Author Topic: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces  (Read 14563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« on: September 15, 2011, 05:53:02 pm »
Video pretends to show hidden south side view, simply by flipping the original video. The South side looks distinctly different.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBKix7iMbCQ&feature=ch%20annel_video_title


North Side

South Side

So i believe this is a fraud

Offline mattj

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2011, 05:59:41 pm »
I think the UFO was also a dead giveaway.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2011, 06:14:13 pm »
oh yeah, missed that

Offline Conspiracy Center

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2011, 06:34:06 pm »





Offline Noles

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • Halo4Nation.com
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2012, 10:08:58 pm »
The guy who made that hoax video, doesn't believe any of the 9/11 "truth."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

This is his video explaining WTC 7.


He also has a list of "things conspiracy believers do not want you to know" in the video description.
Quote
A serious video: The "unexplainable" collapse of 7 World Trade Center is the most compelling case put forth by 9/11 Truthers. But there is more than enough evidence that WTC7 collapsed due to fire — no secret demolition ninjas necessary.

The text below is for people interested in actual inquiry, and are legitimately examining both sides' arguments for inconsistencies, intellectual dishonesty, and logical flaws.

1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
(b) WTC7 actually did NOT collapse straight down or "into its own footprint." 30 West Broadway, across the 4-lane Barclay St., was heavily damaged. See photo: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg
(c) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. with little or no experience in steel skyscraper construction.
(d) The NIST study was done in cooperation with the SEI/ASCE, SFPE, AISC, and SEAoNY -- actual engineering experts in the field, all of whom would have to be in on this conspiracy, even to this day.
(e) The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."
(f) No "molten metal" was ever collected from WTC7 and analyzed.
(g) Rigging a large building for demolition cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
(h) Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building.
(i) There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.

2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel framing members expanded beyond tolerances, subjecting connections to failure. The heat also reduced the steel's capacity to support loads. No melting required.
(b) "BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened." Firefighters had predicted the collapse. Apparently the reporter made an error. CNN also reported that the Washington Mall was on fire; do we ask why no scorch marks were later found?
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed.
(d) "NIST changed its story several times." Science refines its position over time. This is a strength, not a weakness. Alternatively we can start with a story, stick to that story, and look only for evidence that supports that story. The latter is what creationists and conspiracy believers do.
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling back firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition worker.
(f) "Why bother demolishing with explosives when you can just light a fire?" Most demolitions are of old concrete structures where this would not work. In an all-steel structure like WTC7, fire could in fact be used. But detonation is more predictable and controllable.
(g) "You are working for the government." This is a case of believing a bold premise with no evidence, merely because it fits the believer's worldview. Not an effective way to get closer to the truth.

3. Simple fallacies of logic:
(a) "No tall building had ever collapsed from fire. Therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire." There is a first time for everything. Equivalent: "No species before humans had ever invented the computer. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(b) "Other tall buildings burned without collapsing; therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire." Besides the fact that these other cases were more fire-robust than the all-steel-framed WTC7, just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen. Equivalent: "There exist primates that have not invented computers. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(c) "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied about 9/11." Just because A has done B does not imply that A always does B. Equivalent: "The government must have also lied when it said aspirin is safe and effective."
(d) "Prove that it wasn't a controlled demolition." The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Equivalent: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."

What do you all think?

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2012, 11:41:48 pm »
It was proven a demolition, conclusively...

The countdown, the false news, and script timing foul-ups,  and then there is the demolition of the collapse proof internal skeletal structure that the outer structure surrounded and was attached to...

Look up the architectural design of the Salomon bldg. The internal command base at WTC 7 was essentially missile proof the penthouse was the top of it... just like the computer generated collapse of the towers shown hundreds of times on TV forgets to show the 47 massive steel columns, this guy's computer generated collapse sequence doesn't show the inner bomb proof skeleton of WTC 7...

For a collaps to occur, you would have to blow out the inner skeleton, (no easy task I assure you) and the rest comes down easily. No fire on earth is hot enough to do what happened to WTC 7...

This fellow needs to head back to Nubiru... where he obviously came from... "All Hail Thermal expansion..." Bullshit!

Oldyoti

"A society that robs an individual of the product
of his effort, is not strictly speaking a society, but a
mob held together by institutionalized gang violence."
~Ayn Rand

Offline Lannister

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2012, 11:57:11 pm »
Lol video deleted by User.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2012, 12:15:52 am »
Lol video deleted by User.

...(Chuckle)... "Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."

JTCoyoté

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us
for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so
with the approval of their own conscience."
~C.S. Lewis

Offline Scootle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,260
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2012, 03:35:53 am »
The guy who made that hoax video, doesn't believe any of the 9/11 "truth."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

This is his video explaining WTC 7.


He also has a list of "things conspiracy believers do not want you to know" in the video description.
What do you all think?

Quote
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.

Yes the east penthouse did collapse first but to say that proves the whole core was collapsing is a statement of faith. Since only the windows below the east penthouse blew out during its collapse, instead of every window around the core, and the other windows didn't blow out until the whole outer structure began to fall, it appears to be a localized event. The only "evidence" they have for NIST's "thermal expansion" theory is a computer model that has never been made independently available. If the steel hadn't been shipped off (and there was no need to ship wtc7s steel away since supposedly noone was trapped under it and most of it was in a neat pile) we could actually test NISTs theory. But since it was all shipped away and melted down, we can't.

Quote
(b) WTC7 actually did NOT collapse straight down or "into its own footprint." 30 West Broadway, across the 4-lane Barclay St., was heavily damaged. See photo: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg

True...




But controlled demolitions aren't always perfectly in their own footprint either...



It was neater that it would be if it was a collapse. Considering the building was on fire, damaged and 47 storey's high i'm amazed the demolition was as neat as it was.

Quote
(c) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. with little or no experience in steel skyscraper construction.

The movie experts speak out is filled with relevant experts.

Quote
(d) The NIST study was done in cooperation with the SEI/ASCE, SFPE, AISC, and SEAoNY -- actual engineering experts in the field, all of whom would have to be in on this conspiracy, even to this day.

That's an appeal to authority.

Quote
(e) The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."

The paper was peer-reviewed, and there was a chain of custody. Two of the suppliers of samples, Jeanette McKinley and Frank Delessio have stated on video numerous times how they collected their samples. The red gray chips have been found in other more professional samples now by James Millette of MVA consultants (he whitewashed them being thermite, but still found them) so the chain of custody argument is now bunk. The journal the nano thermite paper was published in may not be a top journal like nature or science, but that's coz a journal that established would never give voice to an alternative view, not coz its unscientific, but simply coz its anti-establishment.

Quote
(f) No "molten metal" was ever collected from WTC7 and analyzed.

Ermmm....



Formerly molten iron from a meteorite (top left) and a memorial (top right). Along the bottom are maps for iron, aluminium and chromium. It's not aluminium, it's iron. The lack of chromium proves that its pure iron, not steel.

Quote
(g) Rigging a large building for demolition cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.

We never said it was a conventional demolition. And preparations could escape the notice of office workers if it was under the guise of renovation.

Quote
(h) Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building.

Jon Cole has proven that thermate, if set up properly, can cut steel. And thermite was used in 1935 to demolish a radio tower. This was reported on by Popular Mechanics of all people.

Quote
(i) There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.

Only under this person's elitist definition of a valid peer-review. He's using the same dismissive tactic as global warming alarmists. It's worth noting that the NIST reports weren't peer-reviewed and in the case of their WTC7 report, NIST ignored most of the comments on their draft report.

Quote
2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel framing members expanded beyond tolerances, subjecting connections to failure. The heat also reduced the steel's capacity to support loads. No melting required.

Except there WAS melted steel/iron - see above!

Quote
(b) "BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened." Firefighters had predicted the collapse. Apparently the reporter made an error. CNN also reported that the Washington Mall was on fire; do we ask why no scorch marks were later found?

CNN also reported a collapse of a fiifty storey building at 11:07 in the morning! I personally believe wtc7 was supposed to be demolished in the morning while it was concealed by the north tower's dust cloud, but something went wrong.

Quote
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed.

(d) "NIST changed its story several times." Science refines its position over time. This is a strength, not a weakness. Alternatively we can start with a story, stick to that story, and look only for evidence that supports that story. The latter is what creationists and conspiracy believers do.

Except NIST hasn't done science. Basing your theory on computer models that aren't even available for independent researchers to check is the most anti-scientific method possible.

Quote
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling back firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition worker.

I actually agree with him on this. If you do a google search for something like "pull demolition -9/11 -silverstein -wtc7" you'll get hardly any results. It is a demolition term but its not a commonly used one. A fox news hitpiece on jesse ventura a few years ago though admitted that Silverstein was planning a demolition of the building.

Quote
3. Simple fallacies of logic:
(a) "No tall building had ever collapsed from fire. Therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire." There is a first time for everything. Equivalent: "No species before humans had ever invented the computer. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."

(b) "Other tall buildings burned without collapsing; therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire." Besides the fact that these other cases were more fire-robust than the all-steel-framed WTC7, just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen. Equivalent: "There exist primates that have not invented computers. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."

(c) "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied about 9/11." Just because A has done B does not imply that A always does B. Equivalent: "The government must have also lied when it said aspirin is safe and effective."

All these quotes are simplified strawman mischaracterizations of our arguments. For C, we point out other lies to show simply that the government can't be trusted. We don't say "therefore 9/11 was an inside job". The evidence says that. For A and B, science is about making predictions based on past observations. Newton came up with his three laws of motion by dropping a lot of things and throwing a lot of things. Likewise, it's perfectly reasonable after seeing numerous sky scraper fires and not one collapse to propose a "law" that it's very difficult for fire to collapse a skyscraper.

Quote
(d) "Prove that it wasn't a controlled demolition." The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Equivalent: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."

Given the features of the destruction that appear to violate basic physics, controlled demolition should be the default assumption until proven otherwise. So it's perfectly reasonable to put the burden of proof on the officials.
The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,436
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2012, 07:32:24 am »
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


Wow! Great job, SCOOTIE .... masterful post!

St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Offline Noles

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • Halo4Nation.com
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2012, 08:25:05 am »
Really all the proof I need is


EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2012, 09:30:25 am »
curses.... I missed it.

This video has been removed by the user.
Sorry about that.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2012, 11:31:21 am »
Scootie, nice encapsulation of the WTC 7 events...

curses.... I missed it.

This video has been removed by the user.
Sorry about that.


You didn't miss much EG... just another moderately well executed attempt at deception... completely ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and laws of conservation of momentum...

The globies can rewrite the insurance actuarials on fires in skyscrapers to extort more in policy payments showing their monumental greed... but they cannot rewrite the laws of physics without unmasking completely and showing their tyrannical ugliness for all to see.

Oldyoti

"If a nation values anything more than freedom,
it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that
if it is comfort or money that it values more, it
will lose that, too."
~Somerset Maugham

Offline Noles

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • Halo4Nation.com
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2012, 11:36:09 am »
Scootle, I'd post that response in a comment for his video "explaining" the collapse.

Offline Scootle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,260
Re: Fake wtc 7 video surfaces
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2012, 02:08:41 pm »
O I misread his point f. He said no molten metal from WTC7 has been analysed, and the metal data I posted was for the towers. If he wants to talk about WTC7 specifically, it's even more stupid. ALMOST ALL OF THE STEEL FROM WTC7 WAS SHIPPED AWAY AND MELTED DOWN so of course we haven't got a hold of steel from WTC7 and analysed it! But even so there is evidence of molten/corroded steel from WTC7, coz we have this...



"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

And no this was not due to gypsum! Gypsum is calcium sulfate, not iron sulfide. Iron sulfide can be a by-product of thermate.

The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA