WTC 7, NIST really screwed up this time....

Before your reply in this thread, its best that you've watched these videos(if you havent yet):

WTC 7 collapse Angle 1:
www.youtube.com...

WTC 7 collapse Angle 2:
www.youtube.com...


Above is a great example of a controlled demolition.

But, before we start the debate, lets watch the NIST Press conference regarding WTC 7:

Part 1
www.youtube.com...
Part 2
www.youtube.com...
Part 3
www.youtube.com...
Part 4
www.youtube.com...
Part 5
www.youtube.com...
Part 6
www.youtube.com...

People asking questions, aka wacko conspiracy nutjob truthers, where asking why the building fell in free fall and what caused it to collapse in the first place. They where hinting at some kind of controlled demolition.
Now, lets recap here.... These are the MAIN points that debunkers have stated as to the reasons for the collapse:
A fuel gas tank exploded, causing massive damage to the area around it.
A large chunk of one of the towers fell onto WTC 7, furthering the chance of collapse.
The collapse was not free-fall, but rather lasted a little longer. The visual collapse lasted a few seconds(roughly 6-7) however the building was collapsing before that. You just cant see it. (basically, they concluded that we dont have sufficient evidence to get to the bottom of this).

But dont worry folks, because the NIST report on WTC 7 came out and solved all our problems.
According to the NIST report:
The building DID, yes DID, fall in free fall speed. Confirmed.
There was no exploding fuel tank. This claim was refuted by NIST.
THe building collapsed due to fires and office furnishings.

So, the inside joke going around now is that fires cause buildings to collapse, and that demolition crews should retire. Since all they need to do is put a skyscraper on fire, that alone will cause it to fall into its own footprint.

Cmon now, even the debunkers should be going "hey, wait a sec?...."

Its ok though, popular mechanic talked to experts in the field and they said the government is right. Isnt that enough of an answer you pawns!!!??? Now get back to work!

Originally posted by demonseed


WTC 7 collapse Angle 2:
www.youtube.com...


Above is a great example of a controlled demolition.

Above is ANOTHER great example of a truther manipulating video. Whoever posted this video removed several seconds of the collapse.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by demonseed


WTC 7 collapse Angle 2:
www.youtube.com...


Above is a great example of a controlled demolition.

Above is ANOTHER great example of a truther manipulating video. Whoever posted this video removed several seconds of the collapse.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

Although your right, the video is cut up, NIST already admitted the free fall speed collapse.

They put it at about 8 seconds.

So, to put it bluntly...

Even if your right, who cares?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by demonseed


WTC 7 collapse Angle 2:
www.youtube.com...


Above is a great example of a controlled demolition.

Above is ANOTHER great example of a truther manipulating video. Whoever posted this video removed several seconds of the collapse.

Thats OK, NIST cinfirmed it as stated. We don't need a hacked video or you to confirm, it has been confirmed by NIST.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

Thats OK, NIST cinfirmed it as stated. We don't need a hacked video to figure it out.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by jprophet420]

The NIST report even has a graph that shows WTC7 free falling for over 2 seconds.

Now,,, if something is free falling. That means that there is no part of the WTC7 touching the ground for at least 2.25 seconds. I wonder how a natural collapse could pool that of?

Especially if the WTC7 is collapsing between floor 5 and 13. How could a fire disintegrate 6 floors including walls,support columns and so on at once, to create a perfect free fall?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by demonseed


WTC 7 collapse Angle 2:
www.youtube.com...


Above is a great example of a controlled demolition.

Above is ANOTHER great example of a truther manipulating video. Whoever posted this video removed several seconds of the collapse.

Thats OK, NIST cinfirmed it as stated. We don't need a hacked video or you to confirm, it has been confirmed by NIST.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

Thats OK, NIST cinfirmed it as stated. We don't need a hacked video to figure it out.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by jprophet420]

nice catch there... lol.

So thats what he edited out huh....

Originally posted by demonseed
According to the NIST report:
The building DID, yes DID, fall in free fall speed. Confirmed.
There was no exploding fuel tank. This claim was refuted by NIST.
THe building collapsed due to fires and office furnishings.

Unfortunately the only time trusters think for themselves is when the official story itself causes too much cognitive dissonance.


When we notice these inconsistencies and half-assed explanations, we become curious, suspect something foul for the American people, and demand further investigation in these things.

When trusters notice these inconsistencies, they say whichever agency is just incompetent and go with what someone else said (always without the same access to evidence NIST had of course) or else just make up something on their own that makes even less sense.



With NIST you can be sure of one thing: their theory offers the best opportunity for the federal government to wipe its ass the cleanest, without having to rely on already-debunked myths like exploding fuel tanks or anything more than superficial damage from ejected debris.

But it comes out sounding just as ridiculous in the end: that fire alone caused a building to accelerate into itself at free-fall. Only one thing can cause a building to free-fall into itself, by itself, and it has never been and never will be office fires.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by bsbray11]

So many demolition experts have agreed that it was a controlled planned demolition. It's ridiculous to think that it fell due to some desks caught on fire.

LOL at all the debunkers who believed the official story.

This is why our government wants more stupid people and less critical thinkers. It makes life easier for them.

reply to post by truthseeker911

So many demolition experts have agreed that it was a controlled planned demolition. It's ridiculous to think that it fell due to some desks caught on fire.

So what demolition experts might they be - the ones who post videos on YouTUBE?

Here is report by REAL DEMOLITION EXPERTS

www.jod911.com...

Above is ANOTHER great example of a truther manipulating video. Whoever posted this video removed several seconds of the collapse.

How can you determine that this video clip has been manipulated, is there an unedited clip of this that you have seen?

Isnt it possible that the guy wasnt recording at the time of collapse and picked it back up as it was collapsing? It was burning for a long time after all.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by truthseeker911

 

So many demolition experts have agreed that it was a controlled planned demolition. It's ridiculous to think that it fell due to some desks caught on fire.

So what demolition experts might they be - the ones who post videos on YouTUBE?

Here is report by REAL DEMOLITION EXPERTS

www.jod911.com...

Assertions #5 and #7 both dont really say anything.
Here, i can sum up the entire arcticle:

"So and so people say so and so."
"No. This is farther from the truth. We have talked to people and they say no."

"Mr so and so says thermite was used."
"No. This is impossible." Why is it impossible?
"People had to do stuff that would make other people notice."
really?

So in the end, that report is just as inconclusive as the government report, except it holds so much bias for the government that it denies there could be any government involvement.

This is more hearsay than any conspiracy theory ive ever heard!

reply to post by Six Sigma


well you can manipulate video - I want to know why they (NIST)
manipulated MATH to fit a "zero" chance collapse. because math dont lie - but it appears NIST is not above lying.

www.infowars.com...



[edit on 31-5-2010 by Anti-Evil]

reply to post by dragnet53


yea, I agree - debunking a slam dunk is sort of smells of Foreign influence. namely ISREAL the one that will pay for 911. and when
the truth comes out - and it will - I can see America withdrawing all support and granting huge arms deals to the ARABs. then maybe
just maybe Isreal will cease to be a destablizing element in the world today.
and after that has ran it's coarse - then we might want to talk about U.S.S. Liberty - and middle east peace. if not then - we will just have to put this idea of a Isreali state on the back burner for another 1,000 years.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Anti-Evil]