113 votes

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

I do not care what anyone says. The evidence is overwhelming that our own government planned and carried out 911. Now let the trolls down vote and spew their BS.


http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So that's a no? Figures.

So that's a no? Figures. Don't let science smack you on the way to crazy town.

Show me a study of the building collapse that uses all available evidence contradicting the NIST report. If you have none you have absolutely no evidence for your claim thus you are not basing your lies on facts but rather your own personal biases.

NIST report

oh god, stop it, LOL. My stomach hurting.

Nobody believes the NIST report, not even the government, congress.

That was for all you easily duped morons.

I'm still waiting. Do you

I'm still waiting. Do you have an analysis as I described or not?

Is this your first day

Is this your first day pushing the official narrative? You're horrible at it.
Get this - we don't give a crap. You aren't going to convince us that we're wrong. And I for one am not going to try to convince any of you pin heads. I came at this from a skeptical pov long ago. Nothing you say is going to alter my considered and well researched conclusions.

Good luck storming the castle.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

So you have nothing and no

So you have nothing and no amount of logic and facts will stop you from believing what you believe? Interesting stance you take. More pressing, why are you on a Ron Paul website if you are against logic and reasoning? Paul's stances have all been based on looking at facts and basing a conclusion on that. Does the 9/11 truth brainwashers not have a forum?

I thought I made my position

I thought I made my position clear. Your opinion doesn't matter to me.
It would be illogical of me to argue with you. I gain nothing from it.
I've been on this site 6 years. I'm not going anywhere.

Don't the government apologists have a forum?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

OK fine.

Here are a few issues I have that do not appear to fit the government narrative of 9/11.

* Larry 'Pull it' Silverstein, a Zionist, purchases the lease to the WTC six weeks before the attack at which time he also purchases an insurance policy protecting him from loss due to terrorist attack. After the attack, he puts in two claims because the two planes constituted two attacks in order to get double the payout.

* Anomalous stock option activity indicating foreknowledge of the attack was never explained though an investigation was promised.
Is this a coincidence or urban legend?

* IM messages from Israel warning not to go to work to WTC employees were never explained. Is this a coincidence or urban legend?

* A Mossad front moving company moved out of the WTC just before the attack. One of its vans is reported to have tested positive for explosives. Is this a coincidence or urban legend?

* The airports from which the airplanes took off all had a single Israeli company contracted to oversee security.
Is this a coincidence or urban legend?

* Most of the alleged hijackers were Saudis or Egyptians, not Iranians or Iraqis or Afghans or Syrians.

* Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Ladin and former(?) CIA employee denied any involvement in the attack.

* Alleged terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta is associated with a flight school in Florida implicated in running cocaine from South America, had German friends with whom he did drugs in Key West, and though born in Egypt, spent most of his adult life in Europe. He spoke several languages and had multi-engine airplane pilot tags from several countries.

* Analysis of the video footage of the attack has led some to conclude the planes that hit the twin towers were not commercial airliners, but more closely resembled military aircraft.

* Fighter planes sent to intercept the hijacked planes went in the wrong direction.

* The pilots of the airliners apparently never set their transponders to indicate to the FAA ATC that they were being hijacked.

* When collapsing, all three skyscrapers took the path of most resistance.

* The black boxes from the two planes that hit the WTC were never located. (wink wink)

* Instead of investigating the crime scene, the wreckage of the buildings was quickly cleaned up and the scrap material exported.

* Dancing Israelis recording the event in a NY park were arrested and deported.

* Israeli "art students" rounded up and deported soon after 9/11.

* Dick Cheney takes authority away from NORAD to give shoot down order a few months before 9/11

The list goes on much longer.

What do I make of all of this? It makes me believe the official narrative is a fable.

What really happened? I have some guesses, but that is what they are. The government has a history of lying. I see no reason to take its word for any of it.

The whole point to the free fall of WTC 7 is to demonstrate the official narrative is a lie. Does anyone have to know what the real story is in order to understand that? We would like to see those responsible for 9/11 brought to justice, but the reality is the people who have the power to do that are likely the ones who are guilty.

The 9/11 narrative is suppose to instill fear and hatred. It is the excuse used to take away freedoms in the name of safety. Those goals are illegitimate no matter what the real story is.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Regarding stock options

This is applying hindsight in a fairly dramatic manner, and it’s also leaving out crucial information: the American puts followed the trading day after the company had released a major profit warning, when you’d expect investors to believe the shares had further to fall, and the United Airlines trade volumes were lower than the spikes that occurred in March and April. If a United Airlines spike of 8,072 in March didn’t suggest an imminent attack, then why should 3,150 puts in September have any more effect?

Ron Paul sez

* Most of the alleged hijackers were Saudis or Egyptians, not Iranians or Iraqis or Afghans or Syrians.

In one of the interviews Ron Paul gave after that line about blowback in the debate, he comments on this:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-09-14/ron-paul-explains-reasons-...
"... 98% the main motivation was occupation, and religious beliefs had nothing to do with it. You don't see suicide terrorists coming from Iran and they're radical Islamists ... fourteen out of the nineteen came out of Saudi Arabia because of our bases there and our puppet government there ..."

The whole thing is worth listening to. It's only a few minutes, and it's a good reminder.

Are you trying to enlighten people?

Why would a non-believer be open to listening to you when the first thing you say in your post is that you don't care what they say. If you don't care about their "evidence", why should they care about yours? Then you end your post by insulting them, calling them trolls who spew BS. Again, if you disrespect them so much, why should they be open to considering your views?
When you post things this way, it makes it look like you don't care if you convince anyone or not. It makes it look like you are just singing to the choir of people who already agree.
If 9/11 was an inside job, then don't you owe it to the victims, and to us all, to use better tactics in trying to spread the truth?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Why would a non-believer be

Why would a non-believer be open to listening to you

There is no such thing as a non-believer. They are believers of the government's version.

if you disrespect them so much, why should they be open to considering your views?

If the government disrespects people, why are they so open to considering the government's version?

We can argue over the logistics of 9/11 until the end of time...

We many never find the answers. Still it will be what was known before 9/11 will still be true;the same as it is now and will always be true in the future. Today, or some day in the future, should it be someone hijacks an airliner and flies it into a skyscraper, the end result will be as it has always been known to be before 9/11 and after 9/11 and that is:

Everyone on board the airliner will be killed instantly as well as anyone within its path. Many more inside the building will die from fire while many more trapped inside will die of smoke inhalation.

And that's it.

The building will not implode unless it is it is later intentionally imploded based upon an economic decision to instead rather not repair it so as to return it to its original structural integrity which includes that of the ability to withstand being hit by a 100 ton aircraft.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

hey SALLY SENSATION, let me

hey SALLY SENSATION, let me hear your time warp and back to the future implications and theory, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNgPrv2XISI

you own a delorean? by any chance?

Ron Paul 2016

What's your explanation?

A BBC reporter is somehow in the loop on a secret plan to demolish the building?

Here's another theory. There were comments about expecting it to fall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
So the story about it being about to collapse were going around. The BBC reporter heard that story and got the story wrong, as reporters often do. It's hard to see why people think this is significant ... assuming that BBC reporters normally aren't in the loop on criminal conspiracies.

It's even harder to see why people think this is significant when you realize that it's compatible with either version of events:

Version 1: it was criminals demolishing the building, they could have spread a rumor of imminent collapse ahead of time as an excuse to pull the fire department out and to get everyone a safe distance away.

Version 2: Hayden and the other firefighters are telling the truth (after the fact) about having put a transit on it (i.e, used surveying equipment to get accurate measurements) on the side of the building and having concluded that it was bulging out enough to indicate imminent collapse, and consequently the warning went out, and the reporter got it wrong.
http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter...
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_G...
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_G...
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_G...

But either way the BBC reporter getting it wrong is hardly significant once you know that there were warnings about the potential collapse of the building long before it actually collapsed. The only question then is whether they're telling the truth about why they thought it was going to collapse, or whether that was something that was fed to the fire department for the purposes of the criminals who were planning to bring the building down and wanted to provide enough warning that nobody would get hurt.

i posted a video, you are the

i posted a video, you are the one having some type of freakout moment.

All i see from you is plenty of excuses but the bottom line is the video says what it says and that is all i posted.

nothing you said explains why she reported building 7 fell 20 minutes before it fell.

you say a mistake? I say a mistake that she was standing with building 7 behind her.

bottom line nothing that happened on 9-11 justifies bush/obama ignoring the us constitution or occupying foreign countries let alone starting illegal wars.

Ron Paul 2016

Welcome to the dark side

Welcome to the dark side doggydog.

It is difficult to be reasonable and rational in a world that is not, but you are asking the right questions and ultimately you will reach the right answers. That is the only reward of not marching in lock step with self-proclaimed keepers of all knowledge on this thread.

The fact that they use the BBC journalist's report and Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" as gospel proof that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by rogue elements within the US gov't. should inform you of the depth of their research.

They are the second worst kind of drones, the youtube expert drones. Absolutely depressing that Michael Nystrom is one of them. I still hold out hope that it is only his hatred of the gov't. that skews his judgement and that he will come around.

who is they? i just posted a

who is they? i just posted a video , i am no 9-11 truther.

godsfavson , you are so full of crap. you are now a dp dinglberry. you know nothing of me or any dp member. You know nothing but the shit that comes out your A#$.

Ron Paul 2016

Easy there... So you just

Easy there...

So you just posted the video without any motive or you think it has some relevance in making a case that elements of gov't. And media were in a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 in a controlled manner with explosives.

That was my assumption so my apologies if I was wrong.

What was the purpose of posting the video then?

Oh please

Just because I challenge the sillier arguments doesn't mean I disagree with everything.

I don't know what Nystrom thinks, beyond that he obviously thinks that a new investigation would be a good idea. I can agree with that. Ron Paul can agree with that. You don't have to buy the whackier arguments to agree with that. Ron Paul has said numerous times (including yesterday) that it was blowback (and he says plenty more, the kinds of things that if you repeat them without mentioning that it's Ron Paul your'e quoting will get you called a shill and a dupe around here).

What you're doing is lumping all 9/11 skepticism into one bundle, then picking the silly arguments to destroy, then claiming to have destroyed the whole bundle.

Welcome to the grey side then

Welcome to the grey side then :)

As long as you follow patterns of critical thinking that you displayed in taking apart the above argument I am reasonably confident you will find that the NIST reports adequately explain collapses on 9/11.

Is it a very satisfying end to the journey? Well, it was for me because it was the truth after all. That was good enough :P

Nothing for you is even a little grey about it?

Two questions for you. Do you not see anything, anything at all, that looks questionable? Maybe not rising to a level of proof, but raising suspicions? Things that don't quite make sense? Things for which the official explanation seems even just a bit contrived? Nothing at all? I'm just wondering if in your pursuit of truth you've convinced yourself that there's no grey left.

Second question: if you're not a structural engineer, then when you see structural engineers writing in favor of one interpretation of events and other structural engineers writing to argue against that interpretation, what convinces you of one over the other?

I am an electronics engineer

I am an electronics engineer by training. In first year I learned general engineering topics like strength of materials, mechanical engineering science, mechanics of solids and engineering physics.

This puts me in a position to understand what calculations and assumptions are more valid, if not directly by reading the papers, then by reading critiques and articles on them. As such, though I have not read too many adjunct papers, I have read the NIST reports in the relevant parts.

In my case I am absolutely sure about the general accuracy of the mechanism given by NIST for the collapses.

Beyond that questions like who was behind the attacks is not something I have investigated thoroughly because I have not found a compelling reason to do so.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Not that knowing a bit about strength of materials from a freshman college class wouldn't be relevant, but I think you underestimate the amount of expertise involved in that kind of analysis. I read both sides of the arguments, and do my best to make sense of the arguments, but on many things the bottom line is it's a gray area to me.

And there was more to the question. Isn't there anything at all that just seems a little bit off? A little suspicious? A little too convenient? Nothing? You talk as if you think it's all been wrapped up neatly with a bow on top, and I'm wondering if that's really true, or if you're just reluctant to admit that, really, at least around the edges, there aren't maybe just a few things that strike you as suspicious.

I can't write a book but I

I can't write a book but I can read it can't I?

I could not have derived calculus from first principles because I'm not a mathematician, but once Newton and Leibnitz did it I can use it can't I?

What are your particular suspicions?

I'd still like to hear your answer

I'd really like to hear your answer to this, so I'll post it one more time:

And there was more to the question. Isn't there anything at all that just seems a little bit off? A little suspicious? A little too convenient? Nothing? You talk as if you think it's all been wrapped up neatly with a bow on top, and I'm wondering if that's really true, or if you're just reluctant to admit that, really, at least around the edges, there aren't maybe just a few things that strike you as suspicious.

My answer is that yes, there are some very suspicious things. Not the silly ones, like the BBC reporter, but there are definitely things that make me go hmmmm. Things that make me believe (as Ron Paul said) that there was clearly some coverup going on in the official report. And I think that is more than sufficient to justify a new, independent investigation.

Anyway, if you're not going to answer the question there's no reason to keep asking it, but I'd be very interested in hearing your answer.

I first got introduced to the

I first got introduced to the 9/11 conspiracy theory almost 7 years ago through a documentary called Loose Change which itself was a sub-part of Zeitgeist.

I was blown away. I was convinced.

After all, it is physically impossible for steel to melt from kerosene fires.

It is impossible that WTC 7 collapses without a plain hitting it.

It is impossible that jet engines vapourize on impact at the Pentagon.

It is impossible that primitive Arabs plan all this.

I showed it to literally all my friends. They had no answers either. Who could argue with truth and physics after all?

Then I showed it to my dad. He was smart and open-minded so I was sure that he would see the truth. Sometimes he looked interested in the documentary, sometimes looked bored. At the end of it he said that it was interesting but lacked context.

I asked him what he meant by that.

He replied that other factor had to be considered like:

Were the buildings used for comparison constructed the same way?

Could kerosene fires weaken steel and if so to what degree?

The plane could not have been vapourized by heat but could it have been pulverized by the impact on a thick, reinforced concrete wall?

You can imagine how annoyed I was. These were little points that the documentary makers would already have considered before putting the video out there. It was nit picking at best and at worst wilful ignorance on my dad's part.

Okay, I decided to clear these up. My college had just started and I began asking my teachers there questions. They did not involve the whole conspiracy, only bits and pieces. Few had any ready answers but said they'd look them up, or they referred me to book, or asked me to come by later.

Only one professor took a genuine interest and he said that buildings like the WTCs were designed with a lot of redundancy so that some failures could be tolerated, but in this case due to the fire, the weakened steel couldn't take the load and there was a universal, instantaneous collapse.

Now I shifted my focus to the anti-truther blogs (something I had steadfastly avoided till this point). I was aghast at not only the ignorance but the outright deception that truthers were engaged in.

Larry Silverstein's "Pull It"
The BBC reporter
The molten steel
The stock trading
The nano-thermite, thermite, thermite (take your pick)
The 'small office fires' of WTC 7 (lol)

I finally turned to Dr. Jones. He was, after all, a scientist. Even though I had been around smart people and knew that they are as prone to bias, lying, mistakes and obduracy as anyone else, Dr. Jones was deified in the 9/11 truth community. How could he be wrong?

He turned out to be a clown and his research was a joke, treated as such by the scientific community. I even went to 9/11 debunking the debunkers videos but realized that they were clutching at straws and that the movement didn't have a leg to stand upon. I realized they were playing the 'god of the gaps' game. You don't know everything that means I am right." That was the end of my love affair for this conspiracy theory.

Osama Bin Laden was CIA
So was it him or the govt. or him through the govt.? I thought you said he denied doing it.

Molten steel was flowing from the building
Or could it have been aluminium? You know, the thing the plane was made out of.

People heard loud noises like explosions.
You don't say (rolls eyes)

The information truthers have doesn't fit a logical narrative.

So no, I don't have too many doubts left.

Hope this answers your question.

Thanks

you say "So no, I don't have too many doubts left." and I wonder what doubts you do still have, but that's fine.

My experience was nearly the opposite of yours. I started out completely skeptical. And that was made easy because every time I'd wade in and read something to see what kind of case they were making, right off the bat there would be huge red flags. One, I remember, was seeing one of the photos of the fires in WTC 7 -- the same or similar to one posted earlier today -- with the claim of "small fires." And in that photo they sure do look like small fires. But then it only took a few minutes to find photos from other angles. And first-hand accounts from firefighters in the building. I pointed that out, and got called an idiot or whatever. Not nearly as satisfying as being called an idiot for repeating something Ron Paul said, as happened yesterday or the day before, but just as revealing. If you have a strong argument you don't have to make a weak one, and you certainly don't have to try to hide data that doesn't fit.

But I always read these kinds of things, and bits and pieces of it stuck with me, and now I'd back a new investigation based on unanswered questions, and things that are "too convenient," and things that were clearly not investigated as they should have been, etc. I don't know what a genuine investigation would turn up, but that's the point of doing one.

Ron Paul makes the case that you don't even have to look deeply at all to see that the official report is a whitewash, admitting to mistakes but making no effort to follow up on who made the mistakes much less holding anyone accountable. Would that sort of thing be enough to get you on board with the idea of a new investigation?

I get where you're coming

I get where you're coming from. I might see some new information that makes me go "What if" but a little more research shows that it is usually smoke and mirrors.

The truth is that acting on warnings is seldom done. The intelligence officer is always whispering the day's happenings and threats into the leader's ears. This is filtered from the hundreds and thousands of warnings and claims that are unearthed daily.

My father was due in WTC for a conference in February 1993 but due to an some information he received he cancelled it. My sister and I were pretty disappointed because we had already made out our 'What we want from New York" lists. Then the bombings happened. So you can say there was some intelligence. But why wasn't WTC shut down and areas around it secured?

The cost.

Why aren't airports shut down on warnings.

The cost.

There are too many warnings for someone to take the call of creating losses of millions of dollars. It would be like an albatross around your neck for the rest of your career.

Anyway, so a new investigation would entail a new commission, allocation of funds, more govt spending and EVEN IF it turns out that the 9/11 truthers are right, what is the likelihood that a GOVT funded operation would reveal it?

Thus, I find the reasoning for a new investigation circular as well. These decisions shouldn't be take on such spurious evidence. If you have good reasons for suspecting foul play please present them.

too funny

and I had a class in accounting so I know all about money.