Loose Change

[xane]

Does that plane get "atomized" though. All you see is the impact, not the aftermath and possible reckage. And as Will said, that was a "special" wall.

Nevertheless, it has been shown that an aircraft engine of the size used by a Boeing 757 does not necessarily "punch a hole" through a wall, especially a reinforced wall, and I would be very surprized, even without the revelations above, that the Pentagon did not have reinforced walls.

 

[Tom]

I believe the missile attributed to TWA800 was in fact the aircraft itself, which had by that time lost its forward section and was flying uncontrollably vertically. At least thats what I saw on Horizon or whatever programme it was.

 

[Skyler]

Well the Pentegon had Windows.. that will weaken any wall compared to a solid counterpart.

It's nice to stir up some debate on whether these things happened the way we saw or a different way. Always interesting discussions

I just see all the specluative facts laid out in that documentary, seperately most can be excused or explained away. But for all of those things to happen on one day, involving so many of the same people in different ways, with so many pure lies stories and proven history of the American government previously planning to do a faked attack like this. It makes it more than just some far flung conspiracy theory imo.

I'm not saying it's all 100% true and the American government faked it, but right now there is not enough proof to say how it happened either way. That's the conclusion I draw from that piece.

There are so many holes in what actually happened, and many missing pieces from what the conspiracy theorists say. Neither version has utmost credibility and that's precisely the problem.

I don't really buy into the moon landing stuff or any other conspiracy, I am interested in this one because it occured during my lifetime and I saw it live on TV

It's interesting subject matter to me, whichever version is true.

 

[Paradroid]

Popular Science linky.

The magazine pushing the government's 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions. American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11.
...

THE COUP AT POPULAR MECHANICS
...
A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.

PM has long been a supporter of the U.S. military. The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003. Since the purge last September, however, PM readers have noticed that government propaganda has replaced scientific writing. A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine.

Wrong parts? Is that a 767 engine on the streets of NYC?

Checkmate? Answer 2 simple questions and test your sanity.


Physics Professor says WTC collapse "impossible" (alt).

...
These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

...

WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses."
...

No one's mentioned that fact that the Pentagon crash included a puncture hole that penetrated 3 of the 5 rings. Sounds like either an extreme fluke, or a bunker-busting missile. Too many flukes/coincidences and extra-ordinary explanations on 911 for any true thinking person to just shrug it off.

 

[Moo]

Its a load of utter arse. Seen it before, what makes me laugh is how they dont comprehend that a pancaking building would have to force the air out of the windows. Controlled demolition.....lol.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

It deserves no more respect than Moon Hoax theories.

moon hoax theories deserve more respect than you.

 

[Moo]

im generally a guy who doesn't believe anything without proof.

What i don't get is why the government dont just answer the questions asked by these conspiracy theorists. A lot of them are simple enough questions, which if were answered properly by the govt, would set most people's minds at rest. However when they just blanket refuse or blatantly lie; it really starts to look like they've got something to hide.

I'm largely cynical about such things and personally I tend on the side that most western governments are simply using the politics of fear to slowly etch away at our civil liberties until we do get the situation of science fiction in 50 years or more time.

I really do wish people would get more enthused about politics these days, almost everyone is apathetic because they don't believe 1 person can change anything. If you believe it, it becomes true.

 

[skipper7]

Loose Change making a huge hit...

Dylan Avery, the creator of Loose change has given his okay to copy and distribute the DVD wherever possible. He was at a free showing in NYC this past weekend where they gave out hundreds of copies...

It's one of the best films covering the anomalies and discrepancies in the ridiculous official version of 9/11....and it's being snatched up in huge numbers.

Avery was on the TvNewLIES.org radio show a few weeks back. If you want to hear him - the show is archived. Check out:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/radio_show.html

This Monday (at noon, ET) there will be another discussion about 911....you can call in. The guest is Anthony J. Hilder, a Filmaker, discussing 9/11 & secret societies.

Very few people are touching this, even though there has been NO investigation into the attacks on 9/11, and even though there is so much that doesn't add up.

 

[Moo]

yeah i felt that lag too skipper

 

[Moo]

Fh Is Dying

 

[rynnor]

What i don't get is why the government dont just answer the questions asked by these conspiracy theorists.

Because the questions are endless, conspiracy theories are articles of faith - you cannot reason with a conspiracy theorist and they surely would not believe anything the big bad government would tell them.

A government responding to such ridiculous theories would only lend weight to them - thus governments ignore them and hope they go away...

 

[rynnor]

No one's mentioned that fact that the Pentagon crash included a puncture hole that penetrated 3 of the 5 rings. Sounds like either an extreme fluke, or a bunker-busting missile. Too many flukes/coincidences and extra-ordinary explanations on 911 for any true thinking person to just shrug it off.

Based on what tho? Its not like theres been an extensive study of different objects striking the Pentagon so what do you base the claim that the damage it took must be evidence of a missile on?

As to the rest - humans have an amazing ability to see patterns and linkages - its a usefull ability but the flipside is that we tend to see patterns where none exist - thats the mechanism behind conspiracy theories in general.

 

[rynnor]

Quote from Paradroids 'Professor'

"WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses."

I'm not sure where this accurate sounding figure of 6.6 seconds comes from - if you watch the collapses on any film I've ever seen of them the huge cloud of dust thrown up obscures the last few seconds so it would be difficult to claim a particular length of time.

If I drop a rock on a tower made of cards do you think the rock is going to be seriously impeded in its fall? The towers suffered failure of supports causing a large chunk of the building to effectively be in freefall onto the supports below - pretty as they were the towers were not built for structural strength - they were tough enough to take their usual load but the combination of impacts and fire were too much for it.

 

[Addlcove]

WTC7 wasn't one of the towers though, it was one of the latter additions to the WTC complex.


oh and a black box is day-glo orange, makes them easiere to find in a crashssite rather than a black colour, ye kno'

 

[Wij]

Because the questions are endless, conspiracy theories are articles of faith - you cannot reason with a conspiracy theorist and they surely would not believe anything the big bad government would tell them.

A government responding to such ridiculous theories would only lend weight to them - thus governments ignore them and hope they go away...

Indeed. It's like the Diana crash. Everyone wants a new enquiry every year. Giving in to such demands just encourages the loonies and makes borderline crackpots more interested in it.

 

[Skyler]

Popular Science linky.




Wrong parts? Is that a 767 engine on the streets of NYC?

Checkmate? Answer 2 simple questions and test your sanity.


Physics Professor says WTC collapse "impossible" (alt).




No one's mentioned that fact that the Pentagon crash included a puncture hole that penetrated 3 of the 5 rings. Sounds like either an extreme fluke, or a bunker-busting missile. Too many flukes/coincidences and extra-ordinary explanations on 911 for any true thinking person to just shrug it off.

Thank you that adds weight to everything imo.

I am well aware any professor can give varying opinions on what things happened which is why I do not completely rely on statements like that. However, even to me those buildings did not collapse in the way you expect them to collapse. You can blame the way they were made or the fact a plane hit them, but a damn plane does not do what it did to those buildings.

Perhaps a plane did cause such a collapse, but twice in 10minutes? Then add all the other dodgy stuff, many of which is fact and not conspiracy.. if you add it all together you get some serious problems with what we think happened that day.

That is certainly enough for an investigation, but it still hasn't happened.

The human ability to see patterns doesn't really make much difference to me. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I don't see conspiracies everywhere and I don't think the government is always hiding stuff.

I don't want to believe that this whole thing was staged by some people and they killed thousands of innocent people, fooled the world and even tried to make money off it. I find it hard to even imagine that people can have those kind of thoughts let alone put them into place.

Unfortunately even if it is true and I hope not (although some things are definitely wrong about that day) I doubt we will see it exposed openly and have those responsible for any foul play held accountable.

 

[Cemeterygates]

well err....a plane apparently turned 330degrees...at 500mph+...to slam into a building....an some pilot said....a plane cannot perform such a turn at that speed.....so....theres definatley somethin funny goin on there.....so....the so called "engine" parts found dont match that of a 747...clarified by an employee of th ecompany that make them....an the arguement of "if a fighter jet can atomise then that plan can"...well....it not being able to turn at that speed says bollocks.....an the fact the pentagon walls arent designed to suround fucking nucluer reactors....imo...says bollocks......we will never know the full truth....an think about it....politicians never give straight answers...in anything....ever...its all twisted or just lies...like "we will do thi sthat an the other an make everything hunky fucking dorey" 5....6....7....even 10 years down th eline...they aint done shit....i dont really know what to make of it all....but theres more to it that what they lettin on...

 

[old.user4556]

Sentences.

 

[bigbb]

Indeed. It's like the Diana crash. Everyone wants a new enquiry every year. Giving in to such demands just encourages the loonies and makes borderline crackpots more interested in it.

Mmm. I get this argument, but doesn't that rather null any argument given to the contrary of those in authority?

I know that is a rather rhetorical discussion. But, if everyone that raises an opposing view the mainstream 'news' is branded as radical, conspiracy theorist, left-wing loony, we'll never have constructive debate.

Reading something like Captive State, with practical experience and documentation of Government's acting with horrendous disregard for 'democracy' and some of these absurd, loony, conspiracy theories, begin to gain some weight.

I'm not saying that this film (which I've not yet seen) is worth anymore respect than Tom and others are treating it. Just that I think it's a dangerous road to follow to disregard alternative perspectives, purely on the basis that they're from apparently 'unreliable' sources, which translated, means not the mainstream news or Government sources.

 

[xane]

we'll never have constructive debate.

Quite. But the issue here is that all the "arguments" are simply engineered to form some preconcieved theory, that is far from constructive debate. If an engine found on NYC streets doesn't match then it could be for many reasons, not least of all that it was incorrectly identified, it is not a "positive" in any argument.

If you are going to blame the government, at least have the decency to deliver a motive, a "why". I haven't seen one yet beyond the vague political machinations.

Sure, you can show up how the government is incompetent, well quelle surprize ! But don't then lead into how such incompetents can attempt to pull off a spectacular conspiracy such as this one.

Bin Laden exists, his motives are well known to everyone for a long time, his resources are extensive, and he virtually admitted doing it. That is a very powerful argument that cannot be dismissed simply because someone thinks "oh, it _must_ be the government" and comes up with a few inconsistances.

So many coincidences ? How often do several airliners crash into buildings simultaniously on the same day ? How can you measure the amount of coincidences on instances like that ? Events like this are one-offs, even if it were to happen again the circumstances would be different, there is no comparison to make.

Captive State

I don't think a lot of Monbiot, but he is not a conspiratualist like Michael Moore, he does present a coherant, if flawed, argument. Monboit has a political motive, one that is ardently against any form of capitalism, so it is hardly surprizing he considers "corporate takeover" to be a bad thing, I doubt he'd consider "communist takeover" to be so bad, even if it did all the undemocratic policies just the same.

 

[bigbb]

Quite. But the issue here is that all the "arguments" are simply engineered to form some preconcieved theory, that is far from constructive debate. If an engine found on NYC streets doesn't match then it could be for many reasons, not least of all that it was incorrectly identified, it is not a "positive" in any argument.

Sure. This is where we, as an active audience, have to come in and judge not just from given 'facts', but relevant information across sources. From following this thread and the various links given, I don't actually give much credence to the engine etc..

But, I do feel we need to be very careful about dismissing arguments on this or any other contentious issue, simply because of what may be a few rogue sources and outlandish claims.

I don't think a lot of Monbiot, but he is not a conspiratualist like Michael Moore, he does present a coherant, if flawed, argument. Monboit has a political motive, one that is ardently against any form of capitalism, so it is hardly surprizing he considers "corporate takeover" to be a bad thing, I doubt he'd consider "communist takeover" to be so bad, even if it did all the undemocratic policies just the same.

Perhaps a bad example as Monbiot can make some impractical arguements. But, again, I wouldn't disregard his entire debate, because of more radical arguments. Some of the stories in Captive State are compelling. So much so, I have to sit for five minutes to calm down after reading each chapter.

Btw... Good to see you around, Xane!

 

[Tom]

im generally a guy who doesn't believe anything without proof.

What i don't get is why the government dont just answer the questions asked by these conspiracy theorists. A lot of them are simple enough questions, which if were answered properly by the govt, would set most people's minds at rest. However when they just blanket refuse or blatantly lie; it really starts to look like they've got something to hide.

I'm largely cynical about such things and personally I tend on the side that most western governments are simply using the politics of fear to slowly etch away at our civil liberties until we do get the situation of science fiction in 50 years or more time.

I really do wish people would get more enthused about politics these days, almost everyone is apathetic because they don't believe 1 person can change anything. If you believe it, it becomes true.

If someone comes up to you in the street and tells you that you're the result of a genetic experiment gone horribly wrong, do you:

a) Ignore the idiot?
b) Demand answers from your parents?
c) Take the government to court?

For years people went on and on about 'The Magic Bullet' in the JFK assassination - the same bullet that actually followed a pretty normal trajectory, only people didn't know that the chap in the front who it travelled through was actually sat where people thought he wasn't. OOPS. Then they focussed on the movement of JFK's head when struck, casually forgetting the principles of 'cavitation'. Then they decided to shut up because actually, nobody really cared any more.

You can find somebody going on about a conspiracy in just about every major world event - WW2, Vietnam, Moon Landings, 9/11, the one thing that they all have in common is that they're basically nutcases.

Oh, and anybody who's ever watched Fred Dibnah bring down a massive chimney with a few bits of old wood will know that big things aren't actually as strong as they look. The twin towers were mostly made of air. And I saw a documentary a few years back with a chap in a steelyard piled high with steel columns from the towers. His opinion was that the massive twisted and snapped columns were damaged not by explosives, but by heat from fires, and stress from collapses. And somebody please show me a video of a tower collapse where the explosive charges aren't picked up by the camera filming it, because those must be some super-quiet explosives they have there.

Oh, and anybody who has ever whacked a piece of concrete with a hammer knows that its a pretty messy business, and that you'd better have a window open.

 

[Skyler]

Oh, and anybody who has ever whacked a piece of concrete with a hammer knows that its a pretty messy business, and that you'd better have a window open.

Yeah but the buildings didn't collapse by contact. If you look at it it's not floor crashing onto another floor and forcing it down. The floor gives way at pretty much every point.

This is even more apparant on the WTC7 Demolition. There's no way that just fell down.

 

[DaGaffer]

Yeah but the buildings didn't collapse by contact. If you look at it it's not floor crashing onto another floor and forcing it down. The floor gives way at pretty much every point.

This is even more apparant on the WTC7 Demolition. There's no way that just fell down.

Are you a Structural Engineer? Are you an Architect? Are you a demolitions expert? If the answer is "no", then please don't make statements like "There's no way that just fell down", because you have no more idea than I do whether that's true or not.

 

[Skyler]

Watch how WTC7 collapsed and tell me what that reminds you of.

It certainly doesn't remind me of disasters where burning buildings are wrecked by fire to the point of collapse.

However, it does remind me of every single demolition I have ever seen.

It looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but you think it's a turkey?

Add weight that the guy that owned it admitted he signed for it to be demolished on that day afaik.

But of course the demolition was prepared in the early hours of the morning just before the planes hit and just in time for the building to collapse after, right?

 

[Tom]

How many of those disasters have also included massive structural damage caused by falling debris from the collapse of nearby buildings?

Not many I reckon.

 

[Paradroid]

Tom, watch the videos, see it for yourself...the Alex Jones one I referred to talks about the fact that WTC7 wasn't hit by any debris, and apparently just "fell" because it had a fire on a couple of floors for a couple of hours?!? (Never happened before - another "first") But, another building inside the complex, that had a more intense fire and was hit by debris, was still standing at the end of the day.

...
And somebody please show me a video of a tower collapse where the explosive charges aren't picked up by the camera filming it, because those must be some super-quiet explosives they have there.
...

... just watch Loose Change, the explosions are there on vid (there's an audio pickup from another WTC building). The siesmograph evidence also shows spikes immediately preceding the collapse, indicating large explosions.

DeGaffer]
...
Are you a Structural Engineer? Are you an Architect? Are you a demolitions expert? If the answer is "no", then please don't make statements like "There's no way that just fell down", because you have no more idea than I do whether that's true or not.
...

No, but I've conducted tensile tests on various metals, I've studied basic physics and complex thermodynamics and nothing about the pancaking "theory" makes sense ... there's no resistance!

The entire length of the buildings structural columns gave way simultaneously, allowing it to fall straight down. If fires/plane caused a stuctural weakness it would have been localised and the top part of the building would come crashing down - no doubt damaging/crushing floors beneath it, but the inherent strength of the underlying supports would stop it falling all-the-way-down...like it did.

There's numerous firefighter reports of bombs going off, a janitor in the basement of WTC was caught up in a "blast", and, there's video footage showing the camera shake from a bomb seconds before the collapse of one of the towers (watch the vid). Also, the basement under the rubble was over 2000 degrees which is consistant with thermal charges, not jet fuel ... watch the vids.

 

[Skyler]

Thanks again Paradroid

There are too many dodgy things that happened that day for us not to suspect something dodgy went on.

Add it all together without dismissing it and you'll all see it too.

Don't look for experts opinions and don't debunk things anyone says because they aren't experts. There are enough plain to see facts to show you that the entire thing is extremely dodgy at best.

I thought oh dear when I watched FH911 and yeah everyone can dismiss that as being Michael Moore. Infact the general opinion about him made me very cautious when I watched it, but there are plenty of things on there which are again facts and are again extremely dodgy.

Take a few of those with the many others readily available, then try to answer why someone invested shedloads of money in both airline companies right before that day. Now try to answer why that persons name and details remain hidden and unrevealed. That person knew it was going to happen, why is that person being protected. Who is protecting them?

This is a fact, it can't be changed or blown away by someone saying I'm not an expert. Please explain it... You can't..

What possible reason does the American administration hide, protect and refuse to act upon clear evidence that may well lead them to at least one person who knew what was going to happen that day.

The more I read up on this (without looking at dodgy sites that are obviously crazy anti Bush nuts) the more I am convinced the official story is a pack of lies.

Whether or not the American administration orchestrated the entire thing I still can't say, but there needs to be some serious investigations into the entire thing. Unfortunately time is passing fast.. will we ever know the truth?

I wonder what would happen to America if the government was proven to have carried this entire thing out. Scary.

 

[ZiggY]

I wonder what would happen to America if the government was proven to have carried this entire thing out. Scary.

Bush would resign..Blair would say: I didnt have a clue and go on to add Education Education Education.

4 weeks later things would be back to normal

 

[DaGaffer]

However, it does remind me of every single demolition I have ever seen.

It looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but you think it's a turkey?

Well, since my only experience of watching fuel laden airliners crashing into tall, essentially hollow, buildings was 9/11, I don't really have a frame of reference for what it should look like. Do you?

Add weight that the guy that owned it admitted he signed for it to be demolished on that day afaik.

But of course the demolition was prepared in the early hours of the morning just before the planes hit and just in time for the building to collapse after, right?

WHAT? Sources please. You're saying "the guy that owned" two of New York's most significant landmarks had signed for them to be demolished? As far as I'm aware, the owner of WTC 7 said in an interview that he decided to 'pull it' referring to the withdrawal of firefighters from the burning building, not that he was going to demolish it!

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.

 

[DaGaffer]

Tom, watch the videos, see it for yourself...the Alex Jones one I referred to talks about the fact that WTC7 wasn't hit by any debris, and apparently just "fell" because it had a fire on a couple of floors for a couple of hours?!? (Never happened before - another "first") But, another building inside the complex, that had a more intense fire and was hit by debris, was still standing at the end of the day.

This simply isn't true. A substantial chunk of WTC1 fell on WTC7. The building was burning all day and wasn't abandoned until gone 5pm.

The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that they overly complicate things; if I was 'teh evul govmint' and wanted to create an outrage for whatever security agenda you care to name, why would I fly two jet airliners into the twin towers and then blow them up? I wouldn't need to; the airliners in the buildings would be enough to serve my agenda, whether the buildings collapsed or not. The whole idea that a conspiracy would create all these additional layers of complexity (and hence opportunities for exposure) is just laughable. Occam's Razor should be your guide.