. Even NIST has admitted a free fall. Look to paragraph 4, sentence 2 of the text. I even CAPITALIZED it just for u Notknight.

All information retrieved from rememberbuilding7.org

Free Fall Collapse
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.[i]

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

[i] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/

[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=r

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

What's the matter? Can't answer a simple question?

"World Trade Tower 7 ... fell with no resistance, at free fall speed."

"It is an undeniable fact that building 7 fell at nearly free-fall rate."

So which is it?

By the way, demolition charges aren't magical things that immediately pulverize entire buildings. They just destabilize and gravity does the rest. Please explain how 2.25 seconds (one-seventh of the total duration of collapse) is proof positive of instability definitely caused by demolition and not some other source, like impact by large pieces of debris ejected during the collapse of North Tower.

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

This is a pathetic attempt to avoid the real issue at hand. Even NIST has admitted a free fall. Look to paragraph 4, sentence 2 of the text. I even CAPITALIZED it just for u Notknight.

All information retrieved from rememberbuilding7.org

Free Fall Collapse
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.[i]

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

[i] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/

[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=r

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

Quit avoiding the substance of the discussion Notknightt. To answer your question, we do not live in a vacuum (lol), so it fell down at about as close to free fall as possible on earth. NIST has even admitted free fall u troll. are u denying this?

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

That wasn't so hard, now, was it? Now, without relying on appeals to authority, please explain how 2.25 seconds (one-seventh of the total duration of collapse) is proof positive of instability definitely caused by demolition and not some other source, like impact by large pieces of debris ejected during the collapse of North Tower.

In other words, are you able to coherently state why you agree with rememberbuilding7.org or are you only capable of parroting them?

reply

[–] LannisterGold 13 years ago

2.25 seconds? what are u even talking about? Furthermore, don't be so salty whenever I own you in a debate. Because in addition to my intention of powning you with it, I post information so that everyone can read and learn why the 911 truth moverment has legimate purpose. I want to provide information so that anyone interested in reading it, can, and thereby understand our arguments a little bit better. If it was up to me, I wouldn't have these petty squables between individuals. It is distracting to the people who come to the forum with an honest intention to learn. Those are the people that I wish to talk to, not you.

Nonetheless, I'm going to answer your question in laymans terms with my own voice, so please return that favor when I flip the table..

Since you asked to explain how the free fall collapse prooved demolition, I'm asking you to explain how it doesn't.

My answer to your question:
If it wasn't demolitions, at least some part of the building's core infrastructure should have held to give resistance. The end result of that would be that the building would tilt away from the side that held, and it would topple over clumsily wherever it may fall. However, in this instance Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed (under 8 seconds I believe) into its own foot print. There have only been a few instances in contemporary history where modern steel architectured buildings collapsed due to office fire. However, in none of those instances did the building completely collapse into its own footprint, let alone at free fall speed. Furthermore, I believe that those buildings burned for days before they experienced partial collapse. With building 7, it collapsed utterly and completely in under 10 hours.

I can also go into the fact that Building 7 was no ordinary steel structure. It was built by some of the best architects in the world, in the wealthiest city in the world. It was built so well that it was chosen to be the emergency headquarters for NYC's mayor in the event of a crisis. Some lesser talking points include the fact that Building 7 housed some of the largest federal branches including the DoD, CIA, FBI, and SEC among others. Another major suspicion is the apparent lack of media coverage on Building 7. To this day, almost half of America still doesn't know what Building 7 is/was. It raises the question as to why it was left out of the public consciousness. I tend to think that it was left out intentionally, because we were encouraged/conditioned to rememeber 911 in all other aspects.

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

What am I talking about?

“This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”

What, you copy them but don't bother to read them?

"If it wasn't demolitions, at least some part of the building's core infrastructure should have held to give resistance. The end result of that would be that the building would tilt away from the side that held, and it would topple over clumsily wherever it may fall."

Part of it did tilt away from the side that held. It ultimately went down in a twisting motion, partly toward the north and partly toward the southwest, almost simulataneously. This motion can be seen in videos shot from the north that feature the roofline; the upper left corner starts falling toward the camera and the upper right corner starts falling away from the camera shortly after.

"Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed (under 8 seconds I believe)"

Your own reference says only 2.25 seconds were free fall. Also, your belief is incorrect; even Dylan Avery now admits the total duration of collapse was 15 seconds. This was in one of the National Geographic documentaries.

"into its own foot print."

A significant portion of Seven fell on the building at 30 West Broadway and caused irreparable damage. Please explain how this building across the street could be considered in Seven's footprint.

"There have only been a few instances in contemporary history where modern steel architectured buildings collapsed due to office fire. However, in none of those instances did the building completely collapse into its own footprint, let alone at free fall speed. Furthermore, I believe that those buildings burned for days before they experienced partial collapse."

They weren't hit by debris ejected by the collapse of much larger buildings, either.

"Building 7 was no ordinary steel structure."

At least you have one thing right. Seven was constructed on a site that was orignally planned for a much smaller building. The northern side covered about half of a ConEd substation and the southern side, which faced the Towers, was cantilevered out from the pre-existing foundation. As such, the southern side had no direct contact with the ground. Being a Port Authority property, the entire complex was exempt from city and state fire codes. This allowed Seven to house several fuel tanks (up to 10,000 gallons) for electrical geneartors. One floor, I think it was the fifth, had so much electrical equipment that it had no sprinkler coverage.

As for the sprinkler system itself, it wasn't working due to being severed by debris ejected during the collapse of North Tower. Even without the damage, it would have been suffering from low water pressure due to all the other fires in the complex.

reply

[–] MIJACology 13 years ago

notknight,

The problems with WTC7 are:

It fell down nearly symmetrically.
It was steel reinforced concrete, not just steel framed.
There was molten metal sighted beneathe all 3 towers (1,2, and 7)
The collapse began on the opposite side of the side that was damaged by falling debris.
The blueprints to the building have been hidden from the public.

1000322322316198456189156116146516518651690586516501561651650651245632001111

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

LakersFan2011,

The entire amount of collective evidence suggests to me, that at the very least, there are alleged facts that one should be skeptical about.

How convenient for the closest military capable of stopping these planes, to be hundreds of miles away. Coincidentally, they are acting out the exact scenario that took place on 9/11, thus causing confusion and chaos.

To say that there is nothing to be skeptical about, you're asking to ignore video and photographic evidence, along with eyewitness reports on the ground, as it happened. Lest we forget the errors in the surveillance video at the Pentagon, the reporting of Flight 93 being identified by United AFTER it crashed, and the lack of surveillance videos at the Pentagon.

I think that the folks that refuse the obvious and fail to accept that there should be skepticism, are simply people that would never want to see it that way. It is easier to label someone "insane" or "crazy", rather that comprehend something outside of the realm of our thinking.

The laundry list of pictures, videos, statements, factual evidence, cannot be completely ignored unless you choose to ignore it.

You are absolutely right about everything you said here! It is great to see someone on these boards who is capable of some critical thinking! You are not the only one either. There seem to be more and more. The number of debunker comments are voluminous but seem to be coming always from the same posters who have spent the last five years of their lives trying to convince people that a) the alternative perspectives are not credible, and b) there is no need to take those alternative perpectives seriously. (One wonders then, why they spend so much time and energy doing just that.)

A] POINTS TO CAT AND SAYS IT'S A DOG. B] SAYS IT'S A CAT. A] SAYS TO B] "ARE YOU A ZOOLOGIST?"

reply

[–] Zjeraar 13 years ago

Because we want to make the world a little less dumb.

Cue the sun!

reply

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

Zjeraar,

Because we want to make the world a little less dumb.

How very gracious of you.
All those pilots, scientists, firemen, victims' family members, CIA and FBI whistleblowers, and other scholars would like to thank you, mr. anonymous but genious poster.

A] POINTS TO CAT AND SAYS IT'S A DOG. B] SAYS IT'S A CAT. A] SAYS TO B] "ARE YOU A ZOOLOGIST?"

reply

[–] definitely_notknight_c6 13 years ago

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." - "Maxwell Scott", The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Things that are clearly inaccurate will become fact in some people's minds if repeated often enough, especially if there is a cash incentive to ignore the inaccuracies.

I get the feeling that mm343005 will be by with more cries of "Shill!"

reply

[–] Zjeraar 13 years ago

Hey, you asked a question, you got your answer.

We want you people to go read, look at the facts, watch a little less YouTube videos, but most important of all, cease those fallacious appeals to authority!

Cue the sun!

reply

[–] dommyboysinjapan 13 years ago

B2-Spirit,

"My view is that people that believe 9/11 was an inside job have been brainwashed by tv shows like 24 and the X-Files."

This is an intriguing opinion just like all the other psychological reasons for believing that 9/11 was an inside job that have been suggested by well meaning people who simply don't think alternative 9/11 theories are credible.

The main problem with your theory is that it really doesn't explain how or why most of the people within the 9/11 Truth Movement believed the mainstream views about 9/11 for years and only changed their minds after careful examination of the evidence. If we can attribute truther beliefs to tv programs then why the longtime belief in the mainstream theories folloed by the transformation that coincides with years of research?

It is my personal belief that all such psychological theories about so called conspiracy theorists suffer from this same logistical problem.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000082/thread/181317547?p=1

"It is ludicrous to think that the US government carried out an inside job so perfectly that not one piece of evidence exists to incriminate it (and when i say 'evidence' i mean 'solid evidence' not someone's opinion."

If you discount all the witness testimonies, science of the AE 9/11 Truth, pilot evidence, all the different organizations that call for a new investigation including firefighters, etc. as being not 'solid evidence' then I must ask you, what would you expect to find if it were an inside job? Obviously you would never find video tapes of crews working in the elevator shafts. In your opinion please tell me what you would consider to be 'solid evidence.'

reply

[–] cocoaballs2000 13 years ago

I have given this subject a lot of thought, I am familiar with the allegations of nano thermite being found in the rubble of ground zero. I have also argued with myself many times that a secret like this would be too hard to keep, and would involve too many people. Truthers tend to want to believe that America is the chicken and the egg, that we killed thousands of people in order to go to war and kill thousands of people all for oil. Thinking practically I realize that this nation needs free flowing oil in order for us to maintain our way of life. At the same time it is morally and ethically unacceptable. At the same time, it cannot be denied that Al-Qaida and the Taliban are very real organizations, and that the middle east harbors a lot of anti American sentiment because of how we handle the whole Israel Palestine situation. Perhaps we had knowledge of the impending attacks by airplane, and planted the thermite in order to ensure that the buildings would collapse. If this were the case this mission would not require a large amount of people to pull off. Just the orchestrators of the plan and an undercover maintenance worker to plant thermite on certain steel joints. The decision to take down the world trade center would have to be made by one very powerful individual, perhaps Cheney, Bush considering his stupidity does not strike me as an individual capable of masterminding this plan. This is just one potential scenario that could have taken place.

reply