New footage of #7 collapse

RolandTD20Kdrummer
RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
Haven't seen this angle before.

Hey....notice something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0

The facade of the building stays in perfect condition.

If there really had been a progressive collapse, there would have been at least some damage (probably a lot) to the outside of the building. In order for the outside to remain unaffected, the internal steel beams would have to pull away from facade itself without damaging or distorting it whatsoever.

Don't you need to cut the beams rather precisely to accomplish this effect?

yes...no?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.

http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • NumberTenOx
    NumberTenOx Posts: 94
    Well, for starters, the side of the building seen in the video is on the opposite side from the collapse of WTC1, so much of the damage would not be seen. Second, much of the damage occurred below the thirteenth floor, which also would not be seen on the video. If the lower floors were damaged, you would see the entire upper section of the building drop down intact and pancake, just as seen on the video.

    Are you suggesting that someone went in and secretly rigged WTC7 with demolition charges in the days before 9/11? A working building crawling with people?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    NumberTenOx wrote:
    Well, for starters, the side of the building seen in the video is on the opposite side from the collapse of WTC1, so much of the damage would not be seen. Second, much of the damage occurred below the thirteenth floor, which also would not be seen on the video. If the lower floors were damaged, you would see the entire upper section of the building drop down intact and pancake, just as seen on the video.

    Are you suggesting that someone went in and secretly rigged WTC7 with demolition charges in the days before 9/11? A working building crawling with people?

    That's all good, but the undamaged portions of the building went down in perfect symmetry/unison to the damaged side.

    how?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Haven't seen this angle before.

    Hey....notice something?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0

    The facade of the building stays in perfect condition.

    If there really had been a progressive collapse, there would have been at least some damage (probably a lot) to the outside of the building. In order for the outside to remain unaffected, the internal steel beams would have to pull away from facade itself without damaging or distorting it whatsoever.

    Don't you need to cut the beams rather precisely to accomplish this effect?

    yes...no?

    It's good to examine the evidence, and we need more questions answered. I'm all ears here, but the truth movement fails to address one glaring point:

    Any "inside job" of this magnetude would be so large that there has to be someone who would have come forward with some direct knowledge, involvement, or evidence. It would take months, and so many people, to cut those columns, you'd figure we'd have a lot more to go on than the video.

    I've seen all the tapes, seen all the anectodatal evidence, and it's very compelling. The Pentagon evidence (and lack/destruction thereof) is troubling. But I for one am not ready to go "inside job" without more. The big picture suggests there is more. Let's keep pressing for more 'til we get the truth. i suspect the truth is far more complicated than the simplistic "inside job" theory.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    I'm surprised that so many people think that the Bush administration, which couldn't even tie its' shoes without screwing up, would be capable of pulling off something of such magnitude with absolutely no traces of irrefutable evidence. It's just surprising to see those who harshly criticize the federal government's incompetence when it comes to Iraq and Katrina simultaneously believe that they could have pulled off what would be the most elaborate and dastardly conspiracy in the history of this country without ANY screwups.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    prytoj wrote:
    It's good to examine the evidence, and we need more questions answered. I'm all ears here, but the truth movement fails to address one glaring point:

    Any "inside job" of this magnetude would be so large that there has to be someone who would have come forward with some direct knowledge, involvement, or evidence. It would take months, and so many people, to cut those columns, you'd figure we'd have a lot more to go on than the video.

    I've seen all the tapes, seen all the anectodatal evidence, and it's very compelling. The Pentagon evidence (and lack/destruction thereof) is troubling. But I for one am not ready to go "inside job" without more. The big picture suggests there is more. Let's keep pressing for more 'til we get the truth. i suspect the truth is far more complicated than the simplistic "inside job" theory.

    When I look at some of the occupants in building 7 it's far from reassuring.

    Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
    Department of Defense (DOD)
    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
    Securities and Exchange Commission
    US Secret Service
    First State Management Group
    National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
    Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    digster wrote:
    I'm surprised that so many people think that the Bush administration, which couldn't even tie its' shoes without screwing up, would be capable of pulling off something of such magnitude with absolutely no traces of irrefutable evidence. It's just surprising to see those who harshly criticize the federal government's incompetence when it comes to Iraq and Katrina simultaneously believe that they could have pulled off what would be the most elaborate and dastardly conspiracy in the history of this country without ANY screwups.

    Good post, except the failure to adequately address Katrine lies soloey with the state governemt of Louisiana. They screwed up in such a monumental fashion that the feds HAD to step up.

    But I agree that there's some hypocrisy in the view supported by truthers.
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    When I look at some of the occupants in building 7 it's far from reassuring.

    Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
    Department of Defense (DOD)
    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
    Securities and Exchange Commission
    US Secret Service
    First State Management Group
    National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
    Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

    word.
  • NumberTenOx
    NumberTenOx Posts: 94
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    That's all good, but the undamaged portions of the building went down in perfect symmetry/unison to the damaged side.

    how?

    Actually, the fact that it went down symmetrically proves that the internal beams were intact. Pictures of the other side show that the building was relatively undamaged above the lower floors. Even so, the upper section must have been under enormous stress as it fell, and the fact that little distortion is seen proves that the internal structure was still sound and holding the building together as it fell.

    I, too, have looked at this over and over and examined tons of evidence. There is nothing to point to any kind of an inside job. The planes hit the buildings, they fell. Reports were that the terrorists were initially disappointed that the buildings didn't fall over, and the "truth movement" seems to feel that the buildings would not have collapsed unless explosives were used.

    Move on.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    prytoj wrote:
    Good post, except the failure to adequately address Katrine lies soloey with the state governemt of Louisiana. They screwed up in such a monumental fashion that the feds HAD to step up.

    But I agree that there's some hypocrisy in the view supported by truthers.

    Solely? Really? You're not going to give a bit of a ground on that? Hell, even the federal government has admitted they screwed up. But I guess this is the wrong thread for that discussion.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    digster wrote:
    I'm surprised that so many people think that the Bush administration, which couldn't even tie its' shoes without screwing up, would be capable of pulling off something of such magnitude with absolutely no traces of irrefutable evidence. It's just surprising to see those who harshly criticize the federal government's incompetence when it comes to Iraq and Katrina simultaneously believe that they could have pulled off what would be the most elaborate and dastardly conspiracy in the history of this country without ANY screwups.

    There are all kinds of indicators of foul play. The evidence was disposed of a record speed and whatever comes forward is a) marginalized, b) never heard, and c) spun into sheer oblivion.

    They played the patriotism card on everyone for insurance. With or against.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    OK, for the truther novice, what is the intention behind all of this tomfoolery and beam-cutting? What is the supposed point behind the destruction of these buildings?
  • NumberTenOx
    NumberTenOx Posts: 94
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    They played the patriotism card on everyone for insurance. With or against.

    I HATE the Bush administration. I HATE the "Patriot Act".

    But the idea this was an inside job is insane.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    NumberTenOx wrote:
    Actually, the fact that it went down symmetrically proves that the internal beams were intact. Pictures of the other side show that the building was relatively undamaged above the lower floors. Even so, the upper section must have been under enormous stress as it fell, and the fact that little distortion is seen proves that the internal structure was still sound and holding the building together as it fell.

    I, too, have looked at this over and over and examined tons of evidence. There is nothing to point to any kind of an inside job. The planes hit the buildings, they fell. Reports were that the terrorists were initially disappointed that the buildings didn't fall over, and the "truth movement" seems to feel that the buildings would not have collapsed unless explosives were used.

    Move on.


    In tact beams free fall to the ground all perfectly like that?

    I don't think they do. If fact, I think in tact beams hold the building up.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • NumberTenOx
    NumberTenOx Posts: 94
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I don't think they do. If fact, I think in tact beams hold the building up.

    Groan.

    This is a huge building. It's not like there are solid pieces of metal that go from the ground to the top of a building. Have you ever seen one built? They are pieced together, floor by floor.

    The lower floors failed. The entire top of the building started to fall. As each floor reached the bottom, it failed, each one at a time. The entire top of the building just kept falling, intact, pancaking each lower floor in turn.
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    digster wrote:
    Solely? Really? You're not going to give a bit of a ground on that? Hell, even the federal government has admitted they screwed up. But I guess this is the wrong thread for that discussion.

    Yeah, I'll give ground there, the Feds could have done better in addressing the problem. But address it they did after the state failed, in my view.

    The state of louisiana had opportunity upon opportunity to minimize the damage. They could have strenghtened the levy system to minimize the damage, using all those earmarks and pork-barrel spending we dispise so much to take care of that. They could have mandated evacuations, the could have policed the 'Dome.

    They also command the National Guard of Louisiana, so they failed there as well after the fact, in my view.

    There's enough blame to go around. I remember the phrase, "the armed forces can get anywhere in the world within 48 hours, but can't get to Louisiana?" So, point taken.
  • binauralsounds
    binauralsounds Posts: 1,357
    digster wrote:
    I'm surprised that so many people think that the Bush administration, which couldn't even tie its' shoes without screwing up, would be capable of pulling off something of such magnitude with absolutely no traces of irrefutable evidence. It's just surprising to see those who harshly criticize the federal government's incompetence when it comes to Iraq and Katrina simultaneously believe that they could have pulled off what would be the most elaborate and dastardly conspiracy in the history of this country without ANY screwups.

    I concur. It baffles me at how all scream this is the most incompetent administration EVER... But yet they pulled off the biggest inside job EVER... Gimme a break.
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    Sorry to get off-topic on you there, Roland.

    It looks like the feds are hiding something, but until we know what, it's hard to fathom that this was merely a fed job.
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian Posts: 2,672
    NumberTenOx wrote:
    I HATE the Bush administration. I HATE the "Patriot Act".

    But the idea this was an inside job is insane.

    Well no, it's not really insane. Create fear, or the illusion of fear and you will be able to control an entire population.

    How quickly did Americans fall in line after 9/11? In record numbers, never asked any questions about the 'war on terror' they allowed the government to do whatever it wanted, because of fear, because of 9/11.

    So to just think that it's un realistic for it to happen is the thing that's truly insane.

    Now I'm not saying that the Bush admin was behind the attacks, but perhaps they knew about it? Allowed it to happen? Spread the American Empire, use fear and propaganda to push the agenda.

    How could such a large attack be allowed to happen to America? Someone mustve known. Also add the Mossad agents to the mix and the whole white van issue.

    What about the bombs near the George washington bridge? What ever happened to that?

    The truth is, many questions need to be answered. To just accept what has been given to us is wrong and a true crime against the many people who died that day.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    NumberTenOx wrote:
    Groan.

    This is a huge building. It's not like there are solid pieces of metal that go from the ground to the top of a building. Have you ever seen one built? They are pieced together, floor by floor.

    The lower floors failed. The entire top of the building started to fall. As each floor reached the bottom, it failed, each one at a time. The entire top of the building just kept falling, intact, pancaking each lower floor in turn.

    So you think all the floors everywhere around the building even the undamaged sides and ares of the building would all give away that fast in perfect symmetry?

    Perhaps if the damage was around the circumference of the building lower down it would make sense to see such a symmetrical collapse.

    However, if it's localized to one specific location near the bottom, and on on the complete opposite side of the building, why it is that the entire structure everywhere (even around the entire crown of the roof) is affected simultaneously, and in such perfect symmetry with the rest of the building?

    That thing fell out of the sky like a piece of lego.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • NumberTenOx
    NumberTenOx Posts: 94
    I regret my use of the word "insane", that was wrong and I'm sorry. And I totally agree that the Bush administration used and promoted the fear from 9/11 to consolidate their power and their selfish, misguided agenda.

    "Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice." Saying "how could this happen here" is wrong, just look at the evidence of the last 8 years. Stupidity will suffice.

    I guess we just disagree.

Categories