I will give you that.
like they say it did on TV.
and there is the main point of it all… people are FAR too willing to fall i love with something they “find” on the internet, television, and periodicals.
An educated response is nice. And for WTC 7 that one it makes no sense, something was way off there, especially given the design of the building. For which I have no reply, or smartass comments for.
Yep, must have been the government blowing it up.
As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC “with the force of a volcanic eruption.”[16] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building’s south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, with flames visible on the east side of the building.[17][18] Around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center, between the 10 and 13th floors, which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[19] During the afternoon, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, out of concerns for the safety of personnel.[20] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. It had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse of 7 WTC.
In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse, based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E.[5] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. The report noted that, before this collapse, there had been little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building, such as 7 WTC.
The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]
In response to FEMA’s concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[21]
NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST’s interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[2] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure’s integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building’s east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.
Funny how hard it was to find a reasonable explanation.
I got your building 7 right here pal.
Stop focusing on loose change and start focusing on the real lies: the lies that led us to Iraq.
^ poorly interpreted raw field intelligence reports.
For reference: you can only determine if something is poorly interpreted in hindsight when you have no single legend.
The hand of God guided those planes into the buildings, and the Hammer of Thor smached WTC 7, wielded by Vishnu’s 8 (?) arms. We are being punished for our pagan ways. Repent now sinners!
Meh, that is hardly a convincing arguement.
They basically admit in that blurb to not really knowing what happened. That and who gives a shit about FEMA.
The fact that everything fits together better to the detriment of the US government is also far more plausible given the plethora of similar (contextually speaking) types of events.
–
The reason people use internet documentaries or blogs and link them in lieu of an self-contructed arguement is exactly the same reason the same logic behind quoting quotable quotes ie. movie references or excerpt from MLK speeches. It’s because someone already said it well, why should i have to spend countless hours redoing it.
Further to that point, not only has there not been any decent arguement in this thread, but there are links and blogs and docu’s being used to support both sides of the story so saying that people will fall in love with anything they find on the internet discredits both equally and in so doing discredits none.
Additionally, the internet is open to all. Mass media (read: television, major print media et al) is open to few. And we know who those few are.
The internet will always be a better source of information than CNN or the like. You have to filter what you take in, as with any other information, and i clearly suggested that Loose Change be edited to reduce the amount of debatable subject matter and focus more on the more convincing or more provocative subject matter.
The fact remains that planes were not the soul catalyst and that some brown dudes with basic flight-training who thought they’d get a bunch of virgins after death were not the soul parties involved.
As with the white-water bullshit, you can basically follow the money. Who beneifitted the most from the events? Whether they had anything to do with it before hand it almost irrelevant actually, but the correlation is not an accident.
So your saying it wasn’t Santa’s fat-ass, and lead sled that caused it?
I respect your skepticism, as you seem like a pretty intelligent guy.
What I accept as the truth is this:
The twin towers got hit by jet liners full of fuel. The structural damage from the impact and the resulting fires weakened them both enough to start their collapse. Al Qaeda terrorists were flying the planes. They may or may not have thought they would tear the buildings down. I’m not positive that they had any intentions other than “hey lets cause some damage to their precious center of capitalism.” I’m sure our government had at least an inkling as to what was going on, but I’m sure they didn’t know the full extent of it or they would have been able to and would have acted to stop it.
WTC 7 got hit by a falling skyscraper. That damage, plus the resulting fires, weakened it to the point of collapse.
That’s what I see as the most plausible explanations.
Before my head implodes… are you really trying to compare a 30,000lb 1940’s propellor driven bomber that collided while trying an evasive manuever at low speeds to a fully loaded 300,000lb (note the extra zero, and the placement of the comma) JETliner that flew at ABOVE maximum speed directly into a building, nearly passing through the whole entire building?
Run-on sentence like woah, but damn, you deserve a MASSIVE :picard:
Exactly. And when we filter out all your pointless rhetoric that says nothing, but is clearly your attempt at getting people to believe you’re some intellectual, we realize you’ve actually said nothing.
Out of that whole book you posted for your last response, this was the only part that was important. The rest was just fluff only John Kerry or Ted Kennedy could be proud of.
i clearly suggested that Loose Change be edited to reduce the amount of debatable subject matter and focus more on the more convincing or more provocative subject matter.
Cut out the rhetoric again, bring back into focus your earlier post, and basically you said:
Loose change should focus on WTC7, because that’s the smoking gun.
The problem is when you take away the conspiracy theorists method of only using the parts of interviews that support their conspiracy, and instead listen to the entire interview, you see there is no conspiracy with WTC7.
How about the shorting of airline stocks and the insurance policies taken out on the towers just weeks before the incident?
are those coincidences?
Those are pretty serious smoking guns as well.
What happened is far less intersting than why and who knew.
btw, im not even trying to sound like an intellectual, i was just trying to present thoughts in a clear format rather than rambling on about whatever. I didnt even bother editing out spelling mistakes i might add.
Well, of course there was insurance taken out on the building shortly before the WTC attacks…
“On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.”
If you had just taken over a lease on a bunch of buildings you would file for insurance as well.
Occam’s Razor
More detail here, but the important part I quoted:
http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200407260700.asp
So, to repeat, were Osama and his accomplices involved in insider trading? Part of the answer is tucked away in a footnote on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report. The commissioners, basing their findings upon exhaustive research of millions of transactions by the Securities and Exchange Commission, note that “some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.” Moreover, “the trading had no connection with 9/11.” So what happened? “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6.” This same institution, as part of a complex trading strategy, also purchased 115,000 shares of AMR on September 10. But what about the spike in AMR puts trading on September 10? It turns out that a “U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9…recommended these trades.” Readers jumped in headfirst come Monday morning, only to strike it tragically lucky the next day.
Recall, as well, the mood of the summer of 2001. By early September, the airline industry was in the doldrums after the dot.com meltdown hit business and vacation travel. On September 5, meanwhile, Reuters, the news service widely followed by Wall Streeters, quoted analysts as saying that “a further deterioration” in airline financials was probable. Translation: Bail out now, boys. Matters were not helped by AMR’s announcement two days later that its third- and fourth-quarter losses would be larger even than already forecast. Immediately, airline analysts downgraded AMR, as did hotel specialists, and a wave of shorting hit the travel industry (people even took positions in Royal Caribbean Cruise lines and Cruise Lines Carnival Corps).
Yes, because as far back as 2000 the process was started for the property to change hands. By the time it was complete and Silverstein took over, it was nearly Sept 11th. On 24 July 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11 Silverstein took control of the lease of the WTC following the Port Authority decision on April 26.
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3398
Well no shit it would.
It’s not like that area hadn’t been a target at all previously.
:picard: :picard: :picard: :picard: :picard: