Tower 7 Collapse- 9/11- BBC2 Documentary

Smudgeyboy

It proves that obviously all you need to do is spray fields to stop poppy production. In 8years have they not only not made a dent, it's steadily increased.

It proves previous interest in poppy/opiate production by the U.S and U.K

It proves as the involvement of the U.S in Afghanistan goes up, so does the heroin output. This is all coming from the questionable events on 9/11.

How you monopolise drugs? Make them illegal.

Smudgeyboy

meglome wrote: »

Here's a question for you... there were somewhere between 3000 and 4000 aircraft in the skies over the US on 911 so how easy would it be to find 4 planes with their transponders turned off? And more importantly how quickly could it be done?

Given that they are huge airliners gone off course, and that's the function of NORAD, very easy.

King Mob

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Im sure you know about steel beams and columns, but I'm more inclined to believe demolition experts when asking 'is this a demolition?'

Maybe it didnt fall at free fall speed but it did fall at the same speed throughout. Another neccesary part of this, if it was a demolition, is the destruction of the middle of the building, in order for it to fall in on itself. This is present in the evidence.

I mean picture it, say the steel was weakened in the bottom left, the building would fall on the bottom left, with some the top steel structure probably intact on the ground, destroying buildings around it.

Instead, we have the kink in the middle, tidy implosion and the entire steel frame smouldering on the ground for days after.

And what if the steel was weakened in the middle or near enough to the middle?
And what about the fact the beams in the middle would have the heavier load?

Smudgeyboy

King Mob wrote: »

And what if the steel was weakened in the middle or near enough to the middle?
And what about the fact the beams in the middle would have the heavier load?

What about it? It still wouldnt all fall at the same time, nor would it all be completely destroyed.

meglome

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Given that they are huge airliners gone off course, and that's the function of NORAD, very easy.

The function of NORAD was to protect North America from outside threats, and more specially the old Soviet Union. You should try and at least get some of your facts straight.

meglome

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

What about it? It still wouldnt all fall at the same time, nor would it all be completely destroyed.

It didn't all fall at the same time, the penthouse section in the middle collapsed first taking the rest of the building with it. And again show me the examples of the buildings with the same design that were left to burn and didn't collapse?

King Mob

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

It proves that obviously all you need to do is spray fields to stop poppy production. In 8years have they not only not made a dent, it's steadily increased.

It proves previous interest in poppy/opiate production by the U.S and U.K

It proves as the involvement of the U.S in Afghanistan goes up, so does the heroin output. This is all coming from the questionable events on 9/11.

How you monopolise drugs? Make them illegal.

Because these poppy fields are so easy to find since Afghanistan is so small and the growers make no effort to camouflage the fields.
And it's not like the security forces have anything else to do , like fighting a war, that would stop them from using more resources to destroy the field. And it is certainly not because heroin production is a huge source of income for the Taliban.

None of what you said follows from "questionable events on 9/11."

Smudgeyboy

meglome wrote: »

The function of NORAD was to protect North America from outside threats,

So now it was an inside job? :rolleyes: The SU is irrelevant.

King Mob

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

What about it? It still wouldnt all fall at the same time, nor would it all be completely destroyed.

So a collapse in the middle from a demolition would destroy it completely. But any other kind of collapse in the middle wouldn't?
How do you know it wouldn't fall at the same time exactly?
Didn't you say you weren't an expert in demolitions?

Smudgeyboy

King Mob wrote: »

Because these poppy fields are so easy to find since Afghanistan is so small and the growers make no effort to camouflage the fields.
And it's not like the security forces have anything else to do , like fighting a war, that would stop them from using more resources to destroy the field. And it is certainly not because heroin production is a huge source of income for the Taliban.

None of what you said follows from "questionable events on 9/11."

So U.S invasion of Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11?

Do you have any idea of the technology and forces available to the U.S?
The goal of this war is to sustain it, keep it going, keep the debt to the Federal Reserve rising.

This is leading to the nationalisation of everything we are seeing in the U.S. The heroin is a bonus and excuse at the same time.

Smudgeyboy

King Mob wrote: »

So a collapse in the middle from a demolition would destroy it completely. But any other kind of collapse in the middle wouldn't?
How do you know it wouldn't fall at the same time exactly?
Didn't you say you weren't an expert in demolitions?

No I am not an expert, I have listened to experts talking on the subject and it has made sense to me.

You really dont need to be an expert, buildings are founded on the laws of gravity.


Look man, your hopping around the board jumping on everything I say, this is clearly not about what is true for you.

meglome

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Look man, your hopping around the board jumping on everything I say, this is clearly not about what is true for you.

It seems to me you're posting what you believe but not what you can prove. There's so much wrong with what you're posting that I'm not surprised you got some new 'fans'.

King Mob

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

So U.S invasion of Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11?

Do you have any idea of the technology and forces available to the U.S?
The goal of this war is to sustain it, keep it going, keep the debt to the Federal Reserve rising.

This is leading to the nationalisation of everything we are seeing in the U.S. The heroin is a bonus and excuse at the same time.

Strawman, I didn't say the invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11, I meant that the raise in opium production is not proof of a conspiracy.

Why the hell would the US want to put itself in more debt?

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

No I am not an expert, I have listened to experts talking on the subject and it has made sense to me.

You really dont need to be an expert, buildings are founded on the laws of gravity.


Look man, your hopping around the board jumping on everything I say, this is clearly not about what is true for you.

No you've listened to people who claim to be experts or people who don't know the actual evidence.

I'm beginning to doubt know even understand gravity, let alone material science.

I'm jumping on everything you say because it's based on wrong science poor evidence and even worse logic.

cooperguy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

No I am not an expert, I have listened to experts talking on the subject and it has made sense to me.

You really dont need to be an expert, buildings are founded on the laws of gravity.


Look man, your hopping around the board jumping on everything I say, this is clearly not about what is true for you.

Contrary to what you think its only a very small minority of experts who agree with your view on things. The evidence is stacked against you.

King Mob

from skeptoid
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
Can any believers argue against any of that without accusing him of being part of the conspiracy I wonder~?

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

I not only agree, I'd put it even more strongly....

Anyone who believes that bogeymen in a cave enacted the plan are complete raving lunatics.

Of course, thats not what the official account says in the first place, nor (I believe) what anyone here has ever argued, so I would argue that it is a straw-man.

If it wasn't cave boogeyman, then you believe it was one of his henchmen? Goldfinger or Oddjob perhaps?

It's not a strawman, as Bin-Laden was the man named as ultimately responsible for the attacks, and his shadowmen Al-CIAda.

Penn

irregardless of actual proof, it is completely illogical and damn near impossible for the buildings collapse to have been the result of a demolition. Any building undergoing demolition requires months of planning, preparing and setup. There would be thousands of wires all over the place, holes would need to have been drilled in most walls and floors, explosives would have to be set up at hundreds of strategic points throughout the buildings.

And you think they managed this without anybody noticing?

Also, I have seen interviews with several structural engineers. One of the towers was hit in the middle, the plane would have hit the central structure, which was then weakened by the jet fuel fire. Weakened, not melted. The second tower was hit at the corner, which was a more vital structural point and hit harder, as the first plane didnt hit the central structure as hard as the second hit the corner.

The second tower collapsed first. The top of the tower began to collapse into the corner that was hit, video evidence has shown the top leaning towards the damaged section. The overloading of which caused the entire building to collapse.

The first tower collapsed second, due to the fact the structure wasnt as damaged by the plane as the second tower. But the weakened central columns and the fact that the second tower had collapsed caused it to collapse.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

It's not a strawman, as Bin-Laden was the man named as ultimately responsible for the attacks,

Now we're getting somewhere.

Bin Laden was the man named as "ultimately responsible". He didn't enact them. He didn't even plan them. Its not even certain that he was required to approve the operation...but lets assume that he did. He was at the time (and presumably still is) the titular head of the organisation who carried them out.

The enactment was not carried out in caves. It was carried out - enacted - on board several planes.

The planning was not carried out in caves. It was mostly carried out in the US, mostly by the same people who subsequently enacted their plans.

Indeed, other than there presumably being a guy in a cave saying "I approve of this operation", the entire cave argument has nothing to do with anything. It certainly has nothing to do with the official account of what happened when big f'ing planes smacked into big f'ing buildings.

So tell me, Kernel...just what is it about caves that you believe prevents people in them from approving operations?

bonkey

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

It still wouldnt all fall at the same time,

According to the NIST report, it didn't all fall at the same time.

trentf

lol yeah the british brainwashing corporation ... i believe them it was around the time i see this little article on the bbc i knew where their loyalities are. Often you'll find illuminati propaganda presented to the general public as a sort of joke or in a joking fashion ala the below example, and using far off distant figures '100,000' years to hide what they really think of the current human underlings which they believe to be their to merely serve them. This article is tongue in cheek illuminati inside joking if you will only the joke is on the general population...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

this is a known fact of elitists plans with the modifying of food sources to the general populaiton..this is what these guys really think

King Mob

trentf wrote: »

lol yeah the british brainwashing corporation ... i believe them it was around the time i see this little article on the bbc i knew where their loyalities are. Often you'll find illuminati propaganda presented to the general public as a sort of joke or in a joking fashion ala the below example, and using far off distant figures '100,000' years to hide what they really think of the current human underlings which they believe to be their to merely serve them. This article is tongue in cheek illuminati inside joking if you will only the joke is on the general population...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

this is a known fact of elitists plans with the modifying of food sources to the general populaiton..this is what these guys really think

And what has this got to do about WTC7 exactly?

Do you have any evidence the BBC have ever published any fake stories on the order of the illuminati/jews/lizards?
Or do you just assume they do because your theory wouldn't work if they didn't?

OK-Cancel-Apply

I notice that the anti-conspiracy theorists are just as bad as the conspiracy theorists, and will latch onto the first 'explanation' that comes out, no matter how flimsy. They seem to have something invested in believing everything is exactly as is popularly believed.

I've never had any personal stake in believing one side or another, but the evidence seems to show that WTC7 came down by demolition. I don't know about the other buildings, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody admitted the demolition of 7 in years to come. I think Larry Silverstein came close to admitting it, before he was certain what the 'official' story was supposed to be (and there turned out to be none!). Of course, the anti-conspiracy people will say one of 2 things, "Oh he meant 'pull' the firemen out" or "he meant 'pull' the building down with cables".

Like I said before, if this was PROVEN to be a conspiracy, it would not surprise me in the least. After all, the Bush administration DID lie about WMD's etc... and conspire to launch their illegal war which killed over a million people.

meglome

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I notice that the anti-conspiracy theorists are just as bad as the conspiracy theorists, and will latch onto the first 'explanation' that comes out, no matter how flimsy. They seem to have something invested in believing everything is exactly as is popularly believed.

Absolutely not the case in here as far as I can see. I personally like things such as logic and evidence, and dare I say, some truth, something I find very lacking in the CT side of things.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I've never had any personal stake in believing one side or another, but the evidence seems to show that WTC7 came down by demolition. I don't know about the other buildings, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody admitted the demolition of 7 in years to come. I think Larry Silverstein came close to admitting it, before he was certain what the 'official' story was supposed to be (and there turned out to be none!). Of course, the anti-conspiracy people will say one of 2 things, "Oh he meant 'pull' the firemen out" or "he meant 'pull' the building down with cables".

Well state your case because all the evidence I've looked at doesn't show any evidence of controlled demolition. So let's see from your post...

1. Larry Silverstein is part of this massive diabolical conspiracy but manages to be stupid enough to almost admit it on national television? likelihood?
2. He originally said the 'pull it' line to the fire department, why would he be telling the firemen to demolish a building? Since when have Firemen ever been involved in or had knowledge of controlled demolition?
3. When has the phrase 'pull it' been shown to have ever been used with controlled demolition?
4. Where were the explosives and why did no one see them in a fully occupied building?
5. If it was cables then how do you pull down a 40 story building with cables without anyone seeing these huge cables and more that that how do you do it full stop? Where has it been done before on such a buliding?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Like I said before, if this was PROVEN to be a conspiracy, it would not surprise me in the least. After all, the Bush administration DID lie about WMD's etc... and conspire to launch their illegal war which killed over a million people.

So the American government lied about WMD's so that means by default they are responsible for one of the biggest conspiracies of all time. That's your logic?

OK-Cancel-Apply

meglome wrote: »

Well state your case because all the evidence I've looked at doesn't show any evidence of controlled demolition. So let's see from your post...

1. Larry Silverstein is part of this massive diabolical conspiracy but manages to be stupid enough to almost admit it on national television? likelihood?

You're not reading properly. I said that he could have let it slip, before he knew what the official explanation was going to be. After all, he didn't know the whole thing would be omitted from the official report, did he? Nothing to do with stupidity. "Diabolical" - And I see you're already using emotive language to subtly ridicule anything that goes against popular belief. Perhaps he alone was responsible for WTC7. Something to do with insurance? I don't know. We are talking, remember, about a man who tried claiming twice the compensation because of two separate planes.

1. He originally said the 'pull it' line to the fire department, why would he be telling the firemen to demolish a building? Since when have Firemen ever been involved in or had knowledge of controlled demolition?
2. When has the phrase 'pull it' been shown to have ever been used with controlled demolition?
3. Where were the explosives and why did no one see them in a fully occupied building?
4. If it was cables then how do you pull down a 40 story building with cables without anyone seeing these huge cables and more that that how do you do it full stop? Where has it been done before on such a buliding?

No no no no... It's the anti-conspiracy people who I've seen claim he meant 'pull' the building down with cables. That's one half of them. The other half claim he meant 'pull' the fire department out. I get the feeling that either you are barely skimming my posts, or you are trying to build up an early straw man.

I don't know what happened. But something obviously DID happen. I simply looked at the video and thought, 'Geeze, that looks like a classic demolition!' (Boom! Sagging middle, almost simultaneous structural failure).

If he didn't meant 'pull' the fire department out, what else could 'pull it' mean? When I saw the interview, the meaning seemed pretty clear! I can't cite more examples on the internet right now of the phrase being used for demolition, but it's hardly a stretch of the English language.

Look, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. That extraordinary claim is that WTC7 came straight down into dust due to fire.

It doesn't matter how many people believe it, or how gullible most people are, the nature of the claim remains the same. I personally find it shocking how most people can watch those videos and be satisfied that WTC7 came down like that by fire, especially when there is NO mention of it in the 911 commission report.

So the American government lied about WMD's so that means by default they are responsible for one of the biggest conspiracies of all time. That's your logic?

No, it isn't my logic. Maybe we should resume this discussion when we are all ready to be intellectually honest here.

King Mob

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

No no no no... It's the anti-conspiracy people who I've seen claim he meant 'pull' the building down with cables. That's one half of them. The other half claim he meant 'pull' the fire department out. I get the feeling that either you are barely skimming my posts, or you are trying to build up an early straw man.

If he didn't meant 'pull' the fire department out, what else could 'pull it' mean? When I saw the interview, the meaning seemed pretty clear! I can't cite more examples on the internet right now of the phrase being used for demolition, but it's hardly a stretch of the English language. I don't know what happened.

It is most likely that well he was talking to the firefighter and said "pull it" he was referring to the operation to save the buildings structure rather than demolishing it.
If if what ever reason he was referring to demolition why would he tell it to firefighters?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

But something obviously DID happen. I simply looked at the video and thought, 'Geeze, that looks like a classic demolition!' (Boom! Sagging middle, almost simultaneous structural failure).

Look, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. That extraordinary claim is that WTC7 came straight down into dust due to fire.

Well the thing is it didn't fall straight down to dust as evidenced by the video. It fell a good bit to the side. If you actually think about it, fire weakening many of the supports of the building leading to it's collapse isn't very far fetched. There is still the matter of the extraordinary claim that the building was prepared for a controlled demolition and no one noticing it.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many people believe it, or how gullible most people are, the nature of the claim remains the same. I personally find it shocking how most people can watch those videos and be satisfied that WTC7 came down like that by fire, especially when there is NO mention of it in the 911 commission report.

The reason that it wasn't mentioned by the 911 report was probably because it wasn't attacked directly and since no one actually died in it.

Remember saying you find it shocking is an argument from personal incredulity, unless of course you have some kind of relevant experience.

meglome

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You're not reading properly. I said that he could have let it slip, before he knew what the official explanation was going to be. After all, he didn't know the whole thing would be omitted from the official report, did he? Nothing to do with stupidity. "Diabolical" - And I see you're already using emotive language to subtly ridicule anything that goes against popular belief. Perhaps he alone was responsible for WTC7. Something to do with insurance? I don't know. We are talking, remember, about a man who tried claiming twice the compensation because of two separate planes.

If you want people to accept your point of view you need some sort of coherent hypotheses. Your feeling that it doesn't seem right won't necessarily mean anything to the rest of us. The insurance angle doesn't work when you look at the figures, which I don't have right now but I'm sure someone will produce them. Remember these building were full at the time. Does it not make sense that three buildings with the same design might collapse in a very similar manner after being structurally weakened?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

No no no no... It's the anti-conspiracy people who I've seen claim he meant 'pull' the building down with cables. That's one half of them. The other half claim he meant 'pull' the fire department out. I get the feeling that either you are barely skimming my posts, or you are trying to build up an early straw man.

I've never seen a debunker in here suggest that the building could have been taken down with cables, I personally don't see how's it's possible to pull down a 40 story building with cables or is there any evidence whatsoever for it. He told the fire-fighters to 'pull it', it seemed obvious to me at the time he meant pull out and stop trying to save the building, not that the fire-fighters are under his control in any way so it's a mute point.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Look, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. That extraordinary claim is that WTC7 came straight down into dust due to fire.

Given the unique design of these bulidings and given that the twin towers collapsed as well I would say it's not extraordinary at all, shocking yes. Show me an example of a building with this design that was left to burn that didn't collapse?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many people believe it, or how gullible most people are, the nature of the claim remains the same. I personally find it shocking how most people can watch those videos and be satisfied that WTC7 came down like that by fire, especially when there is NO mention of it in the 911 commission report.

The NIST report from this year says the building fell from fire. And if you look at the footage it seems to back that up. Gullible to me is people who take something as fact based on heresay and speculation, I like evidence.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

No, it isn't my logic. Maybe we should resume this discussion when we are all ready to be intellectually honest here.

I'm just trying to follow your logic which seems to me to have lots of true faith and not so much evidence.

OK-Cancel-Apply

meglome wrote: »

If you want people to accept your point of view you need some sort of coherent hypotheses. Your feeling that it doesn't seem right won't necessarily mean anything to the rest of us. The insurance angle doesn't work when you look at the figures, which I don't have right now but I'm sure someone will produce them. Remember these building were full at the time. Does it not make sense that three buildings with the same design might collapse in a very similar manner after being structurally weakened?

It's not up to me to form any kind of hypothesis. I'm simply asking questions. The answers just don't make much sense, which is worrying. Once again, we need to examine where the burden of proof lies. How bizzare would things have to get before more people ask these questions? If, say, a carpet in WTC4 caught fire and the building then collapsed straight down into dust, would you then demand a better explanation?

I've never seen a debunker in here suggest that the building could have been taken down with cables,

I didn't say 'here'. The internet is a big place you know.

I personally don't see how's it's possible to pull down a 40 story building with cables or is there any evidence whatsoever for it.

That makes two of us.

He told the fire-fighters to 'pull it', it seemed obvious to me at the time he meant pull out and stop trying to save the building, not that the fire-fighters are under his control in any way so it's a mute point.

Here's the actual quote:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The fire department commander on that day denies ever having that conversation with him. There is a video on youtube, where Larry Silverstein is confronted in public about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8

Given the unique design of these bulidings and given that the twin towers collapsed as well I would say it's not extraordinary at all, shocking yes. Show me an example of a building with this design that was left to burn that didn't collapse?

Aside from the fact that WTC1 and 2 were designed to withstand multiple impacts from 707's, WTC7 was a different design. WTC7 suffered no substantial impact, yet it too crumbled to the ground, supposedly due to fire. No building before or since has done this, despite some going up like torches.

The NIST report from this year says the building fell from fire. And if you look at the footage it seems to back that up. Gullible to me is people who take something as fact based on heresay and speculation, I like evidence.

In the vacuum left by a real explanation, of course 'fire' will be cited. WTC7 was still left out of the 9/11 commission report.

I'm just trying to follow your logic which seems to me to have lots of true faith and not so much evidence.

No, I research something thoroughly before forming even half an opinion on it.

bonkey

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Of course, the anti-conspiracy people will say one of 2 things, "Oh he meant 'pull' the firemen out" or "he meant 'pull' the building down with cables".

I've never heard them say the latter.

I've heard them point out that the only verifiable, widespread use of the term "pull" in terms of building demolition is to pull a building off-center with cables....and that they're pretty certain that's not what Silverstein meant.

But hey...if you've found an "anti conspiracy" person saying they think Silverstein meant "pull it with cables", I'll be the first to agree with you that said person hasn't a notion what they're on about.

Squeeonline

I was looking for somewhere to post this thinking there'd have to be a dedicated 9/11 thread on here but there isnt as far as I can see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1558669.stm

Interesting article. One of the "suspects" who was supposed to be on one of the planes, turned up alive and well in Morocco.

Mr Al-Shehri's case is not the first in which there has been apparent confusion as to the identities of the hijackers who commandeered the four planes on 11 September.

yet the list of "hijackers" has never been changed to this day. Its also funny how a lot of them were identified by passports or other ID that survived the explosions, yet not even the chairs of the planes or any luggage survived at the Pentagon.


Apologies for the bump. but i didnt think that this justified its own thread.

humanji

That was in 2001. The BBC and others who made the same report have since realised that it was a case of mistaken identity and apologised for the mistake.