WTC7 again.

[Kaishowing]

A conspiracy you mean?

If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.
I'm not saying if the clip is genuine or not, just that the days of 'the camera never lies' are far far behind us.

'Conspiracy' sounds so sinister, the definition from the dictionary is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons....where as hoax has a definition of: something intended to deceive or defraud.
Both words mean the same thing in broad terms, but each conjours up a very different image in the mind.

It's tough for conspiracy theorists not to go to town over 9/11 though, after the US authorities gave them so much ammunition by handling the entire episode with such incompetence. Add to that George W Gump as president, and you have theories coming from everyone and their brother!

Mind you, when you still have people claiming that 95 years ago the sinking of the Titanic was an elaborate conspiracy, then you realise that any distaster will have people willing to read far more into events than that's actually there.

Even supposing the theorists are correct.....have ANY of these major events ever been proven to be true conspiracy's?
I'm not talking about the joke stuff like the alien autopsy or Hitler's diaries, or even The Piltdown Man....But any of the BIG events??

Given the greedy nature of the global media at the moment, I would have thought that any scrap of REAL proof that would increase readership or boost ratings on TV would have been beamed around the world by now.

The best two at giving the public new possibilities to think about in recent years has to be Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.
Pehaps that's the good things about conspiracy theorists...They make us look at things in a different way, even if only to point out how wrong we think they are.

[MadPict]

Quite uncalled for I would've thought... especially from a moderator?

roy,
Here we go again - the old (and tired) issue of "you're not allowed to post because you have the word Moderator under your name" raises it's head again.
Last time I looked I was still a member of these forums and therefore free to post within the forum rules.
If I see a post which breaks forum rules or needs moderating then I will put my Mod hat on and deal.

I am entitled to my opinion and I will continue to post that opinion to whichever thread I wish. Be it adding to the thread about chloramine or the proliferation of wind farms. I have as much right to contribute to the discussion of topics as you or fred or anyone.
As long as I don't directly insult or abuse a member I cannot see the problem with my posts - I was the one being called "imature"(sic)...

[Rheghead]

On the video, the Empire state building is on the left and in the background and the highlighted building that we are led to believe is WTC7 is on the centre right but closer to the camera than the Empire state building. This makes me think that the clip was shot to the south of Ground zero. The smoke is clearly blowing in front of the ESB and behind the highlighted building.

However, all news reels that I have seen show the smoke blowing in a south easterly direction rather than the clip's westerly direction. Plus the smoke plume is much thicker and bigger on other footage than on this clip.

Also, is it me but can I see the stumps of two buildings to the left of the highlighted building?

[fred]

If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.

Well the hoax would have to involve a lot of people, the firm who owns the archive server that the footage has been sitting on would have to be involved, then the people who found the footage and the people who authenticated it and verified the timestamp. Starting to sound like a conspiracy to me.

[golach]

Mad Pict,
I go along with your theory, more than the conspiracy theory of Fred and his cronies.
And keep posting MP, you have every right to express your sensible opinions (no matter if you are a Moderator), as well as the IMO crackpots in here


The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

[MadPict]

Thanks Golach - I fully intend to keep posting.

BTW if you are interested (and for anyone else who feels the CTs are spouting twaddle) the WTC7 quote came from here -
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

[fred]

Is the presenter standing in front of a window, or is she in front of a blue screen with footage being played behind her? The obvious explanation would be that the footage shown is delayed...maybe because the BBC didnt want anything being shown live as happened when the 2nd tower was hit. As another poster mentioned, the BBC Conspiracy programme answered a lot of the questions the some people seem to have about the events of that day.

You mean they cherry picked a few of the wilder theories they could disprove and implied therefore all theories other than the official one are wrong.

Forget all the alterative theories, they don't matter, I just keep asking how the official explanation can possibly be true, it defies all logic, no one has explained any of the points I've raised. The speed and symetry of the collapse of the buildings, where the energy came from to melt steel and eject steel girders horizontally, where the energy came from to pulverise concrete.Now where the time machine came from for the BBC to know 20 minutes in advance not only that the building would collapse but how and why, the exact same story that would be the result of the official investigation years later.

You can watch the footage, you can hear the presenter saying how much time had elapsed since the initial attack, you can see the link mysteriously fade just before the building actually did collapse and now we find that the BBCs own archive footage of the event has mysteriously vanished, how convenient.

[chimo]

You mean they cherry picked a few of the wilder theories they could disprove and implied therefore all theories other than the official one are wrong.

Forget all the alterative theories, they don't matter, I just keep asking how the official explanation can possibly be true, it defies all logic, no one has explained any of the points I've raised. The speed and symetry of the collapse of the buildings, where the energy came from to melt steel and eject steel girders horizontally, where the energy came from to pulverise concrete.Now where the time machine came from for the BBC to know 20 minutes in advance not only that the building would collapse but how and why, the exact same story that would be the result of the official investigation years later.

You can watch the footage, you can hear the presenter saying how much time had elapsed since the initial attack, you can see the link mysteriously fade just before the building actually did collapse and now we find that the BBCs own archive footage of the event has mysteriously vanished, how convenient.

The programme didnt cherry pick anything, it went over a lot of different aspects and looked at it from different sides.

The building collapsed because 2 planes with lots of Jet fuel crashed into them; I dont see why that is so hard to believe. A lot of things can not be proved by theory, and I am sure no tests were ever carried out on 100 plus story buildings with planes crashing into them.

Almost all of the ideas that have been thrown up by conspiracy theorists seem to have be easily explained, and the only come back the theorists have is 'but it could'nt have happened like that, it just could'nt'.

[golach]

Dont hold your breath folks....but whats the betting that in the next few of Fred's posts, he will say its all a Zionist plot, to get us to attack Iraq, I eagerly awaiting his defence of Iran and that contries Nuclear saber rattling

[Rheghead]

I cannot believe this. Now you are up to it too. The post above is nothing more than trolling. You've contributed nothing to this thread except a pat on Madpicts heid and now you are insulting Fred? Unbelieveable.

I suppose insulting our intelligence is OK then?

[MadPict]

there is no reason to be insulting, especially here as a moderator of this forum.

Again that line.

I used the term "fredthread" in a lighthearted, affectionate way.

Am I not allowed to change my mind?

Now you're calling me a troll? Another insult...

...of which all were insulting and aimed at provoking other members which are trying to conversate about the topic of the thread.

All? Total untruth - you show me where I have actually insulted or provoked anyone trying to "conversate"(sic) on this topic?

Conversate? That's not a real word....

[Kaishowing]

.......and I am sure no tests were ever carried out on 100 plus story buildings with planes crashing into them.

Actually, following an aircraft hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, any new building was designed with this in mind. Couple that with the fact that the Twin Towers were also built to withstand heavy winds gusts at such altitudes, then you begin to see why alot of people just don't accept how they could fall so quickly.

[chimo]

Actually, following an aircraft hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, any new building was designed with this in mind. Couple that with the fact that the Twin Towers were also built to withstand heavy winds gusts at such altitudes, then you begin to see why alot of people just don't accept how they could fall so quickly.

The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it? I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say

[Kaishowing]

The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it? I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say

Of course...but don't you think that the test requirements evolved along with aircraft design? As the passenger jet was a common aircraft during the Twin Tower construction, the building design took that into account.
(incidentally it was 767's that hit the buildings)
Check it out yourself - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

[MadPict]

I wonder if that building indicated with an arrow as stillstanding is actually the building on Murray/W Broadway?

I have tried to indicate some buildings on this Google Map...

[Kaishowing]

This is my main problem. Yes, two large planes with full fuel tanks hit the buildings movin' out at a good speed. Obviously going to be some major damage. But, on the day I was shocked at the time between them getting hit and them collapsing. How long was it under an hour or thereabouts? I also don't see how it is possible they came straight down as they did. Each got hit from the side, that would make one think one side of the building was weaker than the other, surely, we would expect a partial collapse or topple effect?

Thats what shocked me too. They way they fell looked almost exactly like a controlled demolition of any building in a built up area....I would have expected whole city blocks surrounding the area to be destroyed, but it was quite surgical in effect.
I could accept one tower falling like that perhaps, just for the sake of freak luck, but both?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there are still questions about the tower's collapse that haven't been answered yet.

[changilass]

Daft question here:


Would it be possible that they were designed to collapse straight down in order to avoid damaging other buildings close by in the event of something going wrong.

Don't all jump down my throat, its just an idea

[webmannie]

Simple answer to this

The BBC have regular 'training' sessions for their presenters, using old news stories which they then have to cover as if it is 'live'. That is why the 'tone' is different and that it is not 'well known' presenters doing it.

[changilass]

The simple answers are always the best

[squidge]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I find these sorts of reports interesting too