• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

World Trade Centre 7

Yep there was a third building and watch this clip, it gets more bizarre:

[video=youtube;6mxFRigYD3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s[/video]


Then watch this:

[video=youtube;bHQPaAkIl0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHQPaAkIl0I[/video]
 
Last edited:
Papercut said:
I must have missed this one; anyone know about it? Don't think there was much attention to it?

http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/03/911-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out

[video=youtube;yswMOB8_IAM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yswMOB8_IAM[/video]

And I'm not following conspiracy theory; didn't know there was a third building.
Click to expand...

I saw this film couple of weeks ago
Some of the stuff seems pretty damming.
There's another link on the you tube comments where someone argues that with the two towers going down etc and compare flight times that the plane that the passengers supposedly fought back on was destined for tower 7.
As with all these things there told from a certain slant so massive pinch of salt needed but in that film there's a few interesting bits in it.
I'm no conspiracy believer but sometimes I do wonder as any thing is possible in this vile world.
The whole notion of a government doing that is so outrageous that you would never believe it capable to do so......
 
I wasted about 12 minutes of my life on that. Consider me well and truly unimpressed. Emotional arguments and speculations along with what seems to me like cherry picking of information.

A short video highlighting some of the problems with the tower 7 conspiracies:

[video=youtube;tbPpK-oWdYc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPpK-oWdYc[/video]

A link to a site handling some of the conspiracies for reference: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I can't be bothered watching the entire original video. What seems obvious from the little I did watch is that they consistently show images and video from the sides of the building that didn't face the falling towers. The damage to WTC7 was likely massive as indicated by the images in the video and link I posted. This damage would obviously be on the side facing the two larger buildings. To me it seems as obvious that images depicting that damage properly are hard to come by. The smoking ruins of the two towers would be in the way and of course WTC7 itself was burning and heavy smoke was coming out of it. Presenting this, along with the available pictures would to me seem like a fair representation of the situation, what the original conspiracy video presented seems far from it.

From around 10 minutes in the conspiracy video they talk about explosions. Surprise surprise when exposed to long lasting fires there's stuff in a high rise building that will blow up. They then show firemen and others walking away talking about how they expect the building to come down. They're the ones on the ground that have been fairly close to the building, they've seen what's going on and probably at least some of the damage to the building. They're expecting the building to come down. The video I posted also claims that media outlets were reporting that the building was likely to come down before it collapsed based on reports from the fire department, although I don't have a link confirming that on hand.

The conspiracy video of course compares this "office fire" to other fires in high rise buildings. Buildings like these are built to stay up despite fire, sure. But have they been built to withstand the kind of damage WTC7 suffered when the two towers collapsed next to it, followed by uncontrolled fires? I'm not so sure. At the very least comparisons to what have been only office fires in other buildings seems rather irrelevant to me, and also seems rather disingenuous when compared directly without mention of the damage to WTC7.

The conspiracy video seems to lean quite heavily on the authority of the 1500+ (now 2000+) architects and engineers that have signed their petition. However, I think it's important to point out that the petition is only a call for an independent investigation, not a statement that all of the signatories believe there was a conspiracy. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the number of experts, but even with this fairly vague wording of the petition including no statements of what these people believe the numbers are fairly small. The AIA (American Institute of Architects) has over 80 thousand members according to their website. The American Society of Civil Engineers has over 120 thousand members. In addition there are other relevant organizations with even more members.

Long story short, I'm not impressed.
 
Mulletperm said:
Explanation of the BBC reporting the building coming down before it had?
Click to expand...

Obviously I cannot know exactly what happened. By the way I found a video (of many) showing how the media were reporting that the building was likely to collapse or almost certain to collapse here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

The most likely explanation to me would be that the BBC misunderstood a report. Somewhere along the line "is going to collapse" became "has collapsed". The BBC then reported it as if it had happened. A mistake, perhaps even a big one, but in the chaos and the attempt to broadcast news as quickly as possible not to a me a surprising mistake.

Let's consider the alternative. The BBC had knowledge that this building was going to collapse provided to them from the conspirators before they pressed the button and start the controlled demolition and they broadcasted this prematurely. What does this alternative imply? First of all the question is "why?" Why would the conspirators inform the press about this beforehand, surely if they just wanted them to report on it why not just wait? If the BBC were informed I would say that quite a lot of news agencies would have been informed about it? If not, why only the BBC? So for the conspiracy theory you're now easily moving into the grand conspiracy theory where all or most of the press in addition to the government etc all take part in some worldwide grand conspiracy. I just don't buy it.

Occam's razor comes to mind. The explanation that a mistake was made seems much more likely. Particularly when considering that there have been conspiracy theorists scouring the footage over and over again looking for anomalies that could point towards a conspiracy combined with the tremendous amounts of hours of reporting by the various tv, radio and internet outlets around the world that was done in a chaotic situation. That some mistake like this or similar to this was made by some station at some point and discovered seems far from unlikely to me. The conspiracy theorists see an anomaly and claim it as evidence, I just don't get it.
 
braineclipse said:
I wasted about 12 minutes of my life on that. Consider me well and truly unimpressed. Emotional arguments and speculations along with what seems to me like cherry picking of information.

A short video highlighting some of the problems with the tower 7 conspiracies:

[video=youtube;tbPpK-oWdYc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPpK-oWdYc[/video]

A link to a site handling some of the conspiracies for reference: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I can't be bothered watching the entire original video. What seems obvious from the little I did watch is that they consistently show images and video from the sides of the building that didn't face the falling towers. The damage to WTC7 was likely massive as indicated by the images in the video and link I posted. This damage would obviously be on the side facing the two larger buildings. To me it seems as obvious that images depicting that damage properly are hard to come by. The smoking ruins of the two towers would be in the way and of course WTC7 itself was burning and heavy smoke was coming out of it. Presenting this, along with the available pictures would to me seem like a fair representation of the situation, what the original conspiracy video presented seems far from it.

From around 10 minutes in the conspiracy video they talk about explosions. Surprise surprise when exposed to long lasting fires there's stuff in a high rise building that will blow up. They then show firemen and others walking away talking about how they expect the building to come down. They're the ones on the ground that have been fairly close to the building, they've seen what's going on and probably at least some of the damage to the building. They're expecting the building to come down. The video I posted also claims that media outlets were reporting that the building was likely to come down before it collapsed based on reports from the fire department, although I don't have a link confirming that on hand.

The conspiracy video of course compares this "office fire" to other fires in high rise buildings. Buildings like these are built to stay up despite fire, sure. But have they been built to withstand the kind of damage WTC7 suffered when the two towers collapsed next to it, followed by uncontrolled fires? I'm not so sure. At the very least comparisons to what have been only office fires in other buildings seems rather irrelevant to me, and also seems rather disingenuous when compared directly without mention of the damage to WTC7.

The conspiracy video seems to lean quite heavily on the authority of the 1500+ (now 2000+) architects and engineers that have signed their petition. However, I think it's important to point out that the petition is only a call for an independent investigation, not a statement that all of the signatories believe there was a conspiracy. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the number of experts, but even with this fairly vague wording of the petition including no statements of what these people believe the numbers are fairly small. The AIA (American Institute of Architects) has over 80 thousand members according to their website. The American Society of Civil Engineers has over 120 thousand members. In addition there are other relevant organizations with even more members.

Long story short, I'm not impressed.
Click to expand...

That video you posted does the same as the other cherry picks info to put across a certain slant on what happened so in your eyes should be as reliable as the original video at top of the page.

With regards to the first video the full film is on you tube and is two hours long so as you state you watched 12 minutes how can you write it off ?

Don't get me wrong I also feel it nit picks to put across a certain view on the events but there is some interesting bits in it I find I.e the number of supporting Columns that need to fail all within a second of each other for a building to fall at free fall speed .
And some other stuff that stands out have not watched it since the video was posted but there were other parts also.

With regards the conspiracy theory's
people love to write them off all the time whilst some in other matters are far fetched and totally ludicrous the whole 9/11 event does make some people wonder as all the videos and so called compelling evidence for and against seem to split opinion.

As I said above you can not write it off completely in my opinion as in this world anything is possible.

And if and I repeat if it was an inside job what better place to hide than in plain sight. It's so outrages to think a government would do that to its own people that no one would believe it capable.
 
djp82 said:
That video you posted does the same as the other cherry picks info to put across a certain slant on what happened so in your eyes should be as reliable as the original video at top of the page.

With regards to the first video the full film is on you tube and is two hours long so as you state you watched 12 minutes how can you write it off ?

Don't get me wrong I also feel it nit picks to put across a certain view on the events but there is some interesting bits in it I find I.e the number of supporting Columns that need to fail all within a second of each other for a building to fall at free fall speed .
And some other stuff that stands out have not watched it since the video was posted but there were other parts also.

With regards the conspiracy theory's
people love to write them off all the time whilst some in other matters are far fetched and totally ludicrous the whole 9/11 event does make some people wonder as all the videos and so called compelling evidence for and against seem to split opinion.

As I said above you can not write it off completely in my opinion as in this world anything is possible.

And if and I repeat if it was an inside job what better place to hide than in plain sight. It's so outrages to think a government would do that to its own people that no one would believe it capable.
Click to expand...

I suppose my point I'm trying to get at is the fact that we are quick to write off people that dare to question the facts that we are given by the governments of this world.
We as a world gobble up the tripe they tell us as gospel and whoever dares to question is a conspiracist , nut job etc
 
djp82 said:
That video you posted does the same as the other cherry picks info to put across a certain slant on what happened so in your eyes should be as reliable as the original video at top of the page.

With regards to the first video the full film is on you tube and is two hours long so as you state you watched 12 minutes how can you write it off ?

Don't get me wrong I also feel it nit picks to put across a certain view on the events but there is some interesting bits in it I find I.e the number of supporting Columns that need to fail all within a second of each other for a building to fall at free fall speed .
And some other stuff that stands out have not watched it since the video was posted but there were other parts also.

With regards the conspiracy theory's
people love to write them off all the time whilst some in other matters are far fetched and totally ludicrous the whole 9/11 event does make some people wonder as all the videos and so called compelling evidence for and against seem to split opinion.

As I said above you can not write it off completely in my opinion as in this world anything is possible.

And if and I repeat if it was an inside job what better place to hide than in plain sight. It's so outrages to think a government would do that to its own people that no one would believe it capable.
Click to expand...

The video I posted attempts to deal with specific conspiracy claims and points to information that to me at least argues strongly against those claims. We must have different definitions of cherry picking.

I can write it off because I've seen similar video in the past, because the claims they made weren't new and because it seemed more like an emotional propaganda video. If they have actual facts, actual points in there somewhere I feel they could have been presented in minutes instead of in an hour. When they blatantly avoid presenting relevant information I don't feel like wasting more time on their story.

I don't particularly care that this particular conspiracy theory splits opinions. Opinion polls say that around 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution, it obviously splits opinions, doesn't influence how I think about it. It's about presenting information, it's about intellectual honesty, it's about a skeptical scientific approach to evidence.

I find your argument that anything is possible irrelevant. I'm well aware that certain knowledge isn't possible, so yes we should be open minded. But we shouldn't be so open minded that our brain falls out. The "anything is possible, you can not write it off completely" argument can be used to support absolutely any position on absolutely any issue. That makes it useless if the goal is to actually separate fact from fiction even if it's a somewhat interesting philosophical discussion.

I don't quite get how this is hiding in plain sight? How is bringing down a building that no plain flew into hiding in plain sight? If they wanted to hide why not make the terrorists from a country they actually wanted to invade? How is it hiding in plain sight to feed information to the press before events happened (as is being claimed here).

I'm not naive enough to think that governments are benign. I'm not naive enough to think that power doesn't corrupt. It's not that I can't believe that a government is capable of something like this it's that the quality of supposed evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists on this topic is to me unconvincing.

I have no issues with conspiracy theories in theory. Some fairly shocking conspiracies have been uncovered, but they've been uncovered with actual research not just a long list of what are claimed to be anomalies woven together.

You want a conspiracy, watch this documentary on Henry Kissinger:

[video=youtube;9IvcJ1JIspE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IvcJ1JIspE[/video]

This to me seems well researched, intellectually honest, well presented and quite likely to be (for the most part) true. The 911 truthers haven't presented anything like this and thus I don't believe what they're saying.
 
djp82 said:
I suppose my point I'm trying to get at is the fact that we are quick to write off people that dare to question the facts that we are given by the governments of this world.
We as a world gobble up the tripe they tell us as gospel and whoever dares to question is a conspiracist , nut job etc
Click to expand...

Hardly.

Seriously, watch the documentary I posted (or at least 12 minutes of it ;)). An hour and twenty minutes much more worthy of your time than what the so called truthers present.

Just because I have a standard of evidence that makes me dismiss the claims of the 911 truthers doesn't mean that I gobble up tripe as gospel as you put it. Nor does it mean that I write off people that dare to question the facts given by the governments. It just means that I don't find what these particular "questioners" say convincing.

I'm fine with questioning, I really like the "question everything, even this" mantra, I'm a big fan of skepticism, I've always been intrigued by the revolutionaries and those opposing the establishment. I want my beliefs to be accurate representations of reality if possible. I want truth over fiction/delusion. To get this at some point you have to evaluate evidence and that means having a somewhat objective standard for evidence. And it means dismissing, at least tentatively, claims that are unsupported by evidence.
 
Having watched the 911 video there are clear areas in the official investigation that have been unanswered where
there is evidence shown which contradicts the official report
 
the thing for me is that people are crap at keeping secrets, especially US govt agencies, the sheer volume of people who would have to have been in on this and after a decade no one has blown the whistle, it just doesn't track, not because it's a "conspiracy theory" but because there are so many more far logical explanations
 
I'm by no means an advocate of a conspiracy theory in this instance, but feel the official investigation was
seriously lacking and had left it wide open for conspiracy theories. A more thorough investigation would have overcome such allegations by addressing the issues that had been clear.
 
braineclipse said:
Hardly.

Seriously, watch the documentary I posted (or at least 12 minutes of it ;)). An hour and twenty minutes much more worthy of your time than what the so called truthers present.

Just because I have a standard of evidence that makes me dismiss the claims of the 911 truthers doesn't mean that I gobble up tripe as gospel as you put it. Nor does it mean that I write off people that dare to question the facts given by the governments. It just means that I don't find what these particular "questioners" say convincing.

I'm fine with questioning, I really like the "question everything, even this" mantra, I'm a big fan of skepticism, I've always been intrigued by the revolutionaries and those opposing the establishment. I want my beliefs to be accurate representations of reality if possible. I want truth over fiction/delusion. To get this at some point you have to evaluate evidence and that means having a somewhat objective standard for evidence. And it means dismissing, at least tentatively, claims that are unsupported by evidence.
Click to expand...

I did not point my post directly at you even tho I used it's video in my own only the part about the video putting forward evidence from a certain perspective or facts which ever it maybe.

It's all a matter of opinion of course and ours clearly differ because to write it off you must be using evidence or facts from somewhere ? In which was dolled out by some organisation or government what's to say that's the truth ?
I sit on the fence to 9/11 myself and remain open minded not to the extent my brain falls out tho.

Like THFC said about the report/inquest has been closed with many un answered questions which does indeed leave it open to conspiracy theories.

Maybe I'm a little naive in using the anythings possible point and yes it's open to interpretation on many things and everything. But it depends what way you choose to look at life/this world.

I personally believe in science and evolution. I don't believe in the whole GHod religion thing. But again it's down to facts given to me by science and myself trusting theses conclusions ,facts,experiments taught or given to me via a third party .

So unless you do these experiments yourself what's not to say they are false made up etc as religion would have you believe? It boils down to my own trust in these facts and evidence in them.

I will watch that documentary when I get a chance and I remain open minded :)
 
djp82 said:
I did not point my post directly at you even tho I used it's video in my own only the part about the video putting forward evidence from a certain perspective or facts which ever it maybe.

It's all a matter of opinion of course and ours clearly differ because to write it off you must be using evidence or facts from somewhere ? In which was dolled out by some organisation or government what's to say that's the truth ?
I sit on the fence to 9/11 myself and remain open minded not to the extent my brain falls out tho.

Like THFC said about the report/inquest has been closed with many un answered questions which does indeed leave it open to conspiracy theories.

Maybe I'm a little naive in using the anythings possible point and yes it's open to interpretation on many things and everything. But it depends what way you choose to look at life/this world.

I personally believe in science and evolution. I don't believe in the whole GHod religion thing. But again it's down to facts given to me by science and myself trusting theses conclusions ,facts,experiments taught or given to me via a third party .

So unless you do these experiments yourself what's not to say they are false made up etc as religion would have you believe? It boils down to my own trust in these facts and evidence in them.

I will watch that documentary when I get a chance and I remain open minded :)
Click to expand...

Excuse my contradiction you can write it off if you trust the facts and evidence..
 
THFC said:
I'm by no means an advocate of a conspiracy theory in this instance, but feel the official investigation was
seriously lacking and had left it wide open for conspiracy theories. A more thorough investigation would have overcome such allegations by addressing the issues that had been clear.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the conspiracy theorists in their willingness to believe in their conspiracies based on at best dubious evidence their ability to spread this information and the power of accurate information to change their minds.

The conspiracy theories might have been less popular by a smallish margin, little more than that I think.

djp82 said:
I did not point my post directly at you even tho I used it's video in my own only the part about the video putting forward evidence from a certain perspective or facts which ever it maybe.

It's all a matter of opinion of course and ours clearly differ because to write it off you must be using evidence or facts from somewhere ? In which was dolled out by some organisation or government what's to say that's the truth ?
I sit on the fence to 9/11 myself and remain open minded not to the extent my brain falls out tho.

Like THFC said about the report/inquest has been closed with many un answered questions which does indeed leave it open to conspiracy theories.

Maybe I'm a little naive in using the anythings possible point and yes it's open to interpretation on many things and everything. But it depends what way you choose to look at life/this world.

I personally believe in science and evolution. I don't believe in the whole GHod religion thing. But again it's down to facts given to me by science and myself trusting theses conclusions ,facts,experiments taught or given to me via a third party .

So unless you do these experiments yourself what's not to say they are false made up etc as religion would have you believe? It boils down to my own trust in these facts and evidence in them.

I will watch that documentary when I get a chance and I remain open minded :)
Click to expand...

Once again "what's to say that's the truth" can be used about any information from anywhere, unless you've observed it yourself. I see no reason to trust these conspiracy theorists any more than I trust the government. To some extent your argument becomes an argument for ignorance, you can keep asking "why do you trust that" at any given point. Like I said I prefer some somewhat objective standards of evidence to a philosophical "we can't know anything" solipsistic viewpoint. If you find what the conspiracy theorists say convincing enough to sit on the fence that's obviously fair enough, but that's information dolled out by some organization or people what's to say that's the truth?

Trusting in science means accepting that you can't know everything yourself first hand. It means trusting in the consensus opinion of experts and accepting a certain amount of uncertainty about those beliefs you accept. If the consensus opinion of experts is that 911 was a conspiracy it's passed me by, as I alluded to with the numbers I posted earlier.

Enjoy the documentary :)
 
The thing with science is that it will promote testing and is open to be proved wrong. The video uses scientific analysis in relation to the heat of the burning fire and expert opinion has stated categorically that the temperature shown cannot be experienced in a fire in this scenario. The temperature reached and the parts of debris found suggest a chemical reaction not achievable given the official facts as presented and hasn addressed this point of contention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back