WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Oxymoron]

No - not that I recall.

Given that the WTC walls were not actually knocked down by verinage (which demolishes a whole floor worth of walls at once) the compressed air inside the tower is going to exit the weakest point first - not everywhere all at once.

And IMO the localised puffs that do appear in various videos look exactly like that happening - they are a relatively long-lasting "jet", whereas demolition "squib" puffs are "explosive" - they happen all at once.

They are certainly too similar for me to make a definitive decision on at a personal level.

Further, squibs are SMALL explosives - they could not do much more than break a window in a large building, and cerainly not cut significant structural steel.

And yet squibs are used in demolition?

For moer in depth analysis of this damp squib nonsense see here.

Good link, thanks. Definitely thought provoking and the best rationalisation I have seen of that theory.

 

[SR1419]

Good link, thanks. Definitely thought provoking and the best rationalisation I have seen of that theory.

Interesting. I posted that very same link not 8 posts prior to that...guess you couldn't be bothered to look at the information.

I think Mike's characterization of a jet- a stream of material- is quite useful.

A bomb would look like - well- an explosion- an initial burst that quickly dissipates.

Clearly, very clearly, the material streams out like a jet- material forced out by continued and increasing pressure.

 

[Oxymoron]

Interesting. I posted that very same link not 8 posts prior to that...guess you couldn't be bothered to look at the information.

I think Mike's characterization of a jet- a stream of material- is quite useful.

A bomb would look like - well- an explosion- an initial burst that quickly dissipates.

Clearly, very clearly, the material streams out like a jet- material forced out by continued and increasing pressure.

Sorry about that. Was not that I couldn't be bothered but probably got distracted and thought I had read it when I hadn't. As I said very interesting and thanks for posting it.

 

[Chuck]

I'm now fairly convinced that WTC7 fell due to natural causes, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, here are a couple of vids challenging my conclusion. Any thoughts?

​

"Tom Sullivan used to work for Controlled Demolitions Inc. On 9/11 and everyday since, his experience with CDI tells him that controlled demolitions were used on 9/11 to demolish World Trade Center #1, #2 and 7. Mr. Sullivan recently found Richard Gage, AIA, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and backs them because they are working with the science of 9/11. More and more professionals are coming out publicly to expose the lies of 9/11, specifically that fire destroyed 3 skyscrapers to dust in New York. Keep up all the good work everyone; that goes to those of us on the street speaking truth to power, or those on the stage presenting the latest research."

​

This version will stay up, this one contains more info and notes to the debunkers who claimed that they "debunked" this info. This video answers how they could have rigged the towers easily and why jet-fuel and external damage can ever in a million years of jet-fuel fire cause even a partial collapse let alone an implosion. AE911truth - Experts Speak out explain it with actual science. Any "expert" that supports the official theory is either afraid for his life or career or believes that by supporting the government story he might be approached by shadow government agents and get paid for his "services". The last and most common is that people are psychologically handicapped and their brain will do anything and hold on to any pathetic argument that supports their worldview and nothing can change their mind. They always find an explanation no matter how outrageously stupid it is. An example: Jet-fuel caused all the secondary explosions that killed and wounded people and blew up the lobby and elevators throughout the pre-collapse time.

 

[Cairenn]

Do you have any idea of his position at the company doing controlled demolitions? Has anyone verified that he worked for them?

 

[Chuck]

Good call, Cairenn. Though it appears Sullivan actually worked for CDI, his testimony has some issues. Check this out and tell me what you think: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/major-problems-with-tom-sullivans-ae911truth-interview/

Here's some additional background on Sullivan. Apparently, he's not as advertised. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Tom_Sullivan

http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/07/the-poorly-scripted-cognitive-infiltration-of-ae911truth-and-tom-sullivan%E2%80%99s-lies-of-omission/

 

[Cairenn]

I love how when they fail to do their own homework, that they blame others for 'planting' someone as a 'disinformation agent'.

Why not do the RESEARCH first, before you post nonsense?

In my own debunking I have encountered the non expert 'expert' too many times. I check up on folks. Just last week, I found a guy that had created a FB page for someone and was posting as that person.

 

[Jazzy]

debunking9111.com is so self-obsessed with its stated 'goal' that they frequently employ inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out false statements

That must be easy to show. Why not pick the best of each type, and start threads on them?

 

[Jazzy]

Just last week, I found a guy that had created a FB page for someone and was posting as that person.

I've met every trick in the book. Even a YTsite named "jazzrocisaspook" where they worked out how many other people I was supposed to be. It's probably there still. Ha. It's been emptied.

 

[Oxymoron]

I'm now fairly convinced that WTC7 fell due to natural causes, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, here are a couple of vids challenging my conclusion. Any thoughts?

​

"Tom Sullivan used to work for Controlled Demolitions Inc. On 9/11 and everyday since, his experience with CDI tells him that controlled demolitions were used on 9/11 to demolish World Trade Center #1, #2 and 7. Mr. Sullivan recently found Richard Gage, AIA, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and backs them because they are working with the science of 9/11. More and more professionals are coming out publicly to expose the lies of 9/11, specifically that fire destroyed 3 skyscrapers to dust in New York. Keep up all the good work everyone; that goes to those of us on the street speaking truth to power, or those on the stage presenting the latest research."

​

This version will stay up, this one contains more info and notes to the debunkers who claimed that they "debunked" this info. This video answers how they could have rigged the towers easily and why jet-fuel and external damage can ever in a million years of jet-fuel fire cause even a partial collapse let alone an implosion. AE911truth - Experts Speak out explain it with actual science. Any "expert" that supports the official theory is either afraid for his life or career or believes that by supporting the government story he might be approached by shadow government agents and get paid for his "services". The last and most common is that people are psychologically handicapped and their brain will do anything and hold on to any pathetic argument that supports their worldview and nothing can change their mind. They always find an explanation no matter how outrageously stupid it is. An example: Jet-fuel caused all the secondary explosions that killed and wounded people and blew up the lobby and elevators throughout the pre-collapse time.

Here is another one... If this is genuine, it would leave no doubt that it was demolished. (after the BBC broadcast), It is supposed to be a video found on an old camera. Can anyone see any editing on it?

​

 

[George B]

Here is another one... If this is genuine, it would leave no doubt that it was demolished. (after the BBC broadcast), It is supposed to be a video found on an old camera. Can anyone see any editing on it?

​

If real . . . Impressive. . . .most impressive!!!!

 

[George B]

I don't think there is much possibility the video is real. . . .if it were the person releasing it would be dead and the video would already be off YouTube. . . .

 

[Chuck]

​
Here's another to add:

 

[Oxymoron]

​
Here's another to add:

Can someone please explain why at 4.15 or thereabouts, we have this really clear picture of wtc7 and then the rest of it is so grainy I can nearly see owls .

 

[Chuck]

Can someone please explain why at 4.15 or thereabouts, we have this really clear picture of wtc7 and then the rest of it is so grainy I can nearly see owls .

He was merely using a higher resolution photo to enable proper floor identification.

 

[Oxymoron]

He was merely using a higher resolution photo to enable proper floor identification.

I am sorry if I sound a bit picky but it does amaze me that with all these camera crews around that is the best video he can come up with to demonstrate with. I am sure I saw OBL waving from the top just before it went down

 

[Chuck]

[video=youtube_share;60A86cg16KQ]http://youtu.be/60A86cg16KQ[/video]
WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2

 

[Jazzy]

Here is another one... If this is genuine, it would leave no doubt that it was demolished. (after the BBC broadcast), It is supposed to be a video found on an old camera. Can anyone see any editing on it?

​

For a start, it's a MIRROR IMAGE.

Is it difficult to paint flashes? Where were the bangs that made the flashes?

WTC 7 was burning merrily at the time of its collapse, and had been doing so for seven hours. Conditions within it were like a furnace. How on earth was a tall structure built of slender columns and wide flat thin floors supposed to function as a furnace? There was hardly any brick...

Fake.

 

[Oxymoron]

For a start, it's a MIRROR IMAGE.

Is it difficult to paint flashes? Where were the bangs that made the flashes?

WTC 7 was burning merrily at the time of its collapse, and had been doing so for seven hours. Conditions within it were like a furnace. How on earth was a tall structure built of slender columns and wide flat thin floors supposed to function as a furnace? There was hardly any brick...

Fake.

Thanks. Is it definitely a mirror image though? Could it not be taken from the other side? I know that explanation is unlikely but I don't really know what the other side was supposed to look like.

I think it wouldn't be too hard to paint some flashes and add some sound effects, (like they did with the news on the day "OH MY GOD>>> OH MY GOD").

But anyone has to admit the footage of all those towers is of the absolute poorest quality... all the footage look like the 69 moon walks and fake OBL videos or highly dubious ufo's.

Was it really that difficult for the camera crews to take decent footage... I mean they knew 7 was coming down, even reported it down half an hour before. It should have been covered like a blockbuster movie event not deliberately faded out, pixilated rubbish and backgrounds colour washed and blurry. It should have been covered from every angle and reams of footage. Are ALL the news camera men really that completely incompetent. I think not

 

[Jazzy]

Thanks. Is it definitely a mirror image though? Could it not be taken from the other side? I know that explanation is unlikely but I don't really know what the other side was supposed to look like.

That would be through the smoke of the fire from downwind. So no, it cannot be from that side.

I think it wouldn't be too hard to paint some flashes and add some sound effects, (like they did with the news on the day "OH MY GOD>>> OH MY GOD").

Paint some flashes? No. That footage showed a whole lot more detail than that, which had to be in exact-same details and timing with many other videos. This one is merely altered original footage.

But anyone has to admit the footage of all those towers is of the absolute poorest quality... all the footage look like the 69 moon walks and fake OBL videos or highly dubious ufo's.

True. It's what gives truthers the latitude to fill in the gaps.

Was it really that difficult for the camera crews to take decent footage... I mean they knew 7 was coming down, even reported it down half an hour before. It should have been covered like a blockbuster movie event not deliberately faded out, pixilated rubbish and backgrounds colour washed and blurry. It should have been covered from every angle and reams of footage. Are ALL the news camera men really that completely incompetent. I think not

Yes. Everything was coated in dust, and there was smoke and dust in the air. Bright low-contrast conditions will generate readily-compressible electronic imaging. Information gets lost that way.

 

[Oxymoron]

That would be through the smoke of the fire from downwind. So no, it cannot be from that side.

I'll keep an open mind on that but thanks for your thoughts.

Yes. Everything was coated in dust, and there was smoke and dust in the air. Bright low-contrast conditions will generate readily-compressible electronic imaging. Information gets lost that way.

It would appear that way from the 'live' coverage. What about the 'fade to blacks' etc.

​

And yet there are 'real' pictures out there just look at the clarity of these pictures opposed to the 'live pictures' lol on 9/11. No disrespect but your above explanation does not cut it or how could these exist.

​

 

[Jazzy]

And yet there are 'real' pictures out there just look at the clarity of these pictures opposed to the 'live pictures' lol on 9/11. No disrespect but your above explanation does not cut it or how could these exist.

​

Which are perfectly as they should be.

Right now neither of the towers has collapsed, there is no dust, and the helicopter from which this footage was taken was upwind at 2,000 feet, and well above the haze of sea and city. The air is very clear here.

That was a discussion on the still picture.

The video is garbage. A plane the weight of the 767 doing 500+ mph would pass through a line of box columns made of 5/16" thick steel like a knife through butter. It wouldn't have looked good afterwards (in fact it was instantly slashed to ribbons*) but the steel would be G - O - N - E. The floors acted like knives, slicing the plane into floor-sized sections, but still photos show that the floors were abraded back from the outside of the tower by several feet.

Wreckage is seen leaving the towers at the far side from the impact. Why would anybody say there was no wreckage, when you can plainly see it on the video?

* A "ribbon" of a plane was found on the roof of an adjoining building, along with human body parts.

 

[Oxymoron]

Which are perfectly as they should be.

Right now neither of the towers has collapsed, there is no dust, and the helicopter from which this footage was taken was upwind at 2,000 feet, and well above the haze of sea and city. The air is very clear here.

That was a discussion on the still picture.

Now come on Jazzy, don't obfuscate... you know perfectly well that my point is valid and evident in the greatest clarity, (and greatest unclarity).

The live feeds were/are a joke... This is the 'News' and they present it like this!!!... how much editing dit it take to grey everything out and make it look like a live feed from the moon in 1969... which was a joke even then.

We are not talking about 'a picture' v 'live feed video', look at the clarity of the last video. Why would CNN, ABC et al 'fuzz' everything up, hide impacts with banners and 'fade to black'. Anyone with eyes and an IQ over 50 can see this was deliberate.

The video is garbage. A plane the weight of the 767 doing 500+ mph would pass through a line of box columns made of 5/16" thick steel like a knife through butter. It wouldn't have looked good afterwards (in fact it was instantly slashed to ribbons*) but the steel would be G - O - N - E. The floors acted like knives, slicing the plane into floor-sized sections, but still photos show that the floors were abraded back from the outside of the tower by several feet.

Wreckage is seen leaving the towers at the far side from the impact. Why would anybody say there was no wreckage, when you can plainly see it on the video?

* A "ribbon" of a plane was found on the roof of an adjoining building, along with human body parts.

That's your view but I cannot agree. Last I checked if I hit an object with something softer than the object, the softer object loses.

So yes, as the plane entered the resistance would be overcome... until it reached the core... then the core wins hands down. Substantial wreckage should have ensued as per Empire State.

Ok, am I insinuating a plane did not hit?

No, all I am saying is the OS doesn't add up and there was a deliberate obfuscation by way of video editing and one has to wonder why?

When you refer to 'human body parts' being found I take it you are referring to the 'nothing greater than half inch bone fragments'. Just trying to be factual and there is no nice way of saying it.

 

[Cairenn]

Not always---

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/wea00226.htm

I have seen multiple pictures after tornadoes of softer materials driven into harder ones.

I know that there is a theory that the low pressure of a tornado 'opens up' the tree or telephone pole. I believe this has been disproved. (The roofs blown off without the tornado touching a house, now seem to be a factor of attached garages and the garage door, blowing in that the wind then lifting the roof from the inside)

 

[Oxymoron]

Not always---

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/wea00226.htm

I have seen multiple pictures after tornadoes of softer materials driven into harder ones.

I know that there is a theory that the low pressure of a tornado 'opens up' the tree or telephone pole. I believe this has been disproved. (The roofs blown off without the tornado touching a house, now seem to be a factor of attached garages and the garage door, blowing in that the wind then lifting the roof from the inside)

If you have seen multiple pictures... I would have thought you could come up with a better example. That hit edge on into a crack and probably at low impact or could have even been placed as a joke.

I marvel at the way your standards for evidence fluctuate.

Do you have any pictures of light aluminium imbedded in solid steel?

And why not comment on the absurdity of the 'News' coverage and quality of video?

 

[Jazzy]

all I am saying is the OS doesn't add up.

And all I am saying is that things do not add up to an innumerate.

Correct yourself. It's all within your powers to do so. Go and study energetic impacts. Try out some numbers.

The impact energy of a 160,000 pound aircraft traveling at 800 feet per second is? Best convert to kilograms and meters per second - 0.5m*v^2 gives you Joules.

You'll find that's about the equivalent of 1.5 tons of TNT. That's the energy available at the contact area (between plane and column) as they touched. Here's slightly less:

[video=youtube_share;FAYVMXYYAp4]http://youtu.be/FAYVMXYYAp4[/video]

Do you have any pictures of light aluminium imbedded in solid steel?

You won't find that at speeds less than supersonic (in the case of a bullet passing through a steel plate. But this is a massive aircraft passing through finely-constructed steel only 5/16" thick). Also aircraft duralumin is NOT "light aluminum". It's an alloy of copper and aluminum which is a little denser than pure aluminum and yet very nearly as strong as steel.

You aren't being very clever here. People with greater experience than you should be listened to and not disregarded. How does one educate oneself? The answer is badly.

 

[Cairenn]

Because I don't have time this morning. That picture showed up quickly or a creditable site. I shouldn't have even turned the computer on. I have a major show this weekend and will not be on much.

If you want to do some research, look for the tests that they do for certifying a building material for tornadoes. I have seen them shooting 2x4s from an air cannon at a concrete wall, or a brickwall over a wood frame. When one lives in tornado alley you pay attention to such things.

They have been working on developing a method to strengthen a closet or an interior bathroom. In some areas, like the DFW area, there are no basements and storm shelters are not always practical to build (my home is only some 3-4 ft above the bedrock---no in ground swimming pools around here)

 

[Oxymoron]

And all I am saying is that things do not add up to an innumerate.

Correct yourself. It's all within your powers to do so. Go and study energetic impacts. Try out some numbers.

The impact energy of a 160,000 pound aircraft traveling at 800 feet per second is? Best convert to kilograms and meters per second - 0.5m*v^2 gives you Joules.

You'll find that's about the equivalent of 1.5 tons of TNT. That's the energy available at the contact area (between plane and column) as they touched. Here's slightly less:

You won't find that at speeds less than supersonic (in the case of a bullet passing through a steel plate. But this is a massive aircraft passing through finely-constructed steel only 5/16" thick). Also aircraft duralumin is NOT "light aluminum". It's an alloy of copper and aluminum which is a little denser than pure aluminum and yet very nearly as strong as steel.

You aren't being very clever here. People with greater experience than you should be listened to and not disregarded. How does one educate oneself? The answer is badly.

I am always happy to listen to those with greater knowledge or experience... just they seem often to disagree amongst themselves. Now which one should I listen to... NIST maybe?

Ok, obfuscate away. If you cannot provide a rational explanation for the abysmal quality of the 'news real footage and the inexplicable fade to black and covering with logos'... who am i to criticise ... I can't explain it either

I didn't know the core was constructed from 5/16" thick steel... don't think many others realise that either. Can you back that up?

 

[Cairenn]

One thing to think about is that many of the folks shooting those news videos, may well have had family, friends and neighbors in the twin towers. Newsmen often cover stories where they have to fight their own emotions. If you add in the difficulty of shooting from a copter, and more than likely, having to dodge other copters, there are a lot of valid reasons for poor quality videos.

 

[Oxymoron]

One thing to think about is that many of the folks shooting those news videos, may well have had family, friends and neighbors in the twin towers. Newsmen often cover stories where they have to fight their own emotions. If you add in the difficulty of shooting from a copter, and more than likely, having to dodge other copters, there are a lot of valid reasons for poor quality videos.

LOL... I've now heard it all! Talk about deny at all costs.

And that affects the quality of the film and turns a sunny day into a grey out how?

 

[Jazzy]

I am always happy to listen to those with greater knowledge or experience... just they seem often to disagree amongst themselves. Now which one should I listen to... NIST maybe?

I don't disagree with NIST, except with their tendency to be too terse.

Ok, obfuscate away.

I don't obfuscate. If my explanation leaves you confused then your confusion is a measure of your lack of understanding.

If you cannot provide a rational explanation for the abysmal quality of the 'news real footage

But I did provide a rational explanation.

and the inexplicable fade to black and covering with logos'... who am i to criticise ... I can't explain it either

Wasn't the "fade to black" another view of the same event already covered in the video above? Then it is irrelevant, is it not? Why are you bothered by irrelevancies?

I didn't know the core was constructed from 5/16" thick steel... don't think many others realise that either. Can you back that up?

The external columns were 5/16' thick at that height (WTC 1*). The internal columns were thicker. It's all on record. Search it yourself.

Parts of the planes cut through the opposite ends of the towers. There was no way the engines and undercarriage would end out in the streets without striking core columns, and yet they got beyond them.

* WTC 2 was struck lower down where the steel was proportionately thicker. At the base the thickness was 4". But that isn't where the planes struck.

 

[Oxymoron]

I don't disagree with NIST, except with their tendency to be too terse.


I don't obfuscate. If my explanation leaves you confused then your confusion is a measure of your lack of understanding.

Oh of course... the fault is never yours, always someone else's.

But I did provide a rational explanation.

Oh, I must have missed it... my fault I suppose. Was it in invisible font?

Wasn't the "fade to black" another view of the same event already covered in the video above? Then it is irrelevant, is it not? Why are you bothered by irrelevancies?

No... and yes it is highly relevant. But then I am sure you realise that really.

The external columns were 5/16' thick at that height (WTC 2). The internal columns were thicker. It's all on record. Search it yourself.

That's the Jazzy I know... "it's on the web"

Parts of the planes cut through the opposite ends of the towers. There was no way the engines and undercarriage would end out in the streets without striking core columns, and yet they got beyond them.

Yep amazing the towers stood after the plane took out that flimsy core

 

[Chuck]

I am not a debunker although I have believed a whole lot of bunk. What concerns me as I've watched this discussion unravel, is the "I'll throw as much mud against the wall as I can find, believing that some will stick" mentality. Oxy, if you actually believe that real planes hit the twin towers, why belabor the point of poor quality news feeds that are in direct contradiction to your own views? What relevance does poor video footage have if you believe planes really hit those towers?

This is the common thread of the truth movement. Throw as many incredible theories against the wall expecting that in the end, one conspiracy theory will stick. It doesn't even matter if any of them can individually stand scrutiny because the sum of the parts is greater than the individual theories themselves.

The 9/11 truth movement is all over the place. Some swear that the networks were part of this grand illusion as the "Fake Planes" video attempted to prove, while others believe varying fragments of that story i.e. that there was little wreckage and only bone fragments of bodies found.

As a former card carrying 9/11 truther who believed that 9/11 was an inside job; Sandy Hook was a false flag hoax; that we didn't land on the moon; that the NWO is trying to decrease developed nations population through chemtrails, GMO's and vaccination programs etc., I began to see that I was becoming so irrational that I believed opposing views of the same story. On the one hand I didn't believe that planes hit the towers or the Pentagon, nor did a plane crash in that PA field, and yet on the other hand I believed that the planes that hit the twin towers could not have caused the collapses. In other words, I had all angles covered with the belief that one of them was true. This is ludicrous.

Yes, I am incriminating myself as a temporary fool, but that's the point. There's a level of schizophrenia that is built into the conspiracy equation. The thought process is convoluted. How could I applaud the video shown above "proving" that no planes hit the towers and yet believe that they did hit the towers but could not have precipitated the collapse?

The answer is simple. Instead of attempting to prove each theory and let it stand on its own merit, I believed the sum of the theories by virtue of the sheer number of the possibilities. I never even considered that, amidst all the evidence, that each conspiracy theory could in fact be false.

Oxy, why is the "fade to black" in that video feed relevant if the plane actually hit the tower? Listen, I think building 7 is the one that's being questioned here, so can't we stick to that? The video "If this does not get through to you nothing will" was supposedly proof that WTC7's collapse was due to controlled detonation/demolition. I've watched that video numerous times and looked for others like it. There are none.

Can we determine first of all, if this is a mirror image (since the penthouse is shown on the right but in all others the penthouse is on the left)




And second, were the detonations added? They look fake and the sound could be easily added, but I'm not a video expert. It would be far more believable if this video was of the rear of the building (south side) where the damage was far more visible. I've not seen one video from the south side of WTC7. This would be the only one. And I also find it odd that it would be buried at the end of another video if it proved conclusively that detonations were both seen and heard. I've heard no such sounds from any of the other videos.

So can we please stick to WTC7. In my view, this is the centerpiece of the 9/11 truth movement. This is the one that swayed me and many others to believe that the whole thing was a grand conspiracy of the US govt.

 

[Jazzy]

Oh of course... the fault is never yours, always someone else's.

In this particular case my explanation leaves you confused and your confusion is a measure of your lack of understanding.

Oh, I must have missed it... my fault I suppose. Was it in invisible font?

No.108: "Everything was coated in dust, and there was smoke and dust in the air. Bright low-contrast conditions will generate readily-compressible electronic imaging. Information gets lost that way."

it is highly relevant. But then I am sure you realise that really.

It's irrelevant because the timing, video timestamps, and progression agree between the two viewpoints. One you claim to be faked beforehand, the other captured by the helicopter live at the scene, both agreeing? That cannot be. I know which interpretation I'd pitch for, even if it inevitably proves you non compus.

That's the Jazzy I know... "it's on the web"

I always worked hard for everything I earned. It's time you learned something. I don't care if you don't look. It's your mess.

Yep amazing the towers stood after the plane took out that flimsy core

That's not what I wrote, is it? How can you eat your pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

[Oxymoron]

No.108: "Everything was coated in dust, and there was smoke and dust in the air. Bright low-contrast conditions will generate readily-compressible electronic imaging. Information gets lost that way."

And that cannot be true due to the existence of of high quality video such as I posted.

You respond asininely with... 'oh the towers were still standing then' leaving me to decide whether you are being deliberately obtuse or incredibly stupid as the towers were quite obviously and blatantly 'still standing throughout the grainy colour washed and backgroundless live feeds' as well. Why would a news station cover up the impacts with fade to blacks or logos.

I don't know what it means but it sure as hell does not make sense to me, which is why I asked.

I am simply asking a perfectly logical and reasonable question... why were those pictures... taken by experienced cameramen with state of the art equipment... so bad when 'other' footage was 'normal' as you would expect. And 'oh they were upset' doesn't cut it either.

 

[Oxymoron]

I am not a debunker although I have believed a whole lot of bunk. What concerns me as I've watched this discussion unravel, is the "I'll throw as much mud against the wall as I can find, believing that some will stick" mentality. Oxy, if you actually believe that real planes hit the twin towers, why belabor the point of poor quality news feeds that are in direct contradiction to your own views? What relevance does poor video footage have if you believe planes really hit those towers?

Firstly, thank you for such a reasoned and IMO balanced post. I am interested in how you transitioned to accepting the OS.

You are not alone in believing bunk. Every person on the planet has swallowed plenty in their time, no matter what they believe.

It's quite simple I know Bush & co were involved... the only question is to what extent and that may never come out.

The poor quality and dubious editing of the footage which was played worlwide and over and over and over again is, as you say, a bit off topic but I thought it appropriate to raise due to the similarly poor quality of the video you posted which someone was using to demonstrate 'in a scientific manner', how the collapse of 7 occurred. NIST, Mick and Jazzy claim it collapsed internally due to one support failing, leaving a skin which fell in near free fall.

One it should not have fallen at all and remains to this date as unique in being the only steel framed structure to totally collapse due to fire.

You can argue 'oh it was near twice free fall' if you like but as it only took seconds anyway, it hardly matters.... it did not fall in stages... it did not topple... one side did not fall followed by another etc etc.

Anyway, I find it incredible that people are using such poor quality video to try to back up their argument as what anyone can see on it is so distorted you can interpret it virtually how you like.

This is the common thread of the truth movement. Throw as many incredible theories against the wall expecting that in the end, one conspiracy theory will stick. It doesn't even matter if any of them can individually stand scrutiny because the sum of the parts is greater than the individual theories themselves.

The 9/11 truth movement is all over the place. Some swear that the networks were part of this grand illusion as the "Fake Planes" video attempted to prove, while others believe varying fragments of that story i.e. that there was little wreckage and only bone fragments of bodies found.

Some believe this and others believe that and some just plain don't know but they do know it stinks.

If I see someone make an elephant disappear before my eyes, I probably will not be able to work out how they did it but I will know that it isn't real.

As a former card carrying 9/11 truther who believed that 9/11 was an inside job; Sandy Hook was a false flag hoax; that we didn't land on the moon; that the NWO is trying to decrease developed nations population through chemtrails, GMO's and vaccination programs etc., I began to see that I was becoming so irrational that I believed opposing views of the same story. On the one hand I didn't believe that planes hit the towers or the Pentagon, nor did a plane crash in that PA field, and yet on the other hand I believed that the planes that hit the twin towers could not have caused the collapses. In other words, I had all angles covered with the belief that one of them was true. This is ludicrous.

I am having a little trouble with this section... it sounds as if you only very very recently stopped believing in CT's.

Yes, I am incriminating myself as a temporary fool, but that's the point. There's a level of schizophrenia that is built into the conspiracy equation. The thought process is convoluted. How could I applaud the video shown above "proving" that no planes hit the towers and yet believe that they did hit the towers but could not have precipitated the collapse?

The answer is simple. Instead of attempting to prove each theory and let it stand on its own merit, I believed the sum of the theories by virtue of the sheer number of the possibilities. I never even considered that, amidst all the evidence, that each conspiracy theory could in fact be false.

I think I covered that with the elephant.

Oxy, why is the "fade to black" in that video feed relevant if the plane actually hit the tower? Listen, I think building 7 is the one that's being questioned here, so can't we stick to that? The video "If this does not get through to you nothing will" was supposedly proof that WTC7's collapse was due to controlled detonation/demolition. I've watched that video numerous times and looked for others like it. There are none.

I think it quite possibly is fake... which is why I posted it to see if anyone better qualified and more knowledgeable than I could shed any light on it... if it was layered or anything, I don't know, I am not into grphics and morphing so have no idea on it.

Can we determine first of all, if this is a mirror image (since the penthouse is shown on the right but in all others the penthouse is on the left)

That would be a step in the right direction if we could determine if it is a mirror image or not.

And second, were the detonations added? They look fake and the sound could be easily added, but I'm not a video expert. It would be far more believable if this video was of the rear of the building (south side) where the damage was far more visible. I've not seen one video from the south side of WTC7. This would be the only one. And I also find it odd that it would be buried at the end of another video if it proved conclusively that detonations were both seen and heard. I've heard no such sounds from any of the other videos.

But don't you think it very strange there is no video of the collapse from the other side? Cameramen must have been jostling to get the best views... that's their job.

So can we please stick to WTC7. In my view, this is the centerpiece of the 9/11 truth movement. This is the one that swayed me and many others to believe that the whole thing was a grand conspiracy of the US govt.

I am happy to stay on topic

 

[SR1419]

why were those pictures... taken by experienced cameramen with state of the art equipment...

How do you know what equipment they used?

How do you the angles of viewing, direction of sun etc...didn't effect quality?

 

[SR1419]

I think it quite possibly is fake... I don't know, I...have no idea on it

So, you admit you haven't a clue...and yet think its fake.

Interesting.

 

[Mick West]

Here is another one... If this is genuine, it would leave no doubt that it was demolished. (after the BBC broadcast), It is supposed to be a video found on an old camera. Can anyone see any editing on it?

​

That was a fake video made about 18 months ago by Edward Current:

​

 

[Cairenn]

I think that there is a lot more reports done in front of a blue screen that we often realize.

Some years ago, I was watching the local news because we had tornadic storms in the area. The weatherman, went to a view from one of the tower cams, to look at a storm on the northern border of Ft. Worth. The tower was on the south west edge of the downtown area. They cut to it and he kept discussing the wall cloud on the north side. It was obvious that he was NOT seeing current footage from the tower cam, because it was showing 'up close and personal' views of a tornado, complete with the circling debris. I felt sorry for him.

Now that was not in on a crazy, confusing day, like 9/11. I remember several reports of bombs going off where they never did. Folks were not taking the time to fact check, the news was raw and sometimes that means incorrect