PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

Originally posted by smurfy
It's on it at 2.33, # at the op's first post, check it out properly.

edit on 16-1-2012 by smurfy because: Correction.#

...Yes, I see it. So why do they snip off the penthouse collapse AGAIN on 2:22, and do it yet AGAIN at 2:48? As well as 3:01 as well as 3:09 as well as 4:00 as well as 4:05 and again at 5:52 as well as 5:58 and yet again at 6:02 as well as on and on and on...

He's cutting and pasting artificially edited video all over the place like it was his own personal plaything. There's one point when he even graphs the time of the collapse where he HAS to cut off the penthouse collapse specifically to falsely claim it fell free fall, becuase he doesn't want to include those six seconds.

Are you really denying he's intentionally doing this? I mean, really?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

You guys are crazy! WTC7 wasn't brought down by controlled demolition, fire brought it down! Fire is what caused the building to collapse symmetrically in a way that parallels demolitions, by symmetrically severing the core columns at the exact same moment to ensure symmetry.

And this happened on several floors, allowing the building to free-fall during it's collapse. Because fire is capable of doing that. If there's anything we know about fire, it's that it burns perfectly symmetrically. In fact, it's so predictable and uniform in it's damage, that it could caused several core columns to fail within less than a second of each other allowing the symmetry and free-fall. That's completely possible, and that's what happened. Just ask NIST, the mainstream media, and George Bush.

If you disagree with them, even if you're a structural engineer or high-rise architect with decades of experience, you're nothing more than a charlatan peddling conspiracy theories in order to fool gullible idiots into buying your film, because a career in architecture or engineering definitely doesn't pay good, so they need to make a couple hundred bucks for doing an interview.

And the BBC reporting it's collapse before it happened? That was just some confusion, that's all. They weren't handed a script that was read at the wrong time, because they were playing their role in the agenda, they were just confused, because it was a chaotic day. I know when I'm confused, I can accurately predict events that have never happened in history, such as steel-framed skyscrapers collapsing entirely from fire damage.

Those dozens of people who reported explosions, many of which explicity stated things like "I know what explosions sound like. It wasn't the sound of a building collapsing that I mistook for explosions, they were without a doubt explosions", are all lying. They just heard the building collapsing, that's all. 100 witnesses reporting the same thing, 200 witnesses, who cares. They're all wrong about hearing explosions, and me, one person, is right, and am in the position to tell all of them that they're incorrect.

edit on 16-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

and all the people that heard and videotaped Firefighters saying "bldg 7 is being pulled" are all lying too

reply to post by magicrat


Well here is the information I have on Wirt III. it will probly be shot down by the debunkers as a conspiracy site but here it is.

wikispooks.com...:Wirt_Walker,_Russell_and_Co,_CIA,_and_911

**sigh that link is not working. Might have to search his name on that site but it has the info.

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? And exactly what page will I find that gem in the Engineers Handbook of Controlled Demolition Signs?

C'mon Hooper are you serious lol? Do you ever think about this? What would they do to cause the building to fall inwards, drop the outer walls first lol?

There is no point when you are just trying to con people.

Who's conning who Hooper? Who has the most to gain, a bunch of citizens, or the government?

And? WTC 7 fell all over the place so I guess that proves it wasn't a controlled demolition.

The important point is the outer walls can be visibly seen on top of the rest of the collapsed building. There is only one way that can happen. If the collapse was natural, then the outer walls should have forced outwards, and the rest of the rubble would have fallen on top of them. For the walls to be on top of the debris means it had to have been controlled. The icing on the cake is that visually it perfectly mimicked an implosion demolition, from begging to end, anyone can observe this fact. The visual evidence perfectly fits the implosion hypothesis, along with the physics. You will not find ANY evidence that contradicts that fact.

Its called reality.

The reality you wish to believe, based on faith. I don't share your faith, I only look at facts mate.

Originally posted by SuperTripps
and all the people that heard and videotaped Firefighters saying "bldg 7 is being pulled" are all lying too

What videos?

I know firefighters said it was going to collapse, but 'pulled'?

Maybe you mean WTC 6?...

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... ... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”
Download the clip (1 MB)
America Rebuilds documentary, 41 minutes in

www.911myths.com...

Notice how the word 'pull' is used in context with demolition? Yes WTC 7 was also 'pulled'.

reply to post by WhereAreTheGoodguys
It looks well-sourced, but yeah, the "originally published by 911 blogger" at the beginning might turn some people off, sure. I'll give it a good read.

From a quick skim, I think this line from the first paragraph is important, and a better angle for research (in my opinion) than trying to prove family relationships:

Although Wirt and Marvin are distant relatives, these ties are inconsequential relative to each man’s family connections to old drug money, deep state operatives, and the wealthy, powerful people who have controlled such money and operatives over the last two centuries.

Thanks for the response and for linking your source.

reply to post by ANOK


Anok, re; Marvin Bush and Stratesec, there is some relevance here. The Stratesec section on Wiki had portions deleted and replaced with alternative information in the same area. That story was on ATS before by BoneZ I think, and someone also had the original text saved. It's not hard to see that Stratesec methods were underhand in some areas, not exactly Kosher.

just listen, seriously - listen:

CBS-Net Dub5 09

raw file:
www.megaupload.com...

reply to post by ANOK

C'mon Hooper are you serious lol? Do you ever think about this? What would they do to cause the building to fall inwards, drop the outer walls first lol?

Lets go, Anok, put your thinking cap on for a minute. If the building is buring ON THE INSIDE, as is obvious from all the photos and videos then the effect is the same. You're just making up a fantasy to cover over reality.

reply to post by hooper


Can you address how asymmetrical fires caused a symmetrical collapse, which would require symmetrical destruction of the core columns? Add to that the free-fall collapse as well, and the requirements are symmetrical failure of core columns within less than a second of each other on multiple floors. How does one core column failure cause that? It doesn't, explosives do.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Those who said it was fire cant explain how fire got from WTC to WTC7 so quickly and still be able to destroy it so violently. Many of you do not know that there were where some of the three letter agencies operating there at the time it was taken down.

While doing some family history research, I soon learned that Inconvenient records stored by our Gov often are destroyed in "the fire of 49" etc. War records paper trails of all kinds there were big fires in the storage areas, offices or warehouses. House cleaning....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by smurfy
It's on it at 2.33, # at the op's first post, check it out properly.

edit on 16-1-2012 by smurfy because: Correction.#

...Yes, I see it. So why do they snip off the penthouse collapse AGAIN on 2:22, and do it yet AGAIN at 2:48? As well as 3:01 as well as 3:09 as well as 4:00 as well as 4:05 and again at 5:52 as well as 5:58 and yet again at 6:02 as well as on and on and on...

He's cutting and pasting artificially edited video all over the place like it was his own personal plaything. There's one point when he even graphs the time of the collapse where he HAS to cut off the penthouse collapse specifically to falsely claim it fell free fall, becuase he doesn't want to include those six seconds.

Are you really denying he's intentionally doing this? I mean, really?

I'm afraid I need to use your whole quote, (Mods)

Some of the cut-offs are just used in simultaneous comparison with unrelated collapses that are known demolition, the graph one by David Chandler, ( from a news picture item) is already shown before with the penthouse in view, and the graph is extended above anyway, in all the penthouse is clearly visible in four or five pictures, the chandler graph video can be seen here,

www.youtube.com...

The penthouse view then is available to anyone, what you are doing is speculating and wrongly.

Originally posted by hooper
Lets go, Anok, put your thinking cap on for a minute. If the building is buring ON THE INSIDE, as is obvious from all the photos and videos then the effect is the same. You're just making up a fantasy to cover over reality.

Dude I think you need get yourself a new 'thinking hat', or change the batteries or something? Try banging it against the wall for awhile, take it off first. Oh wait I see the problem now, take it off first mate.

I don't know how to even reply to your garbage anymore. There is more to an implosion demolition than just dropping the penthouse. Fire is a slow process. If steel fails from heat it doesn't fail instantly. For a building to land mostly in it's own footprint takes timed explosives, and instant failure of columns in the correct order. One single mistake and the collapse fails. Yet WTC 7 was a perfect implosion demolition, as in all four outer walls landed on top of the rest of the collapsed building, the definition of 'in it's own footprint'. Fire could not be that lucky.



Funny how that one didn't continue crushing itself eh (WTC 1+2). Didn't NIST claim once initiated complete collapse is inevitable? Or was that only on 9/11/2001?

reply to post by ANOK

The icing on the cake is that visually it perfectly mimicked an implosion demolition, from begging to end, anyone can observe this fact.

Not according to Implosionworld.com. They have an article on wtc and all the reasons why it wasn't cd.

Page 3

ASSERTION #1 “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.” When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed.

and

ASSERTION #2 “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree.

This goes on for 12 pages.
These are the experts in cd.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"My problem is that he's been caught red handed altering his evidence to suit his tastes. Here is the complete video of the WTC 7 collapse-"
Says who that he is caught red handed?

"You'll notice that the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building some six seconds before the exterior did, and you can tell from the broken windows how far the floors collapsed. By the time the exterior collapsed the structure was largely hollow. Compare this to the videos Gage is showing, and you;ll notice he deliberately snips that whole Penthouse collapse off. He then goes on to claim... "

So a penthouse falling into a building takes out all the support columns all at on time and evenly to boot?

Must have been one hell of a heavy penthouse and covered the whole width and length of the building too?

"you used drivel off some damned fool conspiracy web site that you mindlessly quoted. You ain't exactly proving me wrong, guy. "

One of your favorite lines is this one, Dave can I ask you if this is not a some damned fool conspiracy web site?

"Not to mention, that every single one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites...and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE of them...hides the fact that when the north tower collapsed to destroyed the fire fighting water supply to the building from the street. Isn't it amazing they neglect to mention that this ALSO has never happened before in history? "


EVERY SINGLE ONE.......hmmmm and you are posting this information where?


"and instead we have a bunch of internet crackpots and con artists like Alex Jones, Richard Gage and Dylan Avery wasting our time arguing over this conspiracy baloney they're spreading on the internet. It's like ignoring who really might have killed JFK and instead trying to figure out how space aliens really did it."

Crackpots and con artists must be your crusade in life and I commend you for your dedication to the cause.

"Earth to wherearethegoodguys...Bush ain't president anymore. Obama is, and he doesn't take your 9/11 conspiracies any more seriously than I do."

For someone whom has posted 3,706 posts almost exclusively in 911 forum you have me convinced that you do not take this seriously at all :-)


"When I hear news stories about those orthodox idiots spitting on little girls because they're not following the established order of the religious dictatorship, I roll my eyes and think "there you go." If I was my daughter these punks were spitting on I'd take a baseball bat to them, rabbi or no rabbi."

I know you don't do those damn fool conspiracy sites but......I have never seen this mentioned on the MSM here in North Amercia.
Just where did you "hear of this horrible story"?

"You know they're just going to post something they got off some damned fool conspiracy web site, right? "

Wash and rinse and repeat as necessary till they believe the above statement which just so happens to come from a conspiracy web site......right?


"Technically, everyone here on this board likewise has ties to Hitler, al Qaida, and WTC security through five degrees of separation as well. You just need to find the correct five associations...but the relevency of the associations is of little importance when an agenda to instigate artificial public paranoia is at work."

And you are here to calm the masses before paranoia takes hold? I must say that Technically you are doing your job but you might want to use more credible data than that from those damn fool conspiracy sites.

"I don't know what video you're looking at"
This just after the fact Dave was just told exactly which video the poster was looking at......hmmmmmm hands on ears for Dave.

"If you want to wallow in conspiracy theories, be my guest, 'cause everyone needs a hobby."

This above quote is from Mr 3,706 posts and counting here on ATS. I think we know that Dave has a hobby and a very serious one too!


"Are you really denying he's intentionally doing this? I mean, really? "

How would the poster know if he is doing this intentionally or not??????? you think maybe people are mind readers? yet you post and post mind reading crap.

This is not meant to be a personal thing and if you take it as so I apologize for your discomfort.
I only am replying to your posts which in my opinion are designed to shut up people rather than to encourage them to ask questions without fear of ridicule.
I have lurked here for many years and have posted for a few years and this kind of attitude really stands out to me.
You are basically saying in not so many words that it is not ok to ask or question because it is a foolish thing to do and your sources are foolish.

I know this whole post is off topic, I felt it had to be said.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by hooper

 

Can you address how asymmetrical fires caused a symmetrical collapse, which would require symmetrical destruction of the core columns? Add to that the free-fall collapse as well, and the requirements are symmetrical failure of core columns within less than a second of each other on multiple floors. How does one core column failure cause that? It doesn't, explosives do.

Exactly, but we are making the cardinal mistake once again mea culpa, by responding to Hoop'n'Dave. I'm sorry I just forgot. In any case the whole point in the OP's references is that people want a proper investigation into all the anomalies, not just the collapses themselves, there are a multitude of 'peripheral' issues, (not really) that need to yet be addressed, and in certain official quarters, they would rather we argue about the who and why, and not the dead and dying. See the thing is, except for the capital cost of burying someone, there is no expense, a sick person, through no fault of their own, could costs millions. Makes me sick.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK

 

The icing on the cake is that visually it perfectly mimicked an implosion demolition, from begging to end, anyone can observe this fact.

Not according to Implosionworld.com. They have an article on wtc and all the reasons why it wasn't cd.

Page 3

ASSERTION #1 “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.” When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed.

and

ASSERTION #2 “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree.

This goes on for 12 pages.
These are the experts in cd.

Hmm yes and everyone claimed Popular Mechanics were also lol.

First off they claim the buildings followed the path of least resistance? How is down through itself, it's own resistance, the path of least resistance?

A tall building cannot be made to fall over like a tree? Are you kidding me? Whoever even said they should have? I think they fail to understand the arguments, or don't want to?

It's not how or when but where? Champions of the obvious I see.

It goes on for 12 pages of white wash. Just like PM, it is not in their best interest to claim anything else and they were probably pressured to say something .

Get a clue mate, and stop relying on authority to tell you what to think. Go learn a little about physics and engineering, then you can make up your own mind instead of using someone else's to try to tell me I'm wrong lol.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

C'mon Hooper are you serious lol? Do you ever think about this? What would they do to cause the building to fall inwards, drop the outer walls first lol?

Lets go, Anok, put your thinking cap on for a minute. If the building is buring ON THE INSIDE, as is obvious from all the photos and videos then the effect is the same. You're just making up a fantasy to cover over reality.

I'll forget the preliminaries, just to say that in most cases most buildings like the affected WTC buring/burn on the inside...it's true.

Get a clue mate, and stop relying on authority to tell you what to think. Go learn a little about physics and engineering, then you can make up your own mind instead of using someone else's to try to tell me I'm wrong

I think this summates the whole proposition right here. The Truther contends that all of the experts, knowledgeable professionals, and independent investigators using science properly-are ALL lying shills, either paid off or coerced into spinning a tale told to them by the evil shadow guvmint.

You want to think for yourselves? EDUCATE yourselves. Science, physics, history-they're all there for us to see, use, and understand...you can not take from one group and ignore the other.

reply to post by samkent


From that article:

And in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, and etc.

But as Richard Humenn, the Principal Chief Electrical Engineer for the World Trade Center Complex has explained, access to the elevator shafts provides access to the core columns.

They followed the path of least resistance

With very few exceptions, a tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree

But you're about to see images of buildings that actually collapsed towards the path of least resistance. In all of them the building for the most part retains it's original shape, and you can still tell what it looked like before the collapse.

I'll finish the rest of that paper later