BackPage 2 of 3Next
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories - The collapse of WTC 7 (1 of 2)

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories - The collapse of WTC 7 (1 of 2)

This video was made in September 2007. The official investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 at this time was still ongoing and its final report was not released until December 2008. Therefore, everything in this video was based on their working hypotheses at the time, and it should come as no surprise that when the investigation concluded, some of their findings varied from their early hypotheses. The claim in this video that the fires were "likely fed by a series of diesel generators" turned out not to be the case, and the hypothesis that the collapse started with Truss 1 was also incorrect. The collapse actually started in the same vicinity only a few floors up, with the collapse of Column 79. However, neither of these two greatly alter the overall conclusions for the mechanism of the collapse.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Steve (2235 days ago)
Argle, come on. No steel framed high rise building has been brought down by fire before 9/11. If it had, there would be widespread panic to change the the way these buildings are constructed all over the world, AND to further fireproof those currently standing. But there hasn't been such a rush, because everyone knows it wasn't office fires. Well, everyone but you, apparently. What do you gain by this faux-expert posing anyway? Aren't you deeply disturbed by what you see?
ReplyVote up (237)down (218)
Original comment
Argle, come on. No steel framed high rise building has been brought down by fire before 9/11. If it had, there would be widespread panic to change the the way these buildings are constructed all over the world, AND to further fireproof those currently standing. But there hasn't been such a rush, because everyone knows it wasn't office fires. Well, everyone but you, apparently. What do you gain by this faux-expert posing anyway? Aren't you deeply disturbed by what you see?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2235 days ago)
There have been numerous steel frame buildings collapses from fires. Those, however, are dismissed out of hand by the tin-hat crowd since they don't conform to the conspiracy theory. Besides, if you're going to point to non-collapses do to fires, please list the ones started by crashing a 767 into them.
ReplyVote up (175)down (216)
Original comment
There have been numerous steel frame buildings collapses from fires. Those, however, are dismissed out of hand by the tin-hat crowd since they don't conform to the conspiracy theory. Besides, if you're going to point to non-collapses do to fires, please list the ones started by crashing a 767 into them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: getalifewackos (2234 days ago)
Actually it's "tin-foil hat" brigade. Wearing a tin hat would be too sensible.
ReplyVote up (219)down (201)
Original comment
Actually it's "tin-foil hat" brigade. Wearing a tin hat would be too sensible.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
So you have decided to call someone that doesnt agree with an official storey as a 'tin-hat' wacko?...You do believe everything you are told I take it...politicians, media they all tell the exact truth do they? WMD's in Iraq I suppose you believe they did discover them, you believe everything Tony Blair has said in the Iraq Enquiry?
ReplyVote up (185)down (228)
Original comment
So you have decided to call someone that doesnt agree with an official storey as a 'tin-hat' wacko?...You do believe everything you are told I take it...politicians, media they all tell the exact truth do they? WMD's in Iraq I suppose you believe they did discover them, you believe everything Tony Blair has said in the Iraq Enquiry?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (2235 days ago)
All three buildings came down far too symmetrically. One component would have to fail first, the others wouldn't instantly give up the ghost. There would be some resistance. Even a little resistance would cause the buildings to fall at an angle. They pretty much landed in their own footprints!
ReplyVote up (235)down (216)
Original comment
All three buildings came down far too symmetrically. One component would have to fail first, the others wouldn't instantly give up the ghost. There would be some resistance. Even a little resistance would cause the buildings to fall at an angle. They pretty much landed in their own footprints!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: london1 (2234 days ago)
London1, is this another area of your expertise?
ReplyVote up (191)down (222)
Original comment
London1, is this another area of your expertise?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (2234 days ago)
You're Mother is in my area of expertise but I'm getting out of the dairy business. Her milk tends to be rancid before we can even get it in a bottle.
ReplyVote up (220)down (193)
Original comment
You're Mother is in my area of expertise but I'm getting out of the dairy business. Her milk tends to be rancid before we can even get it in a bottle.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2233 days ago)
Not seen vid 2 then? That stuff is all in the big report
ReplyVote up (197)down (183)
Original comment
Not seen vid 2 then? That stuff is all in the big report
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mtoz (2235 days ago)
If you want to believe it's a conspiracy, you will. No amount of scientific fact will change that. End of story.
ReplyVote up (193)down (168)
Original comment
If you want to believe it's a conspiracy, you will. No amount of scientific fact will change that. End of story.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Exactly and that is what the Scientific facts have concluded. Steel framed bulidings dont fall down by fire alone.
ReplyVote up (194)down (164)
Original comment
Exactly and that is what the Scientific facts have concluded. Steel framed bulidings dont fall down by fire alone.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2233 days ago)
Let's get to the REALLY scary part. As of this posting, 2/3 of the respondants to the poll are in the "conspiracy theory" group. Real conspiracies aren't fascinating... they are a weird combination of dull and embarrrassing (see the wikileaks/ronpaul entry recently on this site). The problem is, this 2/3 bunch votes. Look: keep your weird theories, your over-educated but clueless experts and your paranoia, just don't vote. I don't care that 66% think there's a conspiracty. That's just demonstrates that 66% of the public is stupid. Heck, over 90% of adult Japanese think antibiotics work against viruses. That doesn't make it so. But as most western nations totter toward economic collapse and social legislation nears chaos, and if the voting public's in-depth understanding of government is seeing a conspiracy to collapse an empty office building, then we're in more trouble than words can express. Stupid non-Chinese!
ReplyVote up (190)down (204)
Original comment
Let's get to the REALLY scary part. As of this posting, 2/3 of the respondants to the poll are in the "conspiracy theory" group. Real conspiracies aren't fascinating... they are a weird combination of dull and embarrrassing (see the wikileaks/ronpaul entry recently on this site). The problem is, this 2/3 bunch votes. Look: keep your weird theories, your over-educated but clueless experts and your paranoia, just don't vote. I don't care that 66% think there's a conspiracty. That's just demonstrates that 66% of the public is stupid. Heck, over 90% of adult Japanese think antibiotics work against viruses. That doesn't make it so. But as most western nations totter toward economic collapse and social legislation nears chaos, and if the voting public's in-depth understanding of government is seeing a conspiracy to collapse an empty office building, then we're in more trouble than words can express. Stupid non-Chinese!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Abraxas (2235 days ago)
Conspiracy theorist are just dumbshit morons. OK, let's say the building was "demolished by explosives"... A such project in a building in flame is just absolutely impossible to do without spreading tons of evidence everywhere. C'mon, stop cry wolf, go to amazon buy some used brain.
ReplyVote up (197)down (180)
Original comment
Conspiracy theorist are just dumbshit morons. OK, let's say the building was "demolished by explosives"... A such project in a building in flame is just absolutely impossible to do without spreading tons of evidence everywhere. C'mon, stop cry wolf, go to amazon buy some used brain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Cant be arsed replying to your post with anything of substance....You are not worthy of the time.
ReplyVote up (185)down (168)
Original comment
Cant be arsed replying to your post with anything of substance....You are not worthy of the time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PC (2234 days ago)
It is a valid point, even if poorly written. How does an agency plant explosives without leaving a trace, or evidence? You'd need to hush up 100s of people, unless we're suggesting Dick Cheyney planted bombs himself.
ReplyVote up (179)down (166)
Original comment
It is a valid point, even if poorly written. How does an agency plant explosives without leaving a trace, or evidence? You'd need to hush up 100s of people, unless we're suggesting Dick Cheyney planted bombs himself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2235 days ago)
These "experts" are so full of garbage it boggles the mind. The "metallurgical engineer" says that office fires can't melt steel. *bzzt* Wrong answer. I've seen it with my own eyes. My dad worked in a single-story office building when I was a teen. There was a fire in the building one night that raged out of control and melted the ceiling beams causing roof to collapse. I was lucky enough to get a tour the next day and got to see it all first-hand. I'm pretty sure the rest of the "experts" in this video are the same people that were suckered by James Randi's little trick (seen here on Boreme... look it up).
ReplyVote up (206)down (208)
Original comment
These "experts" are so full of garbage it boggles the mind. The "metallurgical engineer" says that office fires can't melt steel. *bzzt* Wrong answer. I've seen it with my own eyes. My dad worked in a single-story office building when I was a teen. There was a fire in the building one night that raged out of control and melted the ceiling beams causing roof to collapse. I was lucky enough to get a tour the next day and got to see it all first-hand. I'm pretty sure the rest of the "experts" in this video are the same people that were suckered by James Randi's little trick (seen here on Boreme... look it up).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2235 days ago)
These experts, most of them with PHD's in their field of expertise have looked at the NIST report and have all came to the same conclusion...that the official line doesnt make sense. The debunking videos here are created by some guy in a room somewhere with no expertise in structural engineering, who doesnt want to be named, and has made assumptions without proper investigation or the qualifications to propose absolutes. So your 'ONE storey' anecdote may be true but is hardly relevant when put in to context with this collapse.
ReplyVote up (195)down (205)
Original comment
These experts, most of them with PHD's in their field of expertise have looked at the NIST report and have all came to the same conclusion...that the official line doesnt make sense. The debunking videos here are created by some guy in a room somewhere with no expertise in structural engineering, who doesnt want to be named, and has made assumptions without proper investigation or the qualifications to propose absolutes. So your 'ONE storey' anecdote may be true but is hardly relevant when put in to context with this collapse.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mitch (2235 days ago)
Bzzt! You have no idea what you are talking about - I bet you believe in Jesus too
ReplyVote up (176)down (216)
Original comment
Bzzt! You have no idea what you are talking about - I bet you believe in Jesus too
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2235 days ago)
Let me get this straight: You're in bed with the conspiracy theorists, but believers in Jesus are irrational? Look, just wear your aluminum foil hat, tell me about the Kennedy coverup (you know, both ones that are true, that is, the CIA killed him but he's really alive) and I'll have a beer and be amused by the rantings.
ReplyVote up (181)down (183)
Original comment
Let me get this straight: You're in bed with the conspiracy theorists, but believers in Jesus are irrational? Look, just wear your aluminum foil hat, tell me about the Kennedy coverup (you know, both ones that are true, that is, the CIA killed him but he's really alive) and I'll have a beer and be amused by the rantings.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Let get this straight seeing as how you like to tar all conspirators with the same brush. I donít believe there ever was a Kennedy cover-up, I do believe we went to the moon, I donít believe little green men are being dissected in area 51 and Elvis IS dead....now we have got that out the way, do you have anything constructive to add?
ReplyVote up (166)down (180)
Original comment
Let get this straight seeing as how you like to tar all conspirators with the same brush. I donít believe there ever was a Kennedy cover-up, I do believe we went to the moon, I donít believe little green men are being dissected in area 51 and Elvis IS dead....now we have got that out the way, do you have anything constructive to add?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2234 days ago)
'scuse me, but I didn't equate accepting the NIST report with religious zealotry: you did. Meanwhile, WT7 was burning out of control essentially after a couple of the world's tallest building fell on top of it. Witnesses decided to split after the whole structure was creaking and bulging and ready to come down. Attributing its collapse to the magic of someone sneaking in to plant explosives. If someone leaves a bar after drinking 25 tequilas and 10 minutes later we find him and his car wrapped around a tree, we don't go looking to aliens or government coverups to explain what happened.
ReplyVote up (188)down (192)
Original comment
'scuse me, but I didn't equate accepting the NIST report with religious zealotry: you did. Meanwhile, WT7 was burning out of control essentially after a couple of the world's tallest building fell on top of it. Witnesses decided to split after the whole structure was creaking and bulging and ready to come down. Attributing its collapse to the magic of someone sneaking in to plant explosives. If someone leaves a bar after drinking 25 tequilas and 10 minutes later we find him and his car wrapped around a tree, we don't go looking to aliens or government coverups to explain what happened.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Well excuse me but if you dont believe the NIST report, which is what you are defending then what is the reason for the collapse? have you ever thought about WTC 3,4,5 & 6 which were closer to WTC 1 & 2 and more heavily damaged? Were they the designated drivers?
ReplyVote up (184)down (220)
Original comment
Well excuse me but if you dont believe the NIST report, which is what you are defending then what is the reason for the collapse? have you ever thought about WTC 3,4,5 & 6 which were closer to WTC 1 & 2 and more heavily damaged? Were they the designated drivers?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
That's the thing with conspiracy theorists, they're like religious nuts, or more specifically Scientologists - always attack, never defend. The slightest way of twisting a fact so that it seems unintuitive suddenly becomes a smoking gun. So WTC3 was closer, but never fell. So what? Were all the buildings built the same way, same height, and hit the same way? No. Meanwhile nobody is able to explain why the powers that be in America supposedly decided to inform a liberal news organisation of their cunning plan, for no reason whatsoever - is conveniently ignored.
ReplyVote up (179)down (196)
Original comment
That's the thing with conspiracy theorists, they're like religious nuts, or more specifically Scientologists - always attack, never defend. The slightest way of twisting a fact so that it seems unintuitive suddenly becomes a smoking gun. So WTC3 was closer, but never fell. So what? Were all the buildings built the same way, same height, and hit the same way? No. Meanwhile nobody is able to explain why the powers that be in America supposedly decided to inform a liberal news organisation of their cunning plan, for no reason whatsoever - is conveniently ignored.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Oh, and WTC 3 was destroyed. So you're a liar. But I suppose now you'll claim that this all fits into the great conspiracy theory.
ReplyVote up (199)down (211)
Original comment
Oh, and WTC 3 was destroyed. So you're a liar. But I suppose now you'll claim that this all fits into the great conspiracy theory.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Attack, Defend - itís all dependent on your point of view. Considering you seem to think I am attacking you suggests that you are struggling to form a constructive argument. News organisations ...Did I mention that? I donít believe the government informed them either. It seems you are diverging from the main issue, and to top it off you have completely missed the point of my last statement...I didnít claim that the other WT Centres were unaffected. On the contrary, they were heavily damaged which is exactly my point. From the remains of the destruction of WTC 3 its more obvious that its consistent with falling debris as it was only a partial collapse, which is what had happened to all the other WTC Buildings I mentioned and what you would expect from WTC 7 too rather than this very nice symmetrical collapse....The construction of WTC3 was steel framed too. So no I am not a liar, but it seems you are a fool!
ReplyVote up (174)down (189)
Original comment
Attack, Defend - itís all dependent on your point of view. Considering you seem to think I am attacking you suggests that you are struggling to form a constructive argument. News organisations ...Did I mention that? I donít believe the government informed them either. It seems you are diverging from the main issue, and to top it off you have completely missed the point of my last statement...I didnít claim that the other WT Centres were unaffected. On the contrary, they were heavily damaged which is exactly my point. From the remains of the destruction of WTC 3 its more obvious that its consistent with falling debris as it was only a partial collapse, which is what had happened to all the other WTC Buildings I mentioned and what you would expect from WTC 7 too rather than this very nice symmetrical collapse....The construction of WTC3 was steel framed too. So no I am not a liar, but it seems you are a fool!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Wow, that really is a poor reply. Your second sentence makes no sense at all, by the way - just thought I'd point that out lest you go through life thinking pseudo-intellectual babble will make you look clever. But am I diverging from the main point? What is the main point? It used to be the BBC report, until someone pointed out that it was an unimaginably stupid theory. Then the main point seemed to move on - always attack rather than defend. It's the Gish Gallop principle - it's always easier to make up nonsense than it is to prove it to be so. But it doesn't make you clever or right.
ReplyVote up (154)down (210)
Original comment
Wow, that really is a poor reply. Your second sentence makes no sense at all, by the way - just thought I'd point that out lest you go through life thinking pseudo-intellectual babble will make you look clever. But am I diverging from the main point? What is the main point? It used to be the BBC report, until someone pointed out that it was an unimaginably stupid theory. Then the main point seemed to move on - always attack rather than defend. It's the Gish Gallop principle - it's always easier to make up nonsense than it is to prove it to be so. But it doesn't make you clever or right.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
But you are right, you never claimed that WTC3 fell, only that it didn't fall in the same way. I presumed that, because the alternative was to make a the massive leap of imagination seemingly necessary to be a "truther". To be honest, I'd settle for liar. I never claimed that you claimed the other buildings were intact... oh we could go on forever.
ReplyVote up (179)down (217)
Original comment
But you are right, you never claimed that WTC3 fell, only that it didn't fall in the same way. I presumed that, because the alternative was to make a the massive leap of imagination seemingly necessary to be a "truther". To be honest, I'd settle for liar. I never claimed that you claimed the other buildings were intact... oh we could go on forever.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
But let me humour you for a moment. WTC3 suffered a partial collapse due to the impact of debris. Do you realise how many floors of the 1 and 2 were still standing? Did fires bring it down to 8 stories? What does that tell you? Small buildings are very different from very big buildings.
ReplyVote up (183)down (221)
Original comment
But let me humour you for a moment. WTC3 suffered a partial collapse due to the impact of debris. Do you realise how many floors of the 1 and 2 were still standing? Did fires bring it down to 8 stories? What does that tell you? Small buildings are very different from very big buildings.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
A poor reply? lol, that is rich coming from someone who has likes to tell stupid little anecdotes about 1-storey buildings being proof that fire can bring down a multi-storey building. I am sorry but when did the BBC become my main point, I havenít mentioned it once?? "Do you realise how many floors of the 1 and 2 were still standing? Did fires bring it down to 8 stories?"...This sentence makes no sense considering we are comparing WTC7 collapse to WTC 3,4,5 & 6....Yes you are right, we could go round and round in circles...we are still going to arrive at the same point...you are a f*cking idiot!!
ReplyVote up (194)down (203)
Original comment
A poor reply? lol, that is rich coming from someone who has likes to tell stupid little anecdotes about 1-storey buildings being proof that fire can bring down a multi-storey building. I am sorry but when did the BBC become my main point, I havenít mentioned it once?? "Do you realise how many floors of the 1 and 2 were still standing? Did fires bring it down to 8 stories?"...This sentence makes no sense considering we are comparing WTC7 collapse to WTC 3,4,5 & 6....Yes you are right, we could go round and round in circles...we are still going to arrive at the same point...you are a f*cking idiot!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2233 days ago)
OK, I probably shouldn't, but I'll give it one last try. "who has likes to tell stupid little anecdotes about 1-storey buildings being proof that fire can bring down a multi-storey building". See this is what I mean, always attack. I'm not suggesting that WTC3 is proof of anything - the onus is not on me to do that, but rather on you to show how what happened was in any way out of the ordinary. Yet again you have failed. "I am sorry but when did the BBC become my main point" I never said it did. For you not to be able to defend it shows that you cannot defend the fact that the vast majority of "truthers" are morons. You expect every aspect of the official story to contain not a single oddity or reason for suspicion, yet cannot come up with a story without gaping holes in it yourself.
ReplyVote up (168)down (194)
Original comment
OK, I probably shouldn't, but I'll give it one last try. "who has likes to tell stupid little anecdotes about 1-storey buildings being proof that fire can bring down a multi-storey building". See this is what I mean, always attack. I'm not suggesting that WTC3 is proof of anything - the onus is not on me to do that, but rather on you to show how what happened was in any way out of the ordinary. Yet again you have failed. "I am sorry but when did the BBC become my main point" I never said it did. For you not to be able to defend it shows that you cannot defend the fact that the vast majority of "truthers" are morons. You expect every aspect of the official story to contain not a single oddity or reason for suspicion, yet cannot come up with a story without gaping holes in it yourself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2233 days ago)
"This sentence makes no sense considering we are comparing WTC7 collapse to WTC 3,4,5 & 6" Ah, yes, because looking at other buildings for comparison would just be nonsensical wouldn't it? Let's compare how a small wide building built differently to a tall narrow building whilst being affected by different factors fell in different ways. That makes sense doesn't it? Let's all ignore basic physics about load rebalancing and all common sense, and live the happy life of a "truther". Just stick the fingers in the ears and cry "lalalalala". And should anyone remark that maybe we're being just a little bit myopic, turn the tables on them - state that they are the ones being absurd, ignorant, blinded and so on. If all that fails, just resort to swearing and name calling.
ReplyVote up (198)down (215)
Original comment
"This sentence makes no sense considering we are comparing WTC7 collapse to WTC 3,4,5 & 6" Ah, yes, because looking at other buildings for comparison would just be nonsensical wouldn't it? Let's compare how a small wide building built differently to a tall narrow building whilst being affected by different factors fell in different ways. That makes sense doesn't it? Let's all ignore basic physics about load rebalancing and all common sense, and live the happy life of a "truther". Just stick the fingers in the ears and cry "lalalalala". And should anyone remark that maybe we're being just a little bit myopic, turn the tables on them - state that they are the ones being absurd, ignorant, blinded and so on. If all that fails, just resort to swearing and name calling.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: greenman (2234 days ago)
Conspiracy theorist with no name, i now know that you are mad. How do i know? Me and Elvis are taking Shergar for a ride in the morning to see if he is ready to race again. Do conspiracy theorists think that people who believe the truth are the actual conspiracy theorists in the same way that some insane people think that the sane ones are the mad ones?
ReplyVote up (162)down (216)
Original comment
Conspiracy theorist with no name, i now know that you are mad. How do i know? Me and Elvis are taking Shergar for a ride in the morning to see if he is ready to race again. Do conspiracy theorists think that people who believe the truth are the actual conspiracy theorists in the same way that some insane people think that the sane ones are the mad ones?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
slicksps slicksps (2234 days ago)
Firstly, you don't have to melt the steel for it to be weakened enough to bend and collapse. Secondly; it wasn't just fires which brought down the buildings. The structural integrity was already compromised with 2 fuel filled planes in the case of the N&S towers, and a huge chunk of debris in the case of building 7. Look at it from the other side: LINK Finally; why, in a controlled demolition would they collapse building 7 hours later? That's far from perfect surely...
ReplyVote up (177)down (231)
Original comment
Firstly, you don't have to melt the steel for it to be weakened enough to bend and collapse. Secondly; it wasn't just fires which brought down the buildings. The structural integrity was already compromised with 2 fuel filled planes in the case of the N&S towers, and a huge chunk of debris in the case of building 7. Look at it from the other side: LINK Finally; why, in a controlled demolition would they collapse building 7 hours later? That's far from perfect surely...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Firstly you are an incompetent fool. Secondly the structural integrity of WTC 6,5,4 & 3 were also much more heavily damaged from debris and were much closer to WTC 1&2, all burned very badly, especially WTC5 and not one fell down in a neat pile with little resistance.
ReplyVote up (181)down (176)
Original comment
Firstly you are an incompetent fool. Secondly the structural integrity of WTC 6,5,4 & 3 were also much more heavily damaged from debris and were much closer to WTC 1&2, all burned very badly, especially WTC5 and not one fell down in a neat pile with little resistance.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
slicksps slicksps (2234 days ago)
Sorry wrong pic :-/ There are photos of the other side with a huge chunk missing.
ReplyVote up (191)down (190)
Original comment
Sorry wrong pic :-/ There are photos of the other side with a huge chunk missing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
beans beans (2230 days ago)
33% of American visitors to Scotland believe haggis to be an animal ;-) It does not fall straight down, because its legs are longer on one side than on the other.
ReplyVote up (164)down (150)
Original comment
33% of American visitors to Scotland believe haggis to be an animal ;-) It does not fall straight down, because its legs are longer on one side than on the other.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Um (2234 days ago)
Why waste so much time on this? It was a tragedy, but there are tragedies happeing all the time. We are obsessed with this because americans are obsessed with it and they control, through media, what interests us.
ReplyVote up (157)down (155)
Original comment
Why waste so much time on this? It was a tragedy, but there are tragedies happeing all the time. We are obsessed with this because americans are obsessed with it and they control, through media, what interests us.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bollo (2234 days ago)
This was used as an excuse to start at least two wars which are still being fought, and to take away freedoms which have still not been given back.
ReplyVote up (155)down (163)
Original comment
This was used as an excuse to start at least two wars which are still being fought, and to take away freedoms which have still not been given back.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PC (2233 days ago)
Iraq / Saddam had killed millions with WMD before, but the intel to Iraq is another argument completely. 9/11 undoubtedly accelerated the move to war, but you cannot say it was the 'reason' for it. Afghanistan was run by the Taliban at the beginning, so yes, NATO countries wanted them out before they planned more Madrids, New Yorks and countless other atrocities
ReplyVote up (115)down (153)
Original comment
Iraq / Saddam had killed millions with WMD before, but the intel to Iraq is another argument completely. 9/11 undoubtedly accelerated the move to war, but you cannot say it was the 'reason' for it. Afghanistan was run by the Taliban at the beginning, so yes, NATO countries wanted them out before they planned more Madrids, New Yorks and countless other atrocities
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Samsgimp Samsgimp (2235 days ago)
Conspiracy theories are beliefs of the same order as religious ones. They are attractive and dangerous as they are born of and give rise to a lack of critical analysis. As regards the way WTC7 collapses, has anyone seen any footage of a similar building collapsing in a different manner after having its basement levels shattered and burned out?...they don't fall over like trees! and so what if it 'looks' like a controlled explosion. The dingbats who espouse these crackpot theories are making a living out selling books and doing t.v. interviews because they know that (as is demonstrated by this straw poll) 81% don't buy the official line.
ReplyVote up (170)down (168)
Original comment
Conspiracy theories are beliefs of the same order as religious ones. They are attractive and dangerous as they are born of and give rise to a lack of critical analysis. As regards the way WTC7 collapses, has anyone seen any footage of a similar building collapsing in a different manner after having its basement levels shattered and burned out?...they don't fall over like trees! and so what if it 'looks' like a controlled explosion. The dingbats who espouse these crackpot theories are making a living out selling books and doing t.v. interviews because they know that (as is demonstrated by this straw poll) 81% don't buy the official line.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
"They are attractive and dangerous as they are born of and give rise to a lack of critical analysis." ....Your comment is quite contradictory. Itís the critical analysis of 'crack-pot' architects and structural engineers that have opened up the debate for a call to investigate the official story. If there is any lack of critical analysis then itís from people like you that blindly believe everything they are told...Hmmm, so is there anyone other people that do that, religious people perhaps???!!!
ReplyVote up (149)down (130)
Original comment
"They are attractive and dangerous as they are born of and give rise to a lack of critical analysis." ....Your comment is quite contradictory. Itís the critical analysis of 'crack-pot' architects and structural engineers that have opened up the debate for a call to investigate the official story. If there is any lack of critical analysis then itís from people like you that blindly believe everything they are told...Hmmm, so is there anyone other people that do that, religious people perhaps???!!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Samsgimp Samsgimp (2234 days ago)
Firstly - No one has told me how those buildings collapsed. But when faced with these nutjobs its a non-starter. Lets say just say there is no conclusive proof either way, how can anyone profess to know, or worse still, 'believe' to know the exact mechanics of the collapse of wtc7? just because one or two architects and engineers have their pet theories, it don't mean poop! Maybe if the majority of Architects and Structural engineers in the U.S. conclusively proved that foul play was involved then maybe I could be swayed... and just because I don't subscribe to 'crack-pot' theories of the few don't mean I'm 'one of them' either! duh!!! Its a sad fact that most folk on this planet are poorly educated and credulous and thus susceptible to believing that unproven theories (myths) to be true because its EASIER ON THE BRAIN!!! Religious beliefs work in the same way that conspiracy theories do - in the absence of credible facts / proof / evidence etc and I wonder if there are a similar proportion of atheists within the conspiracy believers camp as there are in the general populous??? Is anyone actually seriously suggesting that some spooks loaded all the WTC buildings with explosives prior to this attack...c'mon!!!!
ReplyVote up (142)down (139)
Original comment
Firstly - No one has told me how those buildings collapsed. But when faced with these nutjobs its a non-starter. Lets say just say there is no conclusive proof either way, how can anyone profess to know, or worse still, 'believe' to know the exact mechanics of the collapse of wtc7? just because one or two architects and engineers have their pet theories, it don't mean poop! Maybe if the majority of Architects and Structural engineers in the U.S. conclusively proved that foul play was involved then maybe I could be swayed... and just because I don't subscribe to 'crack-pot' theories of the few don't mean I'm 'one of them' either! duh!!! Its a sad fact that most folk on this planet are poorly educated and credulous and thus susceptible to believing that unproven theories (myths) to be true because its EASIER ON THE BRAIN!!! Religious beliefs work in the same way that conspiracy theories do - in the absence of credible facts / proof / evidence etc and I wonder if there are a similar proportion of atheists within the conspiracy believers camp as there are in the general populous??? Is anyone actually seriously suggesting that some spooks loaded all the WTC buildings with explosives prior to this attack...c'mon!!!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Wow! You seem to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. 'one or two architects and engineers'? ...try 1500. The argument isn't that they know for a fact what brought down the buildings but the official story from the NIST report doesn't make sense and proper investigation is required. They have proposed the most likely explanation from the information known about the structure of the buildings. So you are telling me that it easier on the brain to believe that a higher authority (maybe not the government) is able to plant theramide in advance on all of the steel columns and set them off simultaneously to bring down a muli-storey building thereby triggering a decade of anti-Muslim hatred and public consent to attack Iraq and gain control of their oil resources through privately owned oil companies and to intervene at every opportunity with middle eastern affairs helping to cause friction and in the ensuing panic also gain control of more oil resources for the western world.....or......WTC7 fell down by fire. Yeah these poorly educated people sure like to believe in these theories as itís definitely easier on the brain.
ReplyVote up (152)down (148)
Original comment
Wow! You seem to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. 'one or two architects and engineers'? ...try 1500. The argument isn't that they know for a fact what brought down the buildings but the official story from the NIST report doesn't make sense and proper investigation is required. They have proposed the most likely explanation from the information known about the structure of the buildings. So you are telling me that it easier on the brain to believe that a higher authority (maybe not the government) is able to plant theramide in advance on all of the steel columns and set them off simultaneously to bring down a muli-storey building thereby triggering a decade of anti-Muslim hatred and public consent to attack Iraq and gain control of their oil resources through privately owned oil companies and to intervene at every opportunity with middle eastern affairs helping to cause friction and in the ensuing panic also gain control of more oil resources for the western world.....or......WTC7 fell down by fire. Yeah these poorly educated people sure like to believe in these theories as itís definitely easier on the brain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Samsgimp Samsgimp (2234 days ago)
Even if 1500 propose a more thorough investigation it still does not vindicate the con-theos! and, yes, I am suggesting that any theories of prior motive like the one you suggest is easier to digest than spending five years doing advanced post-grad structural engineering then another ten years picking over the ashes of 3000 dead Americans and still unable to explain why one building fell down in a particular way. It slightly reminds me of that tired old argument of xtians asking atheists to 'disprove' the existence of god...wtf! Having answers for things we don't / won't / can't understand is no excuse to make unqualified statements (myths=theories) bout stuff wots beyond our ken - hence the presence of religious belief in our world. It gives security. Its understandable to seek answers and if what we hear don't fit our world view then it no excuse to start making s**t up.
ReplyVote up (152)down (159)
Original comment
Even if 1500 propose a more thorough investigation it still does not vindicate the con-theos! and, yes, I am suggesting that any theories of prior motive like the one you suggest is easier to digest than spending five years doing advanced post-grad structural engineering then another ten years picking over the ashes of 3000 dead Americans and still unable to explain why one building fell down in a particular way. It slightly reminds me of that tired old argument of xtians asking atheists to 'disprove' the existence of god...wtf! Having answers for things we don't / won't / can't understand is no excuse to make unqualified statements (myths=theories) bout stuff wots beyond our ken - hence the presence of religious belief in our world. It gives security. Its understandable to seek answers and if what we hear don't fit our world view then it no excuse to start making s**t up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2234 days ago)
Ok Gimp, and these 1500 havenít done any structural engineering training or have PHDs? ....and what part of the debate have you actually paid attention to? They can explain how the buildings fell down....fire! Have you even used con-theos in the right context??!! Most conspiratorsí are left liberal and are against the right wing government institutions. You keep trying to connect this argument with religion.... its getting very tiring as there is no connection. Like I said before, people like yourself that are naive enough to believe the official government lines are just as stupid as religious sheep.
ReplyVote up (151)down (137)
Original comment
Ok Gimp, and these 1500 havenít done any structural engineering training or have PHDs? ....and what part of the debate have you actually paid attention to? They can explain how the buildings fell down....fire! Have you even used con-theos in the right context??!! Most conspiratorsí are left liberal and are against the right wing government institutions. You keep trying to connect this argument with religion.... its getting very tiring as there is no connection. Like I said before, people like yourself that are naive enough to believe the official government lines are just as stupid as religious sheep.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2233 days ago)
Have you tested the 1500s own theories? Just as they have supposedly tested the NIST? No, it just fits your agenda!
ReplyVote up (152)down (148)
Original comment
Have you tested the 1500s own theories? Just as they have supposedly tested the NIST? No, it just fits your agenda!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2233 days ago)
There is no agenda, and there isnt 1500 seperate theories either, just an opposing theory that deserves further investigation.
ReplyVote up (137)down (161)
Original comment
There is no agenda, and there isnt 1500 seperate theories either, just an opposing theory that deserves further investigation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PC (2234 days ago)
Did no-one watch the second video? That stuff is in official report, HOW can it be disputed? I see no evidence to dispute the findings of the report. The poll here is somewhat bias, the government did not write the report!
ReplyVote up (139)down (170)
Original comment
Did no-one watch the second video? That stuff is in official report, HOW can it be disputed? I see no evidence to dispute the findings of the report. The poll here is somewhat bias, the government did not write the report!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2233 days ago)
LINK ...this video at least explains some of the inconsistencies with NIST
ReplyVote up (163)down (151)
Original comment
LINK ...this video at least explains some of the inconsistencies with NIST
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2229 days ago)
Latest comment: Please take a look at this site: revisionisthistory.blogsp ot.com
ReplyVote up (144)down (181)
Original comment
Latest comment: Please take a look at this site: revisionisthistory.blogsp ot.com
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Blong Blong (2230 days ago)
Conspiracy theorists watch too many movies
ReplyVote up (136)down (186)
Original comment
Conspiracy theorists watch too many movies
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Daily Show - Congress overrides Obama's 9/11 veto
The Daily Show - Congress overrides Obama's 9/11 veto
TYT - Obama reveals why terror victims can’t sue Saudi Arabia
TYT - Obama reveals why terror victims can’t sue Saudi Arabia
Laying to rest moronic 9/11 jet fuel argument
Laying to rest moronic 9/11 jet fuel argument
Edward Snowden: Mass surveillance doesn't work
Edward Snowden: Mass surveillance doesn't work
Michele Bachmann: 9/11 was God's judgement
Michele Bachmann: 9/11 was God's judgement