A friend of mine linked me this video after we yet another discussion on the Illuminati etc etc. and well, since I'm a Free Thinker, I follow the evidence and/or reasoning, and I have to say the evidence is very convincing. *But*, that's not to say I believe the whole spiel about the Illuminati. All I can say is that I believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down as a result of controlled demolitions. I don't know who did it. I don't know why, and I definitely don't know how they got around to setting up these demolitions.





I know that most of you won't sit through an hr of watching a video on YouTube, and that's understandable. Here's a few things they talked about:

>WTC 7's rooftop features fell through first, then the entirety of the building started to fall => evidence of a demolition
>WTC 7's collapse was uniform. This is unexpected as the official report said it was caused by fire damage on *one* side of the building. A uniform collapse => demolition
>WTC 7's collapse speed was plotted (from videos) and it's accelerating as if it's free falling. Thus, no resistance was provided by the lower levels of the structure => there must have been no supporting columns anymore => demolition

>The section of the Twin Towers just above where the planes hit also fell uniformly and without resistance from the untouched section below it => demolition
>Molten iron(?) was found beneath all the rubble. Jet fuel doesn't burn at a temperature hot enough to melt the structure. However, a military grade explosive (forgot the compound's name) does produce the energy required to melt steel/iron => demolition
>Hardly anything was left of the 3 buildings. One witness said the majority of the concrete had been pulverized to a fine powder ("2-3 feet of powder everywhere"). This isn't to be expected from a building simply collapsing => demolition

There's a lot more evidence in the video that the official report simply doesn't include, or the officials chose not to look at/investigate from the beginning.

I'm basically posting this to see what everyone thinks, because maybe the evidence only looks good to me

I think the 9-11 "truther" crowd is batshit crazy.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/Nati...-4067.html


So, I guess the lines are drawn.

(October 13, 2013 at 1:08 am)Minimalist Wrote: I think the 9-11 "truther" crowd is batshit crazy.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/Nati...-4067.html


So, I guess the lines are drawn.

That's some good info. Thanks for sharing.

I always remember Bill Maher's comment about "government conspiracies."

"The government isn't up to it. The government can't deliver the mail."

Erm...did you not see those planes bang into the towers?

Boru

....

Conspiracy theories are hard to kill because conspiracy theorist dedicate a lot of effort into whatever theory they're trying to push. And if you do that you can push almost any theory, which is why they all lack credibility.

Have you heard the 911 recording of the flight centre (? flight control centre?) before during and after 911? Planes flew into WTC that day.

I've read the article you linked Min in closer detail. There's some things that aren't adding up to me:

Quote:The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Science: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

The AE911Truth team stated that it was the American Society of Civil Engineers themselves that violated the usual procedure of investigating a collapsed building. If this is true, then it puts the post-research they did into question.

Quote:Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

It might be possible that the jet fuel left the structure weakened to the point of collapse, but it doesn't explain molten iron/steel found beneath the rubble, as both building materials require temperatures closer to 3 000F to melt: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/meltin...d_860.html

Quote:Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Well.. the hr long video *is* the entirety of the evidence found for a demolition, of which the official report didn't find because they stated (paraphrasing) "we didn't search for evidence of explosives".


On the other hand, I've found a good website stating the opposite to what some of the video said: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/Nati...-4067.html


*sigh* why do I even bother opening this new can of worms... religion keeps me busy enough.

(October 13, 2013 at 2:03 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I've read the article you linked Min in closer detail. There's some things that aren't adding up to me:

Quote:The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Science: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

The AE911Truth team stated that it was the American Society of Civil Engineers themselves that violated the usual procedure of investigating a collapsed building. If this is true, then it puts the post-research they did into question.

Do they have evidence that they violated procedure and if so what type of procedure are we talking about? Violating protocol doesn't necessarily mean that the results have to be forfeited, sometimes exceptions have to be made and I'll assume WTC was a special case when it comes to investigation.

Ok, I haven't watched your video or followed any other link posted here, but may I just point out one thing?

Let's say for the sake of argument (a ludicrous one, but still) that somehow it was a conspiracy, an inside job. Don't you suppose, with all the planning, care, secrecy, skill and general .007-ness employed to get the job done, they would have named the right "villain?"

I mean, presuming the whole thing was done as a pretext to go to war with Iraq, don't you imagine they would have named Saddam Hussein as the author of the act -- and not Osama bin Laden? Because... they sure had to work hard to shift the focus from bin Laden to Hussein in the run up to the war. Frankly, I was shocked they pulled THAT off.

Just an observation.