BBC News Reported WTC 7 Collapse — Before It Collapsed!

As in, "Hmmm, how could this conspiracy theory get any more convoluted and preposterous?" I guess the lesson learned here is whenever you conspire to attack your own countrymen and frame another faction it's best not to provide foreign news correspondents with a script outlining your diabolic intentions, not that it isn't a great idea to alert the media of your scheming in advance.

For chrissakes, David Lynch puts together more coherent plots than this...

If there was a conspiracy on 911, it is highly likely that it started after the attacks. Not before. And that the motive was to cover some asses.

Deserved quoting.

I doubt very much that WTC 7 was brought down by demolition charges--for whatever reason. The preparation time to bring down a building with controlled demolition charges is measured in weeks or months, not minutes or hours. There's simply no way to carry out the engineering calculations that quickly, especially since the building was already on fire and I don't think a demolition team would be eager to be climbing around inside the building as it burned!

valid argument. perhaps the same structural 'weaknesses' that afflicted WTC1/2 caused 7 to also come down, probably to the relief of some people.

Keld has a mission in life - to try to persuade you that the US and Israel are evil.

Rational argument and logic don't come into it.

If some dumb @*&^5$%! falls for it then Keld can chalk up another success in the fight against the great monster of western capitalist democracy. As for trying to talk him out of it ... hell will freeze over first.

Gents.... I voted for both of you. I agree with both of you.

Keep this is mind though: For us to "Get Smarter Here", attacking Keld isn't going to do much.

US and Israel are evil?

I appreciate it Vaughn, it just gets old when the most cursory examination of Keld's "evidence" consistently shows it to be what it is - the ramblings of conspiracy theorists with no real proof - I get quite fed up and short of temper.

That's just it, it doesn't take much time to find data which shows these "theories" to be little more than ramblings. I never said it was nothing though, or else I wouldn't feel strongly about it. Sadly though, I admit that it probably won't change much. The lunatic fringe exists for a reason, and that reason is not logical discourse.

Daniel, I was making a snarky comment to the effect that the lunatic fringe cannot be dissuaded from these crack-pot theories due to the fact that they are neither logical nor rational. Your little simile is a perfect example. If the fringe goes all the way around a rug, would that not imply that it is a) round or b) has 4 sides rather than a left and right?

Why don't you guys take it easy on Keld for once. Sure some of his stories are outlandish but he isn't writing them and he never says they are 100% conclusive of anything. At any rate they are often unique and interesting stories and I think they add something to the vine. He gives a different perspective than almost anyone on the vine and I like that. If you don't like it or think it's inaccurate, voice your concerns, but we don't need to stoop to petty name calling.

Is this some sort of time travel delay that goes into the future to see what you're going to say so it can bleep you?

Happens A lot, especially in situations like that as all the media trys to be first with "breaking" news.
You could find countless media mistakes that day

Thank you Mr. McLuhan.

Keld - quite extraordinary comments on this thread so far, ranging from standard-issue zionist ad hominem abuse to straw man non sequiturs, irrelevance and absurd optimism.

What the hell do Zionists have to do with ad-hominem attacks against crazy conspiracy theories regarding 9/11?

The square peg does not fit in the round hole.

I believe he is referring to Dennis M Wright's comment alluding to Keld's propensity for seeding anti-zionist articles.

Right. So now the camera man, the reporter, the producer, and anyone else involved in the production of that news report are all involved in the conspiracy. How exactly does adding 20+ people to the list of conspirators fit in with Ockham's Razor? The more people you claim are involved the more unbelievable your theory becomes.

Summed up nicely by Debunking 9/11

only people working overtime are the conspiracy theorists. more's the pity.

If workers and policemen were announcing its collapse and preparing for its collapse, how come none of them have stepped forward to announce that they had forknowledge of the impending collapse?

Or, get this, maybe the building was known to be, at that time, structurally weakened to the point that workers and policemen were evacuating the area so that if it were to collapse no one would be hurt?

There are NUMEROUS reports from much earlier in the day that WTC 7 was going to be pulled, which is a demolition term for brought down."

I am astounded to know that people cannot imagine their government doing something nefarious. The simple fact that the current prez of the US is illegally elected should be some minor indication that all is not as it seems.

If David Copperfield can make planes disappear, the US government with all its support and money and secrecy levels is certainly able to pull off all sorts of stuff.

The reason the US and all sorts of other governments get away with what they do is that so-called patriots will not consider the alternatives. For those governments, hard line patriots are a good thing for maintaining social control.

If David Copperfield can make planes disappear, the US government with all its support and money and secrecy levels is certainly able to pull off all sorts of stuff.

And with the level of bureaucracy and incompetence in said government, I don't think they'd be able to pull anything off like 9/11. If anything, they're probably using conspiracy nutjobs as the smoke and mirrors for whatever nefarious purposes they commited, if they did in fact commit any. We've had so many different "theories" come through here we wouldn't be able to tell truth from fiction anymore. All thanks to the folks looking for the "real truth" and spouting bull every step of the way.

I blame the likes of David Copperfield and the whole lot of Oscar-loving Hollywood. After decades of feeding off that kinda diet, it seems some people are challenged separating fact from fiction. It is ludicrous to suggest that the US Govt, all those agencies like CIA et al, BBC and countless others 'collaborated' in a conspiracy of this scale. Most such agencies are not capable of masterminding anything on their own that is much smaller in size, scale and scope. To think that they might be able to pool resources to do that is laughable.

Let's leave Rock & Roll to where it fits. Pure entertainment :-)

Here-here Defex! I'm surprised that Gideon didn't somehow manage to tie the WTC conspiracy into the mega-death issue he has so successfully managed here. *grin* Ahhh, but he did get his "standard-issue zionist ad hominem abuse" tag in there - so we at least have that to run with.

I am thinking about it. Strangely, one word comes to mind.

Conspiracy? Nope, but you got the first two letters right.

Collusion? Nope, not much closer.

Coffee? Now you're just being silly.

I was thinking of "Coincidence."

Also, what about the female news reporter's feed disappearing 5 minutes before the collapse?

Were there not cell, television and radio towers on the WTC buildings? Maybe her channel was commandeered by emergency personnel because their radio antennas were on the WTC?

His pathetic attempt to get double payment on his insurance policy by claiming each WTC tower counted as a separate act of terrorism?

You're right, he should have just taken the loss. Wait, what?

almost free-fall speed and radially symmetrical collapse plus the other hard evidence like the molten metal found in the basement and/or the sulfidation of the WTC steel.

I was thinking of "Coincidence."

That's some coincidence.

Well, is there any proof that non-controlled-demolitions of steel-structure towers fall in any other manner than what was shown on 9/11?

No, therefore, there is no reason to believe that the towers were demolished purposefully, because there is no proof that the reason they fell was other than the obvious - they were hit by very fast metal objects filled with flammable materials (jet fuel).

Well, after a breif search, I couldn't find any examples of non-controlled steel-structure collapses (primarily because a google search will return almost exclusively 9/11-related material), so I can't empirically show proof at this moment that it is possible for a collapse to happen in any other way. But my gut feeling, mixed with my (admitedly limited) understanding of physics, is that it would be highly unlikely for a large mass (ie WTC 1, 2, & 7) to fall into the direction of greatest resistance. Add to that the other inconsistencies, and you're left with 'coincidences' which to me seem much less likely than intentional demolition.

I couldn't find any examples of non-controlled steel-structure collapses

Exactly my point. All we are left with to "prove" that the WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, is, like you said, "gut feeling."

Mmmm, I'm not buying your line of reasoning. You're saying, essentially, that because I couldn't (in 5 minutes of google-searching) find an example of an un-controlled steel-structure collapse, and that the WTC buildings are steel and that they did collapse, that they must have fallen as a result of un-controlled demolition (ie: fire).

Well, I've been doing a little more looking, and I'm not sure if these structures are steel or not, but here are some examples of how buildings tend to fall when not being demolished in a controlled manner:

one. two. three. four.

Steel or not, those are examples of what my gut (and my eyes) tell me an un-controlled collapse should look like.

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

Do you find this plausible?

I have no experience with falling buildings, and no one has any experience will falling steel structured buildings which have fallen due to fire.

Perhaps the fire weakened most of the base, so that when one bit broke, the rest broke immediately as a result of the added strain on them? Maybe the fire was in the middle, (up the elevator shaft?) and the middle weakened, and the building fell in on itself, something that couldn't be seen except from above?

Like I said, that'd be some coincidence.

Your gut is wrong. The building did not collapse all at once. The video clearly shows the structure pancaking in on itself level by level. Voice recordings from people on cell phones talking to 911 do not reveal any explosives going off. But why should we believe hundreds of experts over your gut?

But my gut feeling, mixed with my (admitedly limited) understanding of physics, is that it would be highly unlikely for a large mass (ie WTC 1, 2, & 7) to fall into the direction of greatest resistance.

(emphasis mine)

So wait, let me get this straight, the path of least resistance for a 500,000 ton structure is the one where the gravity isn't?

And, yes, I understand that gravity has the same effect on objects of varying mass. The same doesn't apply to steel structures.

And, yes, I understand that gravity has the same effect on objects of varying mass. The same doesn't apply to steel structures.

Again, you are dead wrong. Are you seriously saying that physics doesn't apply to steel structures??? Please go read the Debunking 9/11 and Popular Mechanics sites, they show that the buildings cause for failure is well understood and was not "into the direction of greatest resistance."

How many steel-structured buildings have been hit by large aircraft in the history of steel structured buildings?

Exactly two - WTCs 1 and 2. So how does one judge what a non-controlled-demolition should look like? Maybe all collapses of steel-structured buildings look like controlled demolitions, simply as a property of their design?

Also, do you think it might be possibly that WTC 7 was simply built less well than the other WTC buildings, and therefore collapse, although it had been exposed to "better" or less bad conditions?

Or perhaps there was something inside WTC that burned "better," so the building collapsed...

You're obviously new here, so I won't rehash discussions we've been having for months. Suffice it to say you should look through Keld's history if you want to see how thoroughly debunked the whole "controlled demolition" theory is.

That guy was kicked out of his university because of his ridiculous theories. His organization of conspiracy theorists collapsed on itself.

His hypothesis is that on September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers and Seven World Trade Center collapsed as a result of controlled demolition, not the impact of the airplanes that hit them or the fires that followed. The paper does not claim to prove this hypothesis, but calls for further scientific investigation to test it along with the release of all relevant data by the government. (emphasis mine)

Next.

First off, that's a pretty unfair representation of his leaving the university, and in no way represents the spirit of the article from which you cite the reference. Regardless, the point is irrelevant. His being a faculty member or not has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims.

Secondly, I don't see what possible relevance there could be to your addition of emphasis to the quote from wikipedia. How does calling for further scientific investigation involving all relevant materials somehow discredit him? He has a hypothesis, and in a paper has recommended that it be studied.

No, Eloy said Dr. Jones had proof. My emphasis was to show that he never claimed to have proof, only theory. To answer your first point, his theory is based on bad science and has been so widely discredited to the point that his University suspended him. True, he retired, but he was left with no option, Brigham Young was not going to reinstate him due to his highly inflamatory remarks and the fact that he used their name in his paper.

My emphasis was to show that he never claimed to have proof, only theory.

My understanding of science is that one starts with a hypothesis, and then uses the scientific method to demostrate (or not) the veracity of the hypothesis. You look at evidence, and reason leads you to a hypothesis. You then apply rigorous scientific analysis of the evidence in order to either strengthen or weaken the hypothesis.

Can you provide some info that shows his theory is based on "bad science"?

Why aren't you demanding the same scientific principles be adhered to when examining the official hypothesis? You know there's been no independent scientific investigation to examine the official story, right? Why do so many people seem to feel that the official story doesn't need to stand up to the same criticisms as the alternative theories?

I have been through this dozens of times in previous seeds from Keld. If you want to see my responses then, either look through his history or mine, but I'm sick of rehashing these same damn arguments over and over to every new yahoo who shows up here with the same @!$%# we have been over for months.

I will post a few links though:
Popular Mechanics
Debunking 9/11

Funny, I just noticed the top link on debunking 9/11 is about the topic of this seed...

Well it's obviously a contentious issue, and you're dismissal of argument and downright condescending tone show that you're not committed to winning people by way of discourse, but rather intend to berate or humiliate folks who don't share your point of view. Shame.

You think that because Popular Mechanic's wrote a peice purporting to debunk the 9/11 truth movement (and not doing a very good job of it, by the way), that the story is a closed case now? Wrong. You think that because you've spent some time impatiently and condescendingly attacking people with opposing viewpoints that now, somehow, their concerns and questions must cease? Also wrong.

If you can't tolerate people's honest questions and lines of reasoning, then I'd suggest not looking at seeds or articles having to do with 9/11!

You are absolutely correct, I am dismissive and condescending to people who say that their "gut" is correct over thousands of experts and eye witnesses. Those links you post are ludicrous. Do you seriously believe a website that says something like this:

Popular Mechanics cites no sources for its assertions (except a list of people at the end of the article who are claimed to be "experts").

Umm, isn't a list of experts the source? They give names of military and civilian personel they quote. And yet I'm the one who's ignoring evidence?

And lets be clear here, it's not just Popular Mechanics. Many sites have come out like Debunking 9/11 and the BBC recently did a story on the myths, and lo and behold smear tactics come out of the "truth" movement which attack the BBC as being cohorts in the greatest cover-up of all time.

As I said above, I do not expect to win people over since conspiracy theories are neither rational nor logical, but I will counter fallacy and supposition with fact whenever possible.

That's funny, I don't remember saying that. Let's rewind the tape, shall we?

But my gut feeling, mixed with my (admitedly limited) understanding of physics, is that it would be highly unlikely for a large mass (ie WTC 1, 2, & 7) to fall into the direction of greatest resistance.

I thought it was obvious that I was using the term 'gut' euphamistically, to express a deeply felt sense that the official story just doesn't 'jive' with my experience of the physical world. I wasn't saying that my feeling proves or disproves anything, but that it has led me to look into the matter.

Regardless, you should maybe take a look at the CoH, especially point number 1: Above all else, respect others.

Choose to believe what you will, but much of my research (and yes, I've read many of the supposed "debunking 9/11 myths" sites), has led me to the conclusion that there are enough questions unanswered, and sufficient evidence to warrant an independent scientific investigation into the event. That's what Dr. Jones is arguing for in his paper, and if you're so confident about your 'facts', then why so hostile toward the idea?

Seriously, are you daft? You say you didn't say something, and then you proceed to say the exact same thing over. "Gut" is a synonym for feelings, feelings which are based on instinct rather than fact.

Regardless, you should maybe take a look at the CoH, especially point number 1: Above all else, respect others.

Not everyone is deserving of respect. I'm done with this conversation.

No, you misrepresent me by claiming that I've stated that my gut is a more reliable source of information than "eyewitness accounts", when in fact I said no such thing. I said that my gut-feeling doesn't mesh with the official accounts, and that feeling has led me to investigate.

Not everyone is deserving of respect.

What a shocking, shameful statement! I couldn't disagree more.