Charlie Veitch - The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

This is the pic that makes me think there could be more going on than we know.

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
However, WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane so.........

WTC7 was hit by multiple pieces of burning debris from the other buildings, caught fire, and eventually collapsed after burning for many hours.

Look at the videos on YouTube and you will see the damage. It's extensive.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Yes, I am no expert, but that's the first building I've ever seen collapse due to fire.

Are you kidding me? So you've never even seen or heard of a house burning down?

I guess they didn't cover the burning of Washington at your school.

Maybe you can explain to a layman the reasons why it collapsed.

Huge damage from falling debris, and many hours of intense burning, as already stated.

edit on 29/5/13 by Sankari because: added url...

Are you kidding me? Comparing a house built of wood to a steel structure is asinine.

So in the history of the world, no steel structures have fallen from fires but yet 3 fall in 1 day. Yea that seems plausible to you. Let us not forget that the Twin Towers were built to withstand this very scenario. Fires do not cause buildings to fall at free fall speeds. At this point it doesn't matter because what's done is done but thinking it was a simple as 2 planes bringing down 3 buildings is why we have plenty of sand on this planet. We have enough for all the heads in it!

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Glad to see 911 still being talked about here.

Building 7 is the key to this lie told.

It does not take a civil engineer to understand that a burning steel building will not fall in PERFECT symetry at FREEFALL speed due to fire...

Except it didn't fall in perfect symmetry at freefall speed.

Originally posted by NONPOINT21
Fires do not cause buildings to fall at free fall speeds.

So, if the buildings fell at free fall speeds, how did the debris that was surrounding the buildings as they fell break the laws of physics and fall faster than free fall speeds?

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Glad to see 911 still being talked about here.

Building 7 is the key to this lie told.

It does not take a civil engineer to understand that a burning steel building will not fall in PERFECT symetry at FREEFALL speed due to fire...

Except it didn't fall in perfect symmetry at freefall speed.

Originally posted by NONPOINT21
Fires do not cause buildings to fall at free fall speeds.

So, if the buildings fell at free fall speeds, how did the debris that was surrounding the buildings as they fell break the laws of physics and fall faster than free fall speeds?

edit on 30-5-2013 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

Here, I'll clarify my position for you since you are going to to play the part of the anal-retentive. Building 7 fell like a controlled demolition. I saw it, and you saw the videos. There was no tipping over. It was a big building made of steel and made to withstand these kinds of fires and impacts. It may have fallen slightly slower that a peice of junk flying through the air, so not Exactly perfect freefall speed, but within a couple seconds of it. So most of us laymen still use the term freefall speed, because it was within a few seconds of that. If it had fallen in parts over minutes or hours, then we most certainly would not be discussing this right now.

12160.info...


Here is a compilation of people calling into CSPAN asking about building 7 and basically being blown off each time.

Not one informed response to people's questions.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by SirMike

 

The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was? The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

It's peculiar isn't it? This man all of a sudden changes his mind without explaining the reasons why? Don't you find that odd? No rhyme or reason? Oh of course you don't, just like you have accepted the NIST report on WTC7.

I accept the NIST report because as an engineer I understand the NIST report.

If you are an engineer then how could you not see all the contradictions that take place in the report?

This photo was taken after the collapse of the three buildings.

imgur.com...

The unmarked building near WTC 1 was hit by debris. Look at the size of the hole in the middle of the building. That is extensive damage. That building had to be taken down. It did not collapse.

www.greatbuildings.com...

I'll change my mind when the evidence contradicts my theory...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by RomeByFire
ArmChair University.

With a pinch of "Position of Authority" logical fallacies.

That guy is an engineer and so am I.

I said so, therefore, it's true. Matter of fact I'm the smartest engineer in the world.

I said that so it has to be true (no one would ever lie on the Internet).

You know that when you lie to try and promote a point, that it doesn't add to your credibility right? It's clear nobody can trust what you post because you're willing to post falsehoods in order to try and ruin someone elses credibility.

If this were done the other way around you'd call it criminal.

I lied? Where?

Also, what does your reply have to do with the thread?

Now you've got me posting off topic. Pretty sure I haven't even made a single word pertaining to my beliefs on 9/11 so it's rather conspicuous you would call me a liar.

Youre right, you don't know how I view these events but my viewpoint is surely held by falsehoods and I am a liar.

Originally posted by spooky24
Just because WTC 7 didn't fall the way some persons thought it should fall has no real bearing on the evidence, nor the plot, to attack America. If you will simply look to your left you can see Building 7, 14 minuets after the fall of the North Tower, as the diesel tanks-holding 160 gallons- (that supplied emergency generators) below the concourse ruptured and caught fire. This fire is burning out side the 14th floor of the building at a height of more than 50 feet. I just can't find a problem that this structure collapsed 5 1/2 hours later. If you can see, and argue a problem with this, go for it, however in the entire scheme of things it's irreverent. It changes nothing that the structure didn't fall the way you thought, or think, it should fall.

As soon as you can explain the BBC video stating that tower 7 fell an hour before it did then I'll take other arguments more seriously. the simple fact is that no matter what side you choose to believe the whole truth will never be revealed. it really boils down to if you trust a government or you don't. I would state that anyone that argues the side against the government's official story is ridiculed which should be pause for concern to anyone searching for the truth.

I have enough buddies who have served in the military (marines) in Iraq and I can tell you they fight for each other, not freedom! They are very mind fd after their experiences which I can't comprehend because I wasn't over there but can sympathize for how many soldiers suffer after these experiences they've told me about. The ones I know do not trust the government and don't regret the decision to be a marine but regret the orders they have to carry out to deepen the pockets of the men that they will never see.

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger

keep believing a report commissioned by the people accused of being involved.

So 9-11 truthers are such whackjobs that some of them sent Veitch emails with 'his sister's children in child porn photo overlays'.... does the OP have proof of this or is it just his way of trying to further slander the truth movement?

Because I have real proof of all the children the Bush crime family have turned into real violent 'porn'; tens of thousands of innocent children blown to bits as collateral damage in fighting the 'war on terror' that 9-11 was based on. All to make Bush's owners and handlers rich beyond the dreams of avarice and more...

I'll believe you people who believe the 9-11 fantasy OS are earnest and not just shills when you agree to a nonbiased investigation with legal power, in full view of the people of the world, under oath and with perjury punishable by the strictest of penalties, up to and including execution for war crimes and crimes against humanity (a crime Bush et al have already been found guilty of several times over).

Originally posted by Sankari
Watch this video.

Then this one.

You can show me all the videos you want, I don't need educating on this.

A 47 story steel framed building cannot land in it's own footprint, and have the outer walls sitting on top of it from asymmetrical damage and fires. That can only be done by implosion demolition.

WTC 7 did not slowly fall over, it collapsed instantly and vertically. If it had leaned in any one direction the rubble pile would reflect that, but it doesn't. Take note of the facade, how it is folded on top of the rubble pile...







There has never been a 47 story building imploded before because it is considered to be too risky, yet WTC 7 was a perfect example of what an implosion demolition is designed to do. Any demo company would have been proud of the results.

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble...

...Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [obviously they don't know fires and asymmetrical damage can do the same thing eh? ANOK]

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

How Building Implosions Work

If you can find a none-controlled collapse of a steel framed high-rise building that landed in it's footprint, then I will became an OSer.

Originally posted by spooky24
Just because WTC 7 didn't fall the way some persons thought it should fall has no real bearing on the evidence, nor the plot, to attack America. If you will simply look to your left you can see Building 7, 14 minuets after the fall of the North Tower, as the diesel tanks-holding 160 gallons- (that supplied emergency generators) below the concourse ruptured and caught fire.

But most of the fuel didn't burn...

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

This fire is burning out side the 14th floor of the building at a height of more than 50 feet. I just can't find a problem that this structure collapsed 5 1/2 hours later. If you can see, and argue a problem with this, go for it, however in the entire scheme of things it's irreverent. It changes nothing that the structure didn't fall the way you thought, or think, it should fall.

For a building to collapse instantly and vertically all the load bearing structure has to fail within seconds of each other. To get the center of the building to collapse first, allowing the outer walls to fold inwards, can only be done with timed explosives, implosion demolition.

Steel failure due to fire is not instant, and has never led to a complete vertical collapse. If it really collapsed from fire it would not have been complete and symmetrical. The outer facade most certainly would not be visible on top of the rubble pile.

reply to post by Sankari


Ya despite the fact that it wasn't as close to the twin towers as other buildings in the immediate vicinity that didn't collapse...riiight

Oh and the gold that was in the bottom of wtc 7 must have just evaporated too I suppose? What a bunch I BS.

A few things that seem to rarely be brought up in these discussions:

1. Who/what started the fires in Building 7? There was no fire in the buildings on either side, which were just as close to the collapses. There was first person testimony from Barry Jennings* that he had exited #7's offices within the first few hours and there were multiple explosions and dead bodies around that he had to step over (this is not common knowledge, nor is it acknowledged by the MSM which often states without being asked that 'no one died in building 7'. That in itself is suspect information given the chaos of the day. Considering the nature of some of the agencies that were in that building, it's not out of the realm of possibility that fires were set intentionally. If someone knows which exact offices were on fire and what agencies were in them in particular, that would be very enlightening. Please remember that numerous case files regarding Securities and Exchange Commission ongoing investigations were lost when the building collapsed, not to mention the Mayor's bunker, Secret Service offices, etc. That place was Spook Central.

* www.ae911truth.org...

2. Secondly, anomalous levels of radiation, primarily tritium, were found in the air and dust samples in the days afterwards. This is usually explained away when acknowledged at all as coming from 'emergency exit signs and smoke detectors' which is ludicrous. The levels far exceeded anything from those sources, even after dilution with millions of gallons of water poured on the fires down below.

3. The fires down below.... please explain how all this water didn't cool the sub-basements where it was hot enough for four months afterwards to melt steel. My own take on it after a lot of research is that it was residual fission from mini-nukes that were the main agent of destruction in at least the two towers. Nothing else explains the speed of destruction, the dustification of the concrete floor panels and office contents, the horizontal 50 mph hurling of massive beams outwards from the tower perimeters, the horseshoe beam or the 'meteorite', the intense heat described in the dust by persons that were blown down the road and burned by it, the reports of people being 'vaporized' at the time the buildings came down, the residual heat, etc... while thermite may have been used to cut beams especially in the basement areas to enhance the demolition, if those entire two towers were demolished only by thermite, they would have looked like the thermite videos do; an intense magnesium-flare white light, hissing noises and very little explosive power; certainly thermite doesn't continue to react for months afterwards. The towers would have looked more like the Eiffel Tower on New Year's Eve and less like a mushroom cloud bursting out of an aluminum -clad building, in other words. And does thermite explain the complete lack of office contents found in the debris pile? It wouldn't have affected items not right near the steel beams...

And just a note to the debunkers/skeptics: No, I won't do your research for you on these topics. Suffice to say I've run into quotes, anecdotes, etc., regarding all these topics. If you're truly interested in the truth and not simply one of the minions paid by the CIA and NSA to troll these boards and interject your nonsense to confuse people, you'll go off and look for yourself. Otherwise, congratulations on your easy job; I hope being a shill for the NWO is well-paying; what's the price on a soul these days?

reply to post by signalfire


Read Dr Judy Wood's material and watch her videos... workers were walking around in the lake of water on the debris site.... if it was really as hot as they claim then that water would be steam and or the firefighters would have been cooked in the extremely hot water. This is just one immense flaw in the supposed story.

reply to post by SirMike


Well I am going to go ahead and link to an actual intelligence officer who was warning of 9-11 long before it occurred who says that the buildings had explosives in them.

Having followed many of your posts I have noticed you are a fan of deferring to "officials" on the matter so this interview should leave you inclined to re-evaluate your opinion on the matter.

This woman was the first American charged after 9-11 as an Iraqi conspirator but had all charges dropped against her for the obvious reason that the official story is complete and utter BS.



Enjoy!

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


As a matter of fact the charges were not proceeded with because she was found mentally unfit to stand trial.

The judge referred to her "lengthy delusional history."

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

As a matter of fact the charges were not proceeded with because she was found mentally unfit to stand trial.

The judge referred to her "lengthy delusional history."

Well if you want to support the basket case theory it would fit like a glove considering her extensive employment by US government officials and their general incompetence.

She worked for Representative Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon (1993) and then Representative Ron Wyden, D-Oregon (1994) before joining the office of Senator Carol Moseley Braun, D-Illinois, where she worked as a press secretary and speech writer.[7][10] In 2003 she was working for Representative Zoe Lofgren, D-California.

Also the government essentially confirms her statement of having contacts with the Iraqi government by taking her to trial when she started speaking out about it.

A lengthy delusional history seems to fit right in with the CIA recruiting practices of the past as evidenced by the other CIA operations gone bust.

Another important issue not to be forgotten is that the administration was largely made up of the same people who conducted IranContra . . .

See Barry Seal


But it is standard practice to just label someone delusional and crazy to degrade credibility.

Desperate for cash he has sold the conspiracey community down the river. Obviously he was paid for the interview...


Here's the money shot...

Looking back, he describes the conspiracy community as an “evil-worshipping paranoia. As someone who’s been deep in it, and seen the hatred and the insanity, I think big terrorist attacks will come from conspiracy theorists.” He can envisage an assassination or a bombing carried out by a conspiracy believer who has lost all contact with reality.

Charlie knows how the press work and is aware of the agenda to make conspiracey theorist seem a danger and threat.

I think it's a weak move for him, I'm going to unsubscribe me thinks.