Almost all cameras from 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 … full archive at http://www.911conspiracy.tv/7_WTC.html.
(Visited 30 times, 1 visits today)
WTC Building 7 Collapse – 23 angles
You might also like:
Logging you in...
Not really. Words are words. What we've been discussing is just a small piece of the big jigsaw that is 9/11. They are not bizarre theories at all. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but thinking a Boeing 757 can fly at 400mph at ground level is "bizarre", then perhaps the bizarre one around here is you.
Man, I would quit if I were you. You have been answered reasonably and all your bizarre insinuations have been disproved and reduced to ashes by whetedge.
There is not much you can add... that's what happens when your bizarre theories are only sustained by rumors, urban legends, liar websites like ae911lies and loose change.
This whole conversation you guys just had could perfectly be the epitaph of the dead and buried 911 truth movement.
There is not much you can add... that's what happens when your bizarre theories are only sustained by rumors, urban legends, liar websites like ae911lies and loose change.
This whole conversation you guys just had could perfectly be the epitaph of the dead and buried 911 truth movement.
You heard? Try looking for yourself, and you will discover what you heard is a flat out lie. I am passionate because I too once was bamboozled by the lies, until I finally decided to study for myself. There are tons of resources to study the physical remains of the buildings. They were all cataloged and stored at the landfills, investigated, and signed off on by several different teams prior to being shipped off.
I too, appreciate your goodwill; peace.
Joe Hill
I too, appreciate your goodwill; peace.
Joe Hill
I heard most of the remains of the towers were illegally shipped off to China straight after the event and before an investigation took place. Lolz. That explains the lack of evidence. There's more that doesn't add up on that day than there is that does. I'll give you one thing though, you're not an idiot about getting your point across like 90% are on youtube. It's nice to meet a decent human being for a change.
Then produce some structural evidence of CD. There is hundreds of hours of raw video of the site and the debris at the landfills. If explosives and thermate were used, the structural evidence of it will be prolific.
I use my eyes. And those towers look like a CD. WTC7 looks like a CD. The fact that there isn't one video clip of a plane flying into the Pentagon is obvious that a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. There's a lot that happened before 9/11 to show that 9/11 was going to happen. Bin Laden masterminding this in a little cave the other side of the world is unrealistic. He said it wasn't him straight after. 6 months later Bush said there's nothing to tie Bin Laden to 9/11. The list goes on.
What lack of evidence? You reveal your bias. There is volumes and volumes of evidence, and it all confirms gravitational collapse. You obviously have not looked for yourself, for you would not make such a ridiculous statement that "everything turned to dust". The drywall and concrete floors turned to dust. Everything else was ground and jumbled up in a huge mountain at the bottom of the towers.
Volumes of evidence also confirm AA77 slammed into the Pentagon.
Joe Hill
Volumes of evidence also confirm AA77 slammed into the Pentagon.
Joe Hill
The lack on evidence is proof that explosives blew everything to dust. A normal fire based collapse (which has never happened prior to 9/11) wouldn't have turned everything into dust. What's your opinion on all the other discrepancies of 9/11? Pentagon etc? Do all those strange occurrences have unmistakable explanations?
There has never been any evidence presented to confirm molten steel. No temperatures were recorded high enough to melt steel. Temperatures were high enough to melt other metals, such as aluminum.
So what is your point zwady? Are you going to go through all the talking points put out by AE911? Let's turn it around. If you believe the CD theory, there will be an abundance of structural evidence to substantiate CD. Go find some for us. That is all you need to make a case.
Joe Hill
So what is your point zwady? Are you going to go through all the talking points put out by AE911? Let's turn it around. If you believe the CD theory, there will be an abundance of structural evidence to substantiate CD. Go find some for us. That is all you need to make a case.
Joe Hill
Molten iron present days after the collapses. How did that happen? Where did it appear from?
Additionally, and what the CD faithful ignore, is that substantial portions of both cores (60 or so floors worth) were still standing AFTER everything else collapsed (even though they did collapse subsequently). It would thus be impossible to have created collapse by removing the core columns through controlled demolition.
Joe Hill
Joe Hill
Fourth, understanding the design and nature of damage and collapse, you will know internal collapse occurred ahead of what was visible on the outside.
The squibs were caused by air pressure driven by the mass of jumbled material slamming into the pre-weakened floors below. Again, zero structural evidence of demolition was found.
Joe Hill
The squibs were caused by air pressure driven by the mass of jumbled material slamming into the pre-weakened floors below. Again, zero structural evidence of demolition was found.
Joe Hill
First, the squib velocity is a dead give away. The squibs begin at one rate then increase in velocity. It cannot be explosives because explosives will initiate at max velocity.
Secondly, if squibs of the size witnessed were caused by explosives, the sound would be distinct and everyone in lower Manhattan would have heard them.
Third, if you understand the building design, you will have to ask exactly what was being "blown"? The core columns were 60 feet away! (continued)
Secondly, if squibs of the size witnessed were caused by explosives, the sound would be distinct and everyone in lower Manhattan would have heard them.
Third, if you understand the building design, you will have to ask exactly what was being "blown"? The core columns were 60 feet away! (continued)
How about the squibs clearly seen in the twin towers? Some before the towers actually fall? And as the towers are falling, the squibs are present much lower than the level at which the buildings had currently fallen. Squibs are trademarks of CD's.
Who knows? It could be glass breaking, electrical discharge, friction from breaking steel. What it isn't is explosives. Any "flash" associated with CD is high frequency and produces a very sharp, loud sound which would have been unmistakable, and heard by everyone in lower Manhattan.
Bottom line; there is NO structural evidence to support CD. Zero. There is not one report of the smell of explosives, which is distinct.
Joe Hill
Bottom line; there is NO structural evidence to support CD. Zero. There is not one report of the smell of explosives, which is distinct.
Joe Hill
Explain all the flashes at 5:30 then? Which were also present all over the twin towers.
You guys do understand that the first tower collapsing not only may have caused a minor earth quake, but due to explosions and such it caused that. SMH
@gh987t879
Yeah, and Carl Lewis "got owned" by Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics. It's good to see you acknowledging that fair play will always prevail.
Yeah, and Carl Lewis "got owned" by Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics. It's good to see you acknowledging that fair play will always prevail.
@gh987t879
Yeah, and Carl Lewis "got owned" by Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics. It's good to see you acknowledging that fair play will always prevail.
Yeah, and Carl Lewis "got owned" by Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics. It's good to see you acknowledging that fair play will always prevail.
Sure, I'll keep not ignoring the facts. Thanks.
"Which just reveals your bias. The number of eyewitnesses who actually corroborate the fact two planes caused all the damage is simply insurmountable"
The airplanes caused the impact damage to the towers and debris impacted WTC7, yes. No eyewitness accounts determine what caused the total collapses. "Bias"..? Yeah, telling me my view is biased might in your eyes fill the holes that your explanation displays, but it doesn't explain the totality.
The airplanes caused the impact damage to the towers and debris impacted WTC7, yes. No eyewitness accounts determine what caused the total collapses. "Bias"..? Yeah, telling me my view is biased might in your eyes fill the holes that your explanation displays, but it doesn't explain the totality.
Which just reveals your bias. The number of eyewitnesses who actually corroborate the fact two planes caused all the damage is simply insurmountable.
Joe Hill.
Joe Hill.
"Where did I say eyewitnesses' statements were "structural evidence"..?!"
Here: " eyewitness reports can not just be dismissed". in response to, ""There is zero structural or debris pattern evidence of CD""
Show source and proof rust has nothing to do with eutectic corrosion.
Joe Hill
Here: " eyewitness reports can not just be dismissed". in response to, ""There is zero structural or debris pattern evidence of CD""
Show source and proof rust has nothing to do with eutectic corrosion.
Joe Hill
If you want to ignore fact, you are free to do so. Enjoy.
"Eyewitness evidence requires a preponderance due to there always being conflicting eyewitness accounts"
I find there being enough eyewitness evidence contradicting the official explanations to raise questions as to why those aren't part of the official investigations' reports.
I find there being enough eyewitness evidence contradicting the official explanations to raise questions as to why those aren't part of the official investigations' reports.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
Not really. Words are words. What we've been discussing is just a small piece of the big jigsaw that is 9/11. They are not bizarre theories at all. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but thinking a Boeing 757 can fly at 400mph at ground level is "bizarre", then perhaps the bizarre one around here is you.
Man, I would quit if I were you. You have been answered reasonably and all your bizarre insinuations have been disproved and reduced to ashes by whetedge.
There is not much you can add… that's what happens when your bizarre theories are only sustained by rumors, urban legends, liar websites like ae911lies and loose change.
This whole conversation you guys just had could perfectly be the epitaph of the dead and buried 911 truth movement.
You heard? Try looking for yourself, and you will discover what you heard is a flat out lie. I am passionate because I too once was bamboozled by the lies, until I finally decided to study for myself. There are tons of resources to study the physical remains of the buildings. They were all cataloged and stored at the landfills, investigated, and signed off on by several different teams prior to being shipped off.
I too, appreciate your goodwill; peace.
Joe Hill
I heard most of the remains of the towers were illegally shipped off to China straight after the event and before an investigation took place. Lolz. That explains the lack of evidence. There's more that doesn't add up on that day than there is that does. I'll give you one thing though, you're not an idiot about getting your point across like 90% are on youtube. It's nice to meet a decent human being for a change.
Then produce some structural evidence of CD. There is hundreds of hours of raw video of the site and the debris at the landfills. If explosives and thermate were used, the structural evidence of it will be prolific.
I use my eyes. And those towers look like a CD. WTC7 looks like a CD. The fact that there isn't one video clip of a plane flying into the Pentagon is obvious that a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. There's a lot that happened before 9/11 to show that 9/11 was going to happen. Bin Laden masterminding this in a little cave the other side of the world is unrealistic. He said it wasn't him straight after. 6 months later Bush said there's nothing to tie Bin Laden to 9/11. The list goes on.
What lack of evidence? You reveal your bias. There is volumes and volumes of evidence, and it all confirms gravitational collapse. You obviously have not looked for yourself, for you would not make such a ridiculous statement that "everything turned to dust". The drywall and concrete floors turned to dust. Everything else was ground and jumbled up in a huge mountain at the bottom of the towers.
Volumes of evidence also confirm AA77 slammed into the Pentagon.
Joe Hill
The lack on evidence is proof that explosives blew everything to dust. A normal fire based collapse (which has never happened prior to 9/11) wouldn't have turned everything into dust. What's your opinion on all the other discrepancies of 9/11? Pentagon etc? Do all those strange occurrences have unmistakable explanations?
There has never been any evidence presented to confirm molten steel. No temperatures were recorded high enough to melt steel. Temperatures were high enough to melt other metals, such as aluminum.
So what is your point zwady? Are you going to go through all the talking points put out by AE911? Let's turn it around. If you believe the CD theory, there will be an abundance of structural evidence to substantiate CD. Go find some for us. That is all you need to make a case.
Joe Hill
Molten iron present days after the collapses. How did that happen? Where did it appear from?
Additionally, and what the CD faithful ignore, is that substantial portions of both cores (60 or so floors worth) were still standing AFTER everything else collapsed (even though they did collapse subsequently). It would thus be impossible to have created collapse by removing the core columns through controlled demolition.
Joe Hill
Fourth, understanding the design and nature of damage and collapse, you will know internal collapse occurred ahead of what was visible on the outside.
The squibs were caused by air pressure driven by the mass of jumbled material slamming into the pre-weakened floors below. Again, zero structural evidence of demolition was found.
Joe Hill
First, the squib velocity is a dead give away. The squibs begin at one rate then increase in velocity. It cannot be explosives because explosives will initiate at max velocity.
Secondly, if squibs of the size witnessed were caused by explosives, the sound would be distinct and everyone in lower Manhattan would have heard them.
Third, if you understand the building design, you will have to ask exactly what was being "blown"? The core columns were 60 feet away! (continued)
How about the squibs clearly seen in the twin towers? Some before the towers actually fall? And as the towers are falling, the squibs are present much lower than the level at which the buildings had currently fallen. Squibs are trademarks of CD's.
Who knows? It could be glass breaking, electrical discharge, friction from breaking steel. What it isn't is explosives. Any "flash" associated with CD is high frequency and produces a very sharp, loud sound which would have been unmistakable, and heard by everyone in lower Manhattan.
Bottom line; there is NO structural evidence to support CD. Zero. There is not one report of the smell of explosives, which is distinct.
Joe Hill
Explain all the flashes at 5:30 then? Which were also present all over the twin towers.
You guys do understand that the first tower collapsing not only may have caused a minor earth quake, but due to explosions and such it caused that. SMH
@gh987t879
Yeah, and Carl Lewis "got owned" by Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics. It's good to see you acknowledging that fair play will always prevail.
@gh987t879
Yeah, and Carl Lewis "got owned" by Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics. It's good to see you acknowledging that fair play will always prevail.
Sure, I'll keep not ignoring the facts. Thanks.
"Which just reveals your bias. The number of eyewitnesses who actually corroborate the fact two planes caused all the damage is simply insurmountable"
The airplanes caused the impact damage to the towers and debris impacted WTC7, yes. No eyewitness accounts determine what caused the total collapses. "Bias"..? Yeah, telling me my view is biased might in your eyes fill the holes that your explanation displays, but it doesn't explain the totality.
Which just reveals your bias. The number of eyewitnesses who actually corroborate the fact two planes caused all the damage is simply insurmountable.
Joe Hill.
"Where did I say eyewitnesses' statements were "structural evidence"..?!"
Here: " eyewitness reports can not just be dismissed". in response to, ""There is zero structural or debris pattern evidence of CD""
Show source and proof rust has nothing to do with eutectic corrosion.
Joe Hill
If you want to ignore fact, you are free to do so. Enjoy.
"Eyewitness evidence requires a preponderance due to there always being conflicting eyewitness accounts"
I find there being enough eyewitness evidence contradicting the official explanations to raise questions as to why those aren't part of the official investigations' reports.
"The overall preponderance of eyewitness accounts help confirm gravitational collapses"
I find that being an untrue statement. Where are the testimonies of people say "it were gravitational collapses" or "I didn't here any explosion"/"It did NOT look like they planned to take down the buildings" which outnumbers those making diametrical testimonies..?
"Eyewitness reports have nothing to do with structural evidence. It is another category of evidence"
Owh, it's not structural evidence..? o.0 Where did I say eyewitnesses' statements were "structural evidence"..?!
"Appendix C did not account for rust, and marked the evidence "inconclusive"."
Third time, "rust" has nothing to do with the intergranular melting casued by the eutectic mixture (sulfur) they identified. Sure inconclusive, that's why we need a new investigation.
“The only nonsense is belief the buildings were “taken down”.”
Yes that’s your opinion yes. Still wasting your time with all this chatter since you haven’t been able to convince me better than what NIST has managed to, and it sure won’t help us find the perpetrators who committed the crimes of funding, training, buying put options, etc. Makes no sense to me.
Eyewitness reports have nothing to do with structural evidence. It is another category of evidence. Structural evidence trumps all. Eyewitness evidence requires a preponderance due to there always being conflicting eyewitness accounts. The overall preponderance of eyewitness accounts help confirm gravitational collapses.
Appendix C did not account for rust, and marked the evidence "inconclusive".
The only nonsense is belief the buildings were "taken down".
Joe Hill
"There is zero structural or debris pattern evidence of CD"
I've already seen it, Appendix C includes melting of steel, eyewitness reports can not just be dismissed because most evidence was destroyed before being examined. Now, if controlled demolition is only a distraction, then what on earth are you doing here wasting hours upon hours talking about nonsense..?
There is zero structural or debris pattern evidence of CD.
FEMA Appx C is not evidence of CD. Oral histories and eyewitnesses are not structural or debris pattern evidence.
Joe Hill
"The first move was sideways visually"
No signs of any folding as referred to in the Verinage technique.
"A double fold down below where you can't see would show very little deformity higher up"
You can't even see it, and it's not what the official investigation suggest. NIST's models, the official document supposedly telling the public what happened, show major deformation of the facade. Minimum you will have to disqualify NIST and demand a new, transparent instigation.
"Fine in theory, but again, no evidence of anything but gravitational collapse in the debris patterns and structural remains. Zero"
Why do you keep repeating "zero"? I've already seen it, read about it in the FEMA Appendix C, and I've read the oral histories and heard eye-witness talk. Most people's silence does not take that away. Why would people in general have thought of controlled demolition right when it happened? Of course not, they saw the airplanes, the fires, and then trusted NIST.
The first move was sideways visually. It was actually the east sector violently slinging to the NW, creating the vertical fold in the north face as the south face opened up. A double fold down below where you can't see would show very little deformity higher up.
Joe Hill
"If inside involvement is to be proved, it will be found elsewhere. Find out who planned and funded it, and you've got the perps. CD is nothing but a distraction from the truth"
Found and planned what? Usama and his followers planned to attack America, but their plans were used for wider purposes by "insiders". Distraction? Not the way I see – it's a key point, if true, likely what killed most people on 9/11. Also, I find the other aspects of the attacks as interesting as the buildings.
"Both are false"
More word-splitting? For the idea of core collapse prior to the perimeter structure coming down, I would have expected much more signs on the facade. And regarding sideways movement, there was no such indicating folding as in the Verinage. I can detect a gradual sideways movement after a few stories of descent.
Fine in theory, but again, no evidence of anything but gravitational collapse in the debris patterns and structural remains. Zero. There is no reason to suspect any contrived take down of the buildings. If inside involvement is to be proved, it will be found elsewhere. Find out who planned and funded it, and you've got the perps. CD is nothing but a distraction from the truth.
Joe Hill
"The smell of explosives is unmistakable, unique unto itself"
You still talk about explosives. I sure ain't sure such were used, and I sure don't believe whatever was used would be recognized by people who likely didn't even know what it was. Yes, no reports on the smell of (conventional) explosives – perhaps because (conventional) explosives weren't used.
"no movement to the side of the upper structure," " no deformation of the facade prior to main collapse"
Both are false.
Joe Hill
"Can you imagine a group of guys standing around in that mess NOT talking about how they came down?"
Btw. I've heard these guys talking about steel coming out of the pile "dripping of molten steel", "molten steel running down the channel rails", and I would not be surprised if there are other people who did in facts see things that "didn't add up" but are afraid to speak out. After all, what does claiming the towers "didn't collapse naturally" make you? And what possible threats might ensue?
The smell of explosives is unmistakable, unique unto itself. It would stand out, be in all the dust clouds, and hover over the site for hours if not longer. Dead give away. Not one report of the smell of explosives.
Joe Hill
I have seen cut steel, and every bit of it was done during clean-up.
The "severe high temperature attacks" are not evidence of anything other than fire and possibly rust. All recorded temperatures were within normal ranges of building fires. All structural members showed they came apart by shearing and tearing.
Joe Hill
You are still arguing on the premise that the core collapsed prior to the perimeter structure, and that the perimeter "folded" like in the Verinage. I argue that the evidence does not support that (no movement to the side of the upper structure, few broken windows, and no deformation of the facade prior to main collapse). Not to mention that I can't see how a natural process (or "organic", as you put it) can keep up the symmetry needed for the upper parts to collapse 95, 80 or 75 stories.
"Can you imagine a group of guys standing around in that mess NOT talking about how they came down?"
No I can't. Neither can I imagine what went through the head of all these people as they were looking for bodies in there. Not signs of demolition. Smells? Again, of what? Most demolished buildings are not fully equipped when taken down. What does a burning pile of offices smell like? Devices? What needed necessarily have been left of unknown devices that would stand out in the rest of the mess?
"Please tell us. What HAVE you seen? What structural evidence do you have of anything but gravitational collapse. I want to see"
Do I have to repeat: cut steel, steel subjected to severe-hightemperature attacks. And I've already linked to at least one NIST video.
Breach of the only lateral support on the south face, the roof, is all it took to get it moving. Even without the fire or the loss of support in the east interior, once that roof line support buckled or broke, the building was coming down. No way could two halves of a trapezoid stand, even that they shared the north wall. When the penthouse fell, the south face roof support was breached. Motion was initiated.
Joe Hill