Large Context 29 Minute Video:
Short Clip - LARRY SILVERSTEIN admits new WTC7 was designed in 2000:
Related:
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the "Pull it" comment
2,491 Architects and Engineers Challenge... by debunkerbuster
13-City Pacific Northwest Film Tour - Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose 9/11 Myths
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Showing posts with label wtc 7. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wtc 7. Show all posts
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Saturday, March 5, 2016
KenFM Face to Face: Richard Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth)
This is a very professional and good interview with Richard Gage. Those of us who have heard more than a few Gage interviews before will know the first section almost by heart. That said, he has refined his talking points a good deal, especially regarding WTC 7 and the "silent explosions" objection fueled by the so-called debunkers.
KenFM Face to Face: Richard Gage (Architects... by debunkerbuster
Friday, July 24, 2015
NIST Video Deceit
by Miragememories » Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:00 pm
the911forum.freeforums.org
Did the NIST, after many years of intensive investigation, with the benefit of all its resources and major funding, perform due diligence in their pursuit of answering the question;
WHY DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE?
After combining their years of engineering research with an analysis the day’s events, was the NIST honest or deceitful in the completeness of their final determinations?
The NIST, through their spokesperson, lead investigator, Shyam Sundar, at a 2008 press conference announcing the conclusion of the WTC 7 investigation, uncompromisingly stated that; “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery”, and that the NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.”
Dr. Sundar, did admit that his organization had a very difficult time finding an engineering hypothesis to explain what occurred at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 to WTC 7.
Given the length of the investigation, the wealth of human resources committed to it, and the degree of difficulty understanding the mechanism behind the total structural failure of WTC 7, it is reasonable to expect that all data pertaining to the building’s structural status for its last remaining hour, would be subject to the most intensive, careful, and methodical engineering scrutiny.
The published evidence shows that the NIST’s primary focus was directed at finding support for their column 79 buckling hypothesis, while dispelling contradictory evidence as lacking sufficient credibility to warrant further investigation.
Case in point, involves the observed activity from northwest face windows on the 13th floor of WTC 7 just prior to its complete collapse.
The NIST hypothesis is anchored in the northeast, where they believe column 79 at the 13th floor lost its lateral support, buckled, and revealed its failure through the visible collapse of the east penthouse.
In passing, the NIST in their final report acknowledged some unexplained activity occurring at the other end of WTC 7 saying that; “Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”
Without any additional data available, this appeared to be a fair assessment. The NIST, using the limited video and photo evidence they had cataloged, determined that there was no visual data to provide an explanation for this “unusual behaviour”.
But was there really only limited video available?
Going over the video evidence provided by the NIST through FOIA, there is good reason to question the veracity of the NIST claim.
A logical place to investigate the NIST contention is to carefully examine the video in question, where “a jet of flames was pushed” from 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face, well away from the east side column 79 location.
Screen captures from the NIST FOIA video. The left frame was captured a few video frames prior to the right frame.
The NIST kept track of all their video data records a large database.
Video records sent to the NIST were cataloged and identified in this database which was used by researchers to locate and analyze clips of interest.
According to their database records, the video that contained the “jet of flames” that occurred close to the time of WTC7’s collapse, was identified as belonging to CBS-Net Dub5.
The NIST cataloger, as shown from their notes, not only observed the “jet of flames”, but also noted a visible “puff of smoke” partially obscured by scan lines created when the original playback tape was deliberately fast-forwarded while it was being copied.
Given the importance of any dramatic data appearing close to the collapse time of WTC 7, it is very odd that the NIST investigators paid so little heed to the “noted” smoke plume, or the fact that it was deliberately obscured by intentional fast forwarding. All they noted was the “jet of flames”, which were also initially obscured by fast forwarding.
Later in the video recording, the sudden jet of flames could not be ignored when they appeared clearly after the person ‘directing’ the NIST copy decided to replay that portion at normal speed.
But that’s not all.
The fast forwarding obscures an even more significant event.
Behind the obscuring horizontal lines induced by fast forwarding, a series of explosive plumes can be seen coming from the direction of the window that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”. Additionally, a white cloud forms near the NW corner and proceeds easterly.
This should have aroused great interest on the part of researchers, but without the benefit of a clean unobscured video copy, they possibly decided further investigation was pointless.
Had the NIST investigators shown more determination, they would have discovered that there was indeed a clean HQ copy of the very same video, without the intentional image obscuration.
The NIST cataloged the video source as CBS, but it appears that CBS licensed its use from the rights holder, FOX. FOX through their subsidiary company, ITN, offer a clean preview copy in flash video format (.flv). A 5-year license for an HQ copy is available at a price determined by the purchaser’s intended usage.
Had the NIST or FEMA officially communicated their interest in the video more earnestly they would have easily discovered the availability of this HQ version.
Given the amount of wandering fire that was observed in WTC 7 on 9/11, it could easily be said that one more was hardly worthy of special attention.
But considering the location and timing, in conjunction with the fact that the most plausible explanation for the implosive collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, this event takes on greater significance.
A controlled demolition by implosion would require that the lower core of WTC 7 be blown out through the intensive use of conventional RDX-like explosives, possibly in the wake of a steel structure-weakening pre-collapse mechanism, like nano-thermite.
Studying the clean copy of the video that the NIST never investigated, several things can be observed;
With difficulty (due to the poor quality of the free public ‘flash video’ preview), a very rapid series of west-to-east dark bursts can be seen behind windows on the 13th floor, just prior to the plumes erupting from previously fire-broken windows. (It is necessary to obtain the full quality original that FOX controls in order to properly see this activity.)
The explosive dark plumes appeared to erupt from the same 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face of WTC 7.
And a lower, rapidly expanding, large white cloud moves east from the west end of the north face of WTC 7.
According to the NIST, this is what followed shortly after these events.
“Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”
YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY THAT WHICH YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY.
The original, X11090122 97672, reference recording, used for this research is only available in preview quality LQ (HQ (high quality) for purchasers), at http://www.itnsource.com.
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/Fo ... X11090122/
Clip #20
The NIST FOIA release; is available as International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA Release_25, Folder: 42A0122 - G25D33
at http://www.911datasets.org
the911forum.freeforums.org
Did the NIST, after many years of intensive investigation, with the benefit of all its resources and major funding, perform due diligence in their pursuit of answering the question;
WHY DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE?
After combining their years of engineering research with an analysis the day’s events, was the NIST honest or deceitful in the completeness of their final determinations?
The NIST, through their spokesperson, lead investigator, Shyam Sundar, at a 2008 press conference announcing the conclusion of the WTC 7 investigation, uncompromisingly stated that; “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery”, and that the NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.”
Dr. Sundar, did admit that his organization had a very difficult time finding an engineering hypothesis to explain what occurred at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 to WTC 7.
Given the length of the investigation, the wealth of human resources committed to it, and the degree of difficulty understanding the mechanism behind the total structural failure of WTC 7, it is reasonable to expect that all data pertaining to the building’s structural status for its last remaining hour, would be subject to the most intensive, careful, and methodical engineering scrutiny.
The published evidence shows that the NIST’s primary focus was directed at finding support for their column 79 buckling hypothesis, while dispelling contradictory evidence as lacking sufficient credibility to warrant further investigation.
Case in point, involves the observed activity from northwest face windows on the 13th floor of WTC 7 just prior to its complete collapse.
The NIST hypothesis is anchored in the northeast, where they believe column 79 at the 13th floor lost its lateral support, buckled, and revealed its failure through the visible collapse of the east penthouse.
In passing, the NIST in their final report acknowledged some unexplained activity occurring at the other end of WTC 7 saying that; “Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”
Without any additional data available, this appeared to be a fair assessment. The NIST, using the limited video and photo evidence they had cataloged, determined that there was no visual data to provide an explanation for this “unusual behaviour”.
But was there really only limited video available?
Going over the video evidence provided by the NIST through FOIA, there is good reason to question the veracity of the NIST claim.
A logical place to investigate the NIST contention is to carefully examine the video in question, where “a jet of flames was pushed” from 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face, well away from the east side column 79 location.
Screen captures from the NIST FOIA video. The left frame was captured a few video frames prior to the right frame.
The NIST kept track of all their video data records a large database.
Video records sent to the NIST were cataloged and identified in this database which was used by researchers to locate and analyze clips of interest.
According to their database records, the video that contained the “jet of flames” that occurred close to the time of WTC7’s collapse, was identified as belonging to CBS-Net Dub5.
The NIST cataloger, as shown from their notes, not only observed the “jet of flames”, but also noted a visible “puff of smoke” partially obscured by scan lines created when the original playback tape was deliberately fast-forwarded while it was being copied.
Given the importance of any dramatic data appearing close to the collapse time of WTC 7, it is very odd that the NIST investigators paid so little heed to the “noted” smoke plume, or the fact that it was deliberately obscured by intentional fast forwarding. All they noted was the “jet of flames”, which were also initially obscured by fast forwarding.
Later in the video recording, the sudden jet of flames could not be ignored when they appeared clearly after the person ‘directing’ the NIST copy decided to replay that portion at normal speed.
But that’s not all.
The fast forwarding obscures an even more significant event.
Behind the obscuring horizontal lines induced by fast forwarding, a series of explosive plumes can be seen coming from the direction of the window that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”. Additionally, a white cloud forms near the NW corner and proceeds easterly.
This should have aroused great interest on the part of researchers, but without the benefit of a clean unobscured video copy, they possibly decided further investigation was pointless.
Had the NIST investigators shown more determination, they would have discovered that there was indeed a clean HQ copy of the very same video, without the intentional image obscuration.
The NIST cataloged the video source as CBS, but it appears that CBS licensed its use from the rights holder, FOX. FOX through their subsidiary company, ITN, offer a clean preview copy in flash video format (.flv). A 5-year license for an HQ copy is available at a price determined by the purchaser’s intended usage.
Had the NIST or FEMA officially communicated their interest in the video more earnestly they would have easily discovered the availability of this HQ version.
Given the amount of wandering fire that was observed in WTC 7 on 9/11, it could easily be said that one more was hardly worthy of special attention.
But considering the location and timing, in conjunction with the fact that the most plausible explanation for the implosive collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, this event takes on greater significance.
A controlled demolition by implosion would require that the lower core of WTC 7 be blown out through the intensive use of conventional RDX-like explosives, possibly in the wake of a steel structure-weakening pre-collapse mechanism, like nano-thermite.
Studying the clean copy of the video that the NIST never investigated, several things can be observed;
With difficulty (due to the poor quality of the free public ‘flash video’ preview), a very rapid series of west-to-east dark bursts can be seen behind windows on the 13th floor, just prior to the plumes erupting from previously fire-broken windows. (It is necessary to obtain the full quality original that FOX controls in order to properly see this activity.)
The explosive dark plumes appeared to erupt from the same 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face of WTC 7.
And a lower, rapidly expanding, large white cloud moves east from the west end of the north face of WTC 7.
According to the NIST, this is what followed shortly after these events.
“Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”
YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY THAT WHICH YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY.
The original, X11090122 97672, reference recording, used for this research is only available in preview quality LQ (HQ (high quality) for purchasers), at http://www.itnsource.com.
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/Fo ... X11090122/
Clip #20
The NIST FOIA release; is available as International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA Release_25, Folder: 42A0122 - G25D33
at http://www.911datasets.org
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
911Debunkers.BlogSpot.com Interview with Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole
Published on Jul 14, 2015
JM Talboo
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
Jonathan Cole's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp2d...
This web site is a joint effort by David Chandler (retired physics teacher), Jonathan Cole (professional engineer), and Nathan Flach (video archivist). We are all independent 9/11 researchers, and affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Our goal has been to uncover the truth and shed some light on the events of 9/11, each in our own way.
http://911speakout.org/
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
Jonathan Cole's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp2d...
This web site is a joint effort by David Chandler (retired physics teacher), Jonathan Cole (professional engineer), and Nathan Flach (video archivist). We are all independent 9/11 researchers, and affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Our goal has been to uncover the truth and shed some light on the events of 9/11, each in our own way.
http://911speakout.org/
Friday, July 3, 2015
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Alex Jones Debunks The So-Called 911 Debunkers
A review of the history of military orders governing response to hijackings casts doubt on the idea that the June 1 order was instrumental in hobbling the military's response on September 11. The June 1 order superseded the 1997 directive CJCSI 3610.01. 3 The 1997 directive also stipulated that the NMCC "forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/june1.html
The 1997 directive cancels three earlier ones:
These earlier documents do not appear to be archived on dtic.mil. It would be interesting to learn what policy they mandated for military response to hijackings, and, in particular, whether it required approval by the Secretary of Defense.
- MCM-102-92, 24 July 1992, "Hijacking of Civil Aircraft"
- CJCS MOP 51, 13 April 1992, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Military and Military Contract Aircraft"
- MCM-- 173-90, 14 September 1990, "Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects"
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/Layered Failures
The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.
- Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
- Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
- Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
- Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense - NORAD Section Update 12/24/2014
Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Fallcies of the 911 debunkers
Published on May 26, 2015
Meta Self
Meta Self
I go over some of the common fallacies committed by so called 9/11 truth debunkers when debating 9/11 skeptics.
In a nutshell, they ignore the content of truthers arguments or create misrepresentations of the claims which call the official story a lie.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Karl Golovin discusses JFK Vigil Presence at 2014 Kennedy Center Honors
Published on Dec 13, 2014
Karl
Golovin interviewed this evening, December 7, 2014, as JFK Vigil
participants held signs at the main entrance of the Kennedy Center,
visible to all arriving for filming of the 2014 Kennedy Center Honors
and calling for transparency by governing authorities regarding JFK
assassination records and actual WTC-7/911 events.
Related:
Proof of a JFK Assassination Plot Without Debating a Magic Bullet
911TruthActivism.blogspot.com
Sunday, November 2, 2014
You Don't Need to Be an Engineer to Understand This!
It's either this:
Or it's this:
[On the left side (above) is a video of
WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled
demolition.]
Monday, October 13, 2014
9/11 Update - (Sep, 2014)
Richard Gage interviewed by George Noory. This interview has been shortened and edited.
For more information visit: http://www.ae911truth.org
Related:
Coast To Coast AM - September 4, 2014 9/11 Truth & Prophecy
For more information visit: http://www.ae911truth.org
Related:
Coast To Coast AM - September 4, 2014 9/11 Truth & Prophecy
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Debunking the Debunkers - the Blog !
Debunking the Debunkers - the Blog !
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/This brilliant site destroys the fake science and claims made by the 911 debunking fraternity. I highly recommend that everyone visit this blog in order to get some basic scientific principles set in mind. It is level-headed analysis at its best.
Also, their selection of links to other 911 truth webpages and resources is invaluable.
For activists wishing to present a deconstruction of the key debunker falsehoods, thereby strengthening the case against the official web of lies, I suggest drawing upon the information found at Debunking the Debunkers. Encourage others to learn the truth and fight in the information war.
With continuous and unrelenting actions we will inevitably expose the 911 FALSE FLAG attack for what it was. We can then bring about a measure of justice for all the victims of 911 and END the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Peace.
SpookyOne
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, June 30th, 2012.]
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Want a new WTC 7 investigation? I do.
|
Dear Friend,
My name is Bob McIlvaine. My son, Bobby, was murdered on 9/11 along with nearly 3,000 other innocent people.
I am writing you today as a member of NYC CAN and friend of AE911Truth to ask for your support of the High-Rise Safety Initiative - a ballot initiative we are sponsoring that will require the City of New York to launch a new investigation into the destruction of WTC 7.
To put this measure on the ballot, we need to gather 110,000 signatures, and to fund our petition drive we must raise $250,000 by June 1st.
This strategy is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is promising, and one we must try.
Our petition drive can only go forward if 3,000 people come together to support the campaign. So far nearly 600 people have donated.
Will you help us reach 3,000? Please go to HighRiseSafetyNYC.org to contribute.
We are counting on you.
Sincerely,
Bob McIlvaine
I am writing you today as a member of NYC CAN and friend of AE911Truth to ask for your support of the High-Rise Safety Initiative - a ballot initiative we are sponsoring that will require the City of New York to launch a new investigation into the destruction of WTC 7.
To put this measure on the ballot, we need to gather 110,000 signatures, and to fund our petition drive we must raise $250,000 by June 1st.
This strategy is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is promising, and one we must try.
Our petition drive can only go forward if 3,000 people come together to support the campaign. So far nearly 600 people have donated.
Will you help us reach 3,000? Please go to HighRiseSafetyNYC.org to contribute.
We are counting on you.
Sincerely,
Bob McIlvaine
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
NY Times: "We've not yet found any evidence for controlled demolition"
| Visit ReThink911.org | Canada Campaign Details (December 2013) |   |
 |
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 |
Tell the NY TImes:
The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...
If You Just Look
Yesterday
New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent was the
guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about :
“We
have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none
there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the
building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes
that flew into them.”
Sanger
was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why,
despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times
Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively
cover this crucial issue.”
Now
with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record
saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger
and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!
Contact the NY Times Today
Last
week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action
alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign.
Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right
now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste
the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at
AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
To: dasang@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com, metro@nytimes.com, national@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com
Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times,
On
Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s
Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so
far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by
anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the
Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there,
and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have
signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation
based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among
the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.
As
you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of
Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events,
and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the
greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to
seriously examine this crucial issue.
Sincerely,
[Name, address]
|
Thank you as always for your tremendous support.!
Thursday, December 5, 2013
WTC Developers Cleared of Fault by 2nd Circuit - "Congressman The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives Is Real And Proven!"
WTC Developers Cleared of Fault by 2nd Circuit
Adam Klasfeld
Courthouse News
December 5, 2013
Claiming the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on an “unprecedented constellation of events,” the 2nd Circuit on Wednesday chucked negligence claims against the building’s landlords and developers.
The collapse of the North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001, sent fiery debris into Tower 7, lighting fires that burned for seven hours on multiple floors until it destroyed that building and crushed the Con Edison substation located directly underneath the building.
In 2004, Con Edison sued New York City, the Port Authority, and Tower 7′s owners and developers in Manhattan for negligence. The federal action has since gone through multiple rounds of appeals, amended complaints and procedural challenges by different groups of defendants.
Read more
View court docs (.pdf)
Source:
http://www.infowars.com/wtc-developers-cleared-of-fault-by-2nd-circuit/
"Congressman The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives Is Real And Proven!"
http://youtu.be/JbnW_NoiUTM
A common theme seems to be that the people who do not support a new investigation either have never read any 9/11 building reports, have no opinion, or have no idea of what WTC 7 even is.
Here is another LEADER who has never read any of the reports but firmly believes that the reports cover information substantially.
Recently I've seen McCain plead ignorance, Chomsky plead no opinion, and now this Congressman pleas that the investigation has adequately shown the facts but admits to not have actually read any of investigations himself.
The congressman was asked a question on WTC 7 and the Congressman says that radical terrorists brought it down; not fires..... But then again he hasn't read any of the reports so he doesn't know the actual NIST story is ordinary office fires.
To call C-SPAN's Washington Journal program:
Democrats: 1-202 585-3880
Republicans: 1-202-585-3881
Independents: 1-202-585-3882
It is on live every day at 7AM -10AM EST
More: http://911blogger.com/topics/c-span
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!
Some newbie on the Prison Planet forum has just written the post of the month:
It's a simple talking point.Related:
Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7.
What's all the fuss with 'Did Bin Laden Die in 2001?', 'Did They Kill Him in 2011, and Was It Murder?', 'Is Bin Laden Still Alive?'
What does it matter if they kill the patsy?
BIN LADEN DIDN'T DESTROY WTC 7.
Everytime someone wants to debate with you whether or not Bin Laden is dead and the latest tale rooted in truth, simply say: Bin Laden didn't bring down Building 7.
The new Bin Laden fable is being used to obfuscate the original 9/11 fable. But it's 9/11, not Bin Laden, that's being used to take away freedom. While it's appropriate to distrust the new Navy SEAL/Bin Laden story, there's a simple one-line response to it:
Bin Laden didn't bring down Building 7.
Remember Building 7
Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther
Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'
The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror
Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden
Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was nice enough to help promote the "BuildingWhat?"campaign recently by posting their ad.Pat, your strategy of posting their video to help out and then inspiring truthers to donate more by insisting that the campaign is failing is brilliant, simply brilliant, my good man! Your genius efforts have now aided in the raising of over $32,000!
This is just like when you claimed that NYC-CAN.org didn't reach the goal of 32,000 signatures for their ballot initiative when they actually gathered 80,000, while you also ridiculed the first weeks numbers of their recent fax campaign. You lit a fire under our butts on that one, helping raise the numbers from 133 in the first week, to 217 the second, 221 the third, and 408 the fourth! All the while, you downplayed our improvement and kept us striving for more!
Again, thank you for promoting our efforts to the uninformed, while also misrepresenting the numbers when we surpass our goals by miles, and for making us feel like not reaching overly ambitious goals is somehow a let down. You keep us inspired brother!
OK, now let's get serious.
Pat states, "LOL! The usual bit about how "nobody knows that another building, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed that day." I have always said that Building 7 is a thin reed to build popular support for the Troof, for the simple reason that it takes too many logical leaps to get to the point where it fits in with the conspiracy theory."
I'm not sure if Pat is really saying that it's false that many people don't know about Building 7, or if he is just saying that it's not surprising because in his mind it was a non-event. In either case, David Ray Griffin's essay "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight" debunks both of these notions. After providing evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was a "deliberately suppressed story," Griffin states, "...The collapse of WTC 7 has been effectively hidden, even though it has existed in plain sight all these years. Even the bare fact of the collapse itself has been so effectively hidden that in 2006 over 40 percent of the American public did not know about it, and in 2009 a judge in New York City, upon hearing a reference to Building 7, asked: 'Building what?'"
The essay also addresses a perceived "logical leap" in the idea that conspirators beyond the 19 hijackers had a hand in WTC 7's destruction, Griffin writes:
I need to respond to an obvious objection: If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the afternoon, when the air was clean and cameras would be trained on this building, with the consequence that we have perfectly clear videos of the collapse of this building from various angles, each one showing its straight-down free-fall descent?Here is an answer to that objection akin to Griffins by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT.
Pat states, "It is interesting to see more of a side view of the collapse (at about 16-17 seconds in), because it refutes Box Boy's claim that the collapse was symmetrical, and straight down through the path of most resistance."
As we've demonstrated before, this video refutes nothing.
Related Info:
NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2
Building What? is up...
Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!
Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers
Shirley they can't be serious!
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the "Pull it" comment
CitizenFor911Truth1
YouTube.com
November 01, 2009
Related Info:
Owner's Admission? - Silverstein's Apparent Admission that Building 7 was Demolished
Possible Confirmation of "Pull It" - In A Hitpiece!
YouTube.com
November 01, 2009
Related Info:
Owner's Admission? - Silverstein's Apparent Admission that Building 7 was Demolished
Possible Confirmation of "Pull It" - In A Hitpiece!
I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it. - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein
Monday, December 22, 2008
NIST Debunks Itself
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog also debunks himself in his entry a "A Spot of Debunking" when he states:
Nobody has explained why controlled demolition should be as fast as free-fall speed in the first place. This seems to be just assumed.First of all, as is pointed out in the video a slowing of the descent of the building as it begins to pile up and encounter resistance is to be expected. Secondly, the more reputable 9/11 researchers like Jim Hoffman of the website 911research.wtc7.net have never claimed that the buildings fell at exactly free-fall speed.
Here's a page with the Southwark Towers demolition, which Steven Jones cited in one of his lectures as a very good comparable for the WTC. You have to click on the third icon from the left on the bottom row to see this demo.
Watching carefully, I estimated that the roof on the left building started sagging right around 38.24 into the movie, and that the top of the building hit ground at about 45.69. Thus the duration of the collapse was about 7.45 seconds. From this page we know that the roof of the building was about 98 meters high, or approximately 323 feet. But a building of 323 feet should not take 7.45 seconds to collapse in free fall, it should only take 4.5 seconds by the formula 16*4.5^2=323.
And indeed, there is no reason to expect that controlled demolition results in a free-fall collapse of a building.
In regard to the Twin Towers Hoffman states that the Towers' tops fell virtually unimpeded. He points out that "in a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof," but this does not factor in air resistance, which alone could account for the 15 second fall time, he states:
The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.Again, in regard to WTC 7 Hoffman points out that it plunged at a nearly free-fall rate.
If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?
Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.
Related Info:
Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies
EXCLUSIVE: To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them
Monday, December 15, 2008
Hunger Striker Returns to McCain's Office
WrightLarryJ
YouTube.com
December 14, 2008
Professor Blair Gadsby returned to Senator McCain's office with another request to meet with the senator to discuss the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Members of Phoenix 9-11 Truth organized a street action outside the office in support of Blair's effort to reach Senator McCain.
YouTube.com
December 14, 2008
Professor Blair Gadsby returned to Senator McCain's office with another request to meet with the senator to discuss the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Members of Phoenix 9-11 Truth organized a street action outside the office in support of Blair's effort to reach Senator McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)