Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion?

reply to post by Nathan-D


It's pretty amusing how you talk about us in the US who believe that 9/11 was an inside job and how we talk tough here and do nothing. I guess you guys don't understand that there is absolutely no proof that it was an in side job that would really hold up in court, and not to mention that even if it could, do you really think anyone can stand up and win in a United States court against the United States?

I guess you in the UK don't understand how difficult it is to stand up to an overbearing government....I think the only people who have successfully done that was the US in a little thing called the Revolutionary War....maybe you've heard of it...

The true "conspiracy theorists" are those that assert the official story of 9/11. The true "debunkers" are those that point out the flaws in the offical story. The people who have to cling to their *beliefs* are those who take the official story at face value. The true "debunkers" are those who use science and evidence to unveil the official story for the pack of garbage and lies that it is. There is without question an overwhelming amount of evidence on ATS that illustrates that 9/11 did not happen as we are told.

I don't advocate that our unclassified/public government did this. There is evidence of a shadow government ruled by wealthy elitists with access to unconventional and/or suppressed technologies. Did they stage 9/11? Who can say, but *someone* did.

Steel-framed buildings do NOT collapse from fire. They do not free-fall into their own footprints unless guided.

So, "debunkers," YOU are the conspiracy theorists, buying into the notion that 9/11 happened exactly the way it was spoonfed to you.

Originally posted by DevilJonah
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

I guess you in the UK don't understand how difficult it is to stand up to an overbearing government....I think the only people who have successfully done that was the US in a little thing called the Revolutionary War....maybe you've heard of it...

Back off man. I'm in the US, too, and I thank God that we had the UK during WWII. If it hadn't been for the stubborn tenacity of the Brits, we wouldn't have had a place from which to launch the D-Day invasion. So if you're going to start quoting history, don't forget important (and recent) chunks of it. And if you think the only people ever to stand up to an overbearing government was us, then you haven't read much about world history. I won't lecture on it. I suggest you do some learnin' young man. And next time you see a Brit, buy him an ale and salute him because he'll drink it for his grandfather and for that period in history when we formed an everlasting relationship with the UK.

To Brits: not all Yanks are stink holes. Most of us really love and appreciate you. I think Nathan didn't have a good counter-argument, so he resorted to attacking the person, not the idea. When people have no valid retort, they usually do that sort of thing. It's one of the *tools* in the debunker's tool kit.

I just have a pretty straight forward question. Never mind the fact that a sky scraper has never before been brought down by fire, nor has one since 9/11.

But are we really to believe that damage and debris caused WTC7 to collapse completely into its own footprint? Really? The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was basically completely blown in half by a truck bomb and yet it still stood. But some debris and small fires caused WTC7 to completely fail and collapse?

How dumb are we really expected to be?

reply to post by DerekJR321


Good points Derek. Well said. Of course, debunker-believers would say some hogwash like: the dry wall of WTC7 was made in Chiiiiina (in a whiney voice when they say "Chiiiiiina"). Or that the steel was "weakened" by the fire.

Hogwash.

The comparison between WTC7 and the Federal Bldg. at Oklahoma City is a GREAT point.

reply to post by DerekJR321


Apparently they think we are really stupid - a Bush/Cheney hand picked investigation

missing random public video footage outside of mainstream media

Israeli's who came to film it - advance to video time - 1:23 on video
Israeli's admit knowing about 9/11 in advance and came to film it

bomb sniffing dogs pulled a couple of weeks/months before the event

Marvin Bush (George Bush relative) was heading up security at the WTC in 2000, and early 2001.

Norad stands down on Cheney order

Running a military "drill" (at time of 9/11) based on hijackers taking planes and flying them into buildings

No true or "clear" Pentagon footage - most secure and camera facility in America - and only a guard shack picks up a half second of - nothing but a fireball!

A supposed Hijackers passport was found on the ground unburned at the WTC, yet everything else turned to dust

BBC news reports building 7 collapse way too early, while you can still see it burning in the background.

Cheney owns Halliburton - Military supplier - tell me that isn't a conflict of interest when starting a Middle East war based on this event!

Larry Silverstein attempts to collect one of the largest payouts on rental insurance due to the WTC collapse - 2 months earlier he has them insured especially for terrorist attacks

New police power and control over Americans with the patriot act

A new theme to get back into Iraq and get Saddam - Daddy Bush's failed war and desire for a Middle East base all based on Israel's interest and protection!

I can go on and on

Yeah - apparently no one had anything to gain - yes!

They think we are REALLY stupid

And all this coming from someone (me) who was never political before - 9/11

[edit on 3-9-2010 by arizonascott]

reply to post by DevilJonah

I never said the US in general; don't misconstrue that as a blanket statement, just people I've conversed with about this subject who are American themselves and who think 9/11 was an inside job and argue on places like YouTube for weeks on end in discussions that usually digress into endless slagging matches that lead nowhere and come to no real conclusions rather than doing something productive. As for there being "absolutely no proof" of an inside job, I'd have to disagree - there's an abundance of evidence that would easily hold up in the court of law; there are mathematical proofs, using conservation of energy, momentum and thermodynamics, showing how impossible the collapses of the buildings were without assistance from explosives.

WTC7 being the proverbial elephant in the room. By NIST's own admission it collapsed at freefall for 120+ feet encountering no resistance, which is only possible as long as there are "no structural components underneath the falling section of the building", again by NIST's own admission, but NIST's own computer models show that two thirds of the core columns were still intact as it collapsed through itself at freefall. How is that possible? It's only possible if the columns are removed ahead of time, which can only be done by explosives. It's really not that hard to see that the official story doesn't make sense, the hardest thing for most Americans I think is overcoming the psychological barrier that their own government would do something so unhallowed.

Certainly there are facts to the credit of the OS as documented in the NIST NCSTAR reports but the oddity to me (as a lay-person) is even the report itself seems to contradict itself when comparing the nature of the collapses when analysing the seismographic data.

In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2, Page 675 'Seismogram Data'
In reference to WTC7 (second seismic event);

...One would have expected seismic signals from the second phase of collapse to be generated over this entire episode (which lasted approximately 14 s) since the debris was continuously impacting the ground either unobserved within the core or externally as seen from the videos of the perimeter walls. However, because the total energy dissipated by the impact was distributed over a long period of time, the strength of signal at any given time was small and difficult to interpret.

Did WTC1 and WTC2 not collapse in the same manor?

In the same report in reference to WTC1 & 2, Page 672;

... above the airplane impact damage was observed to suddenly tilt, while a seismic signal was not generated until a substantial portion of the building debris hit the ground

I would have liked to have passed comment on the timings but the seismic data was revised in 2003 to accommodate a signal speed change from 2 km/s to 3.4 km/s essentially moving the origin time to 3s later (as reported in section B.3).

This snippet in NCSTAR 1A (page 42)
In reference to WTC7;

A seismic signal approximately 10 s prior to the onset of collapse was likely due to the falling debris from the collapse

From NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2, Table B-4, page 676;

Time 17:20:42 Richter Magnitude 0.6 (described as WTC 7 collapse initiation)
Time 17:20:50 Richter Magnitude 0.6 (described as WTC 7 perimeter wall collapse)

I still sit on the fence with this one being no expert in these fields of investigation but S+F for bringing light to the new footage NIST used for their reports.

As an engineer I had a difficult problem accepting this 'inside job' issue until I really started to investigate deeper and finally saw the movie ' Core of Corruption'. There are many variables that can appear in circumstances and persuade one to believe something that is simply not true.

Unfortunately, the evidence that points to collusion and direct intent to misdirect or obfuscate evidence is overwhelming...... Why?

I am no longer willing to defray coincidence with fact. It is clearly and with concise intent of malice, planned and executed.

Watch Core of Corruption, and I think you will see how many facets of coincidence are really solid faces of an unknown objective.

reply to post by digitalf


I understand the importance of science data - but for the regular go about your everyday lives American - it would be much easier to understand from an on video admission point of view

The technical data everyone presents is of great value - but it means nothing to the millions of American people who don't understand it - but put something in their face they can hear and see - that makes a "HUGE" difference.

Like firefighters and police admitting they heard multiple explosions just before the collapse.

Like Aaron Russo on video telling "all of us" that Nick Rockefeller told him a huge event was going to take place in 2001 to help put the New World Order in place for good.

Like Israeli spies coming and getting caught video taping 9/11 - which means they knew it would happen

This crap just goes on and on - I am all for finding new technical data - but the evidence is already there - without any doubt!

And I think by now - we have the ATS DIS-INFO agents pretty much nailed down thanks to posts like this one!

[edit on 3-9-2010 by arizonascott]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Thats fine VRYA. But you still are ignoring my original questions.

I asked you to explain the obvious contradiction in his account as to what happened to WTC7. What is the point of you posting his interview if you do not understand what exactly is being said? If anything he hurts your point and negates the argument with his flawed testimony (if you wish to call it that).

Once again, how can you use him as a witness to bombs used in WTC7 to bring it down, when in his very own account, his very own words, he said that as he was standing around next to the WTC7, he didnt notice anything, hear anything, see anything that would signal a collapse, until he hears over the radio the orders to "Get AWAY!!!" and that is when he looked up and saw an umbrella of crap coming down seven feet over his head? He only mentions hearing "boom boom boom" when the debris is falling behind him and the building. Strange how he never mentions the boom boom boom right before the radio crackled with the shouts to get away. Are you or are you not going to concede that his account is not indicative of anything but a structural failure due to fire? You used his "testimony", now explain why he ends up contradicting what you believe in.

reply to post by DevilJonah


I thank you for your kind words DevilJonah.

I am not here to make enemies or browbeat people.

It may seem hard to believe, but I, too, was once on the Truth Movement side. Back when LC, Sept. Clues, and all that came out, I truly believed that we were suckered and there was something fishy.

But once I started to look for the actual eyewitness accounts, uncut, unmolested, unedited used by the TM's videos and sites, I immediately did an about face.

Do I deny the fact that there were explosions? No. You had about 6 buildings burning, plus two large airliners. Of course there will be explosions in a fire. I mean come now, I just got to watch a garage burn up a couple weeks ago, and I heard a few explosions come out of the garage. I had to warn the firefighers about them going off. But can ask you, does an explosion mean explosives? Its just an honest question. I have no problem with you believing 9/11 may be an inside job. That is what you believe, I respect your view. But all I ask is that it is based on actual evidence and questions, and not based on cherry picked quotes, edited accounts, twisted and taken out of context quotes about "explosions" trying to suggest that there were bombs planted all over. Like this poor firefighter's account. After reading it, you can see that in effect, he only detracts from the "planted bombs" idea simply by his account of not hearing anything until the thing is already collapsing around him. I think that if you and I were right next to a building that had demo charges going off, we'd notice that a whole lot sooner than it falling down right?

Once again, I thank you for you kind words, and dont stop looking for the truth. But remember to approach the truth with an unbiased and clear thinking brain that can tell similes, metaphors, and such when describing explosions!

Originally posted by GenRadek
I think that if you and I were right next to a building that had demo charges going off, we'd notice that a whole lot sooner than it falling down right?

I disagree. You wouldn't hear explosions "a whole lot sooner" than it falling down.

Cause and effect. Bombs go off, building crumbles...
Not bombs go off.. building stands awhile before deciding to fall.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

Thats fine VRYA. But you still are ignoring my original questions.

Speaking about ignoring questions....

Do you think the families that lost loved ones behind nyccan.org... deserve to have their questions answered by a new truly independent investigation, and Bush and Cheney and the rest of the culprits on live TV under oath answering what they knew and when they knew it, and why they did nothing to prevent it?

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by GenRadek
I think that if you and I were right next to a building that had demo charges going off, we'd notice that a whole lot sooner than it falling down right?

I disagree. You wouldn't hear explosions "a whole lot sooner" than it falling down.

Cause and effect. Bombs go off, building crumbles...
Not bombs go off.. building stands awhile before deciding to fall.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

FOX News as always... putting the narrative ahead of the facts....

FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 3-9-2010 by spiritualzombie]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
According to you, a capturing device (microphone) would have to be 4.3 feet long in order to capture a middle C fundamental pitch? Umm, No. The cheapest Chinese mic embedded in the cheapest camcorder will easily capture that fundamental frequency. No problem.

The mic that was on board the camera which captured that video was likely highly capable of capturing at least down to 100 Hz, if not all the way down to 20 Hz, of that explosion.

What exactly determines this cut-off, if you don't mind explaining?

And you do have to have a physically larger speaker to reproduce those low frequencies, don't you? Like a subwoofer.

reply to post by blankduck18


Excellent post Blankduck. The OSers/govt. trolls are in full force and look as ridiculous as ever. When I saw the BBC correspondent prematurely reporting that WTC 7 had been leveled as it stood in the background without any hint of damage, smoke or flames, I knew with a heavy heart we'd been had. I don't think the shadow government would have pulled this off lest the pillars of common sense of the ruled had been compromised in the same fashion as that of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. They're winning my fellow citizens, they are winning. The ignorant and scared have fled to the dark side. They are now employed to deflect rationale with platitudes and ad hominem sans any production of "proof" they rigorously demand from us. I don't know what to do any more. I feel so helpless bobbing around in the sea of fools.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Apparently you have missed the point that NIST has edited video to remove anything that points to fire as the cause of the collapse. Thanks for ignoring the point of the OP.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by blankduck18

 

Also I've watched programs on building implosions and there seems to be alot of work involved with setting it up. Not one person witnessed the crews of the demolition teams rigging the buildings with explosives! Come on now.

Ahh yes. This is my favorite debunk argument displayed again. The Stupid Terrorist Fallacy. This of course requires that the 'terrorists' to actually be stupid enough and allow themselves to be witnessed doing the deed for their to be a building rigged with explosives. Sorry, but this is a failed premise. But again, another debunk misses the point....NIST clearly edited videos to hide something other than fire causing the collapse of WTC 7.


[edit to add:]
My my my, the puppets.......... er I mean, cheerleaders are out in force for you today. Amazing all those stars, so little time!
[edit on 9/2/2010 by GenRadek]

Speaking of dodging, why is it General Radek you failed to address the OP? NIST clearly has been shown to clearly edit the videos to remove any inkling of something other than fire bringing WTC 7 down. Or did you not notice the videos yet?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Thats fine VRYA. But you still are ignoring my original questions.

You can't really call it "ignoring" when I already told you that I wasn't going to argue about what he said, when it's in the videos themselves.

I'll post a transcript here:

BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

So far what has he said to contradict himself? Nothing that I see. What has he said to contradict the government story?

1) "There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions."

2) "I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing."

Continued...

BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Go ahead and point out where exactly Bartmer contradicts himself here.

He says...

1) "I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down."

2) The radios exploded to get away from the building "at that moment" that he looked up and noticed the building was coming down.

3) "the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it..."

4) "I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."


Have you spotted the contradiction yet?

I think the contradiction you're TRYING to say exists, is that he didn't explicitly say an explosion preceded the penthouse collapsing. He neither confirms or denies this. And he doesn't have to confirm it, because we already have evidence of numerous explosions coming out of that same building in the time between the WTC Tower collapses and its own collapse. News reporters walking by it and talking about hearing "secondary explosions" going off every 15-20 minutes, FEMA seismograph records showing activity in 15 minute intervals after the Tower collapses, a video of firefighters hearing and reacting to an explosion they heard 2 blocks from WTC7.

But I'm still trying to find where Bartmer contradicts himself. Just because you want to read things into what he said, that don't exist, doesn't mean he contradicted anything, except the official story, which is obvious enough.

Once again, how can you use him as a witness to bombs used in WTC7 to bring it down, when in his very own account, his very own words, he said that as he was standing around next to the WTC7, he didnt notice anything, hear anything, see anything that would signal a collapse, until he hears over the radio the orders to "Get AWAY!!!" and that is when he looked up and saw an umbrella of crap coming down seven feet over his head? He only mentions hearing "boom boom boom" when the debris is falling behind him and the building.

Actually his exact words are "the whole time...".

And like I said, we already have evidence of explosions coming from that building on a regular basis until it collapsed. He even says himself that lots of witnesses down there heard explosions.

"There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions."

Here are a few examples.

Explosion just before penthouse collapse:



Barry Jennings:



Explosion from 2 blocks away after at least 1 tower, probably both of them, have already collapsed:



There are other testimonies I've seen before from news reporters that day and others, that I wasn't able to locate now but I know they exist. Many of them exist.

FEMA's seismic data, showing "further collapse" every 15 minutes after both tower collapses, matching eyewitness reports of explosions about every 15 minutes:



I know you've seen all this before, but I think you intentionally forget it as part of some dissociative problem where you literally want to dissociate all of this from 9/11 completely. But you can't. It's documented fact to have been just as much part of that day as the plane impacts were.

Strange how he never mentions the boom boom boom right before the radio crackled with the shouts to get away.

Not so strange to me considering many people seem to knew that building was going to be brought down before it was, and there even being stories of radio countdowns. There are no two ways about it, if that building was demolished, someone would had to have known beforehand, ie the person who was actually in charge of bringing it down at the very least. That is infinitely more believable than to assume everyone there was psychic and predicted a 1st in human engineering history, based on no good indication other than the explosions, and Bartmer and NIST and many others are saying the debris damage wasn't even close to being able to do the job itself, the whole building wasn't leaning, etc.