Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html - this one is a point by point debunking of said video. It takes a long ass time to go through it all but is well worth it for the facts it throws up along the way.
WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.
So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:
Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?
WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.
So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:
Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?
[1 point]3 years ago by PepelapiuReplyEdited 3 years ago by Pepelapiu
No, I don't need to answer it. The burden of proof is on you not me, you're the one who wants to show what...that it was a controlled demolition? I have seen the films, read the arguments. I chose not to believe the conspiracy theories, they having less evidence I can accept, so unless you have some new and unshakeable evidence, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Then just bury your head in the sand, pay your taxes and keep watching your TV. But don't forget to pay your taxes, your gubment loves a good tax payer.
*sigh* Not that I need to justify myself to you, seeing as clearly you don't have any new and compelling evidence as you resorted to some bollocky pseudoinsult instead of reasoned argument...burying one's head in the sand would indicate ignoring, nay, refusing to acknowledge that any other viewpoint exists. I, on the other hand know of the viewpoint, researched the beliefs of that viewpoint and came to the conclusion that based on it's questionable evidence, I could not subscribe to that viewpoint. I spent quite some time doing that actually, in fact, I researched that before I researched the other side of the argument.
So put up or shut up: got any new evidence or are you just going to bark the classic CT crap at me?
You say you have researched it all. Then answer the question I have asked above. Since you are obviously smarter then I and more researched then I maybe you can explain it too me. How did WTC7 fall so completely vertically when only one side of it was damaged by debris and fires?
[1 point]3 years ago by PepelapiuReplyEdited 3 years ago by Pepelapiu
I never said I was more researched than you, I merely pointed out that your assertion that I was burying my head in the sand was wrong. I posted some links above, but I guess if you are going to insist, I'll link one more, one that you could find really easily if you wanted to, I think it comes up like 8th if you google WTC7.
Really though, the burden of proof is on you, you are trying to convince me of something I don't believe, I shouldn't have to point to reasons why.
Well lets see...what's your argument, there was only visible damage on one side of the building and it fell vertically and in 7 seconds. Right. You want my opinion, here goes.
Just because damage was only visible on the outside of one part of the building does not mean it wasn't very badly damaged by fire inside. There was a diesel store remember, that fucker burned. Also, the seismic effects of the collapse of the other towers along with being hit by humungous chunks of debris weakened the structure. Part of it on one corner was actually broken away, causing a bit of a lean. It wobbled. Now, when a building falls, like anything else, it wants to fall straight down. Each floor of a building like that weighs thousands of tons that each preceeding floor can only support when it isn't on fire and being hit by shit. One floor starts to slip and fall and the force of that will act vertically downwards regardless of the direction in which the original slip happens. So the floor below collapses, but it has no reason to fall any way but vertically, it's not slipping, it's getting squashed. So...this happens with each successive floor, giving the vertical fall you mention.
Seven seconds? Well, anything falling under gravity falls at the same rate regardless of explosives or not, I don't get your point.
Now, there's a perfectly plausible explanation that doesn't require suspension of disbelief.
Incidentally, I don't expect to change your mind and you should know that without that compelling evidence I mentioned again and again, you wont change mine. Seems a worthless exercise here really.
> Seven seconds? Well, anything falling under gravity falls at the same rate regardless of explosives or not.
Not really. When talking about free fall, we are talking about something falling THOUGHT AIR, not something falling through tons and tons of structural steel and concrete.
>Just because damage was only visible on the outside of one part of the building does not mean it wasn't very badly damaged by fire inside.
You should explain this to Danny Jowenko. Jowenko is not a 'conspiracy kook', he is a demolition expert and watch carefully his reaction when they ask him how the building came down while showing him the videos:
You see, for demolition experts, it takes months and months of work, calculations and preparations to make sure a building falls down completely vertically like that. But I guess if you accept that 7 hours of fires and debris damage to only one side is sufficient to create the same results then all is well and fine .....
OK...I'll watch but I really can't right now, it's after 2am. This is also from a demolitions expert, he disagrees with the hypothesis of controlled demolition.
Actually, the building is in virtual freefall. It isn't falling through anything, as each floor falls, the resistance given by each sucessive floor is virtually nil as it too begins to collapse. As more building falls, the resistance becomes less and less as the falling weight increases.
I'll watch the video you suggest and comment tomorrow. Just didn't want you to think I was running out on the discussion.
> you should know that without that compelling evidence I mentioned again and again, you wont change mine.
It always amazes me when people look at the perfectly vertical demolition of WTC7 and still ask for more evidence. WTC7 is the smoking gun dude. You remind me of my buddy and his wife: every time I go over to their house she is all over me, she flirts, grabs my ass, makes sexual innuendos and she has slept with many of my other friends. But my buddy keeps saying she's just friendly and a joker ..... he just doesn't want to see the truth. No matter how much she cheaps on him, he just refuses to see what's going on..... you behave pretty much in the same manner when you tell me that WTC7 fell down due to fires and falling debris.
The truth would just be too painful for my buddy so he just blocks it out ..... seems the truth just would be too painful for you too my friend.
All is well, I bid you farewell my friend and I hope some day, the obvious can make it into your hearth.
It's not a smoking gun because there is a perfectly plausible explanation backed up by physics and structural engineering for why that building fell the way it did. I need more evidence because unless you can provide proof of explosives being used to destroy that building then it is a much less plausible explanation.
If, IF there was further evidence aside from videos of the building falling straight down then I would consider that equally. And it would be painful, hell it SHOULD be painful for anyone to think that a government deliberately perpetrated such an attack against it's own people. But it is not too painful for me to accept, it's just that there is no evidence that cannot be refuted.
The same way you cannot understand my position, I cannot understand yours. No amount of being called blind or stupid or afraid will change my mind. There are many terrible, proven truths of the horrors perpetrated by leaders around our world, I think it's better to worry about those.
I am not trying to prove anything or convert anyone. I am just asking you a question. Now, if you don't want to answer that's cool, discussion is over. But I think dodging that question as you are doing is akin to putting your head in the sand..... I don't know why you join the comments page if you don't want to discuss this stuff!?!
Now can you answer my question?
How did WTC7 fall so completely vertically when only one side of it was damaged by debris and fires?
[1 point]3 years ago by PepelapiuReplyEdited 3 years ago by Pepelapiu
I doubt the US government would be involved, they have thought about false flag operations in the past (google for Operation Northwoods) But I would not be surprised if some people within the administration or the CIA/FBI let it happen.
>>> If I really thought people could stoop that low
Yet you accept that 19 Muslims with box cutters could do this but you refuse to believe that the largest war machine in the world (the USA government) could do anything immoral?
Have a look here and tell me what caused that building to collapse:
I never said the US Government could not do anything immoral. All governments can and do on a regular basis.
However there is a matter of scale here.
They could easily have achieved an anti muslim reaction by producing a faked terror plot, and made themselves look good in the process by "foiling" their own set up attacks.
WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.
So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:
Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?
Could a group of people really be that cold blooded as to kill thousands of citizens of their own country (and incidfently causing many millions of dollars with of damage).
I can be a pretty cynical sod at times, but I can not accept this.
Interesting results, especially from US: 30ppl=24% YES, 94ppl=76% NO. I would say that 24% is quite large number of believers in conspiracy theory version of 9/11. I agree with Asroc, it would be to shrewd and cruel for democratic government. In Russia, China maybe but not in USA... I have checked 2 first links provided earlier by SpangeNW: nist report and popular mechanics podcast. They were very convincing...but I am not so shure about all the obscurities. Maybe I don't believe it was an inside job but there is something wrong in it.
Like I said, I don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, but at the same time I would not be surprised if some ppl, charged with defending the country, allowed it to happen. I have no prove that it happened, just the testimonies of some FBI agents who believed that their investigations prior to 9/11 were blocked.
Poland
Some facts about the terrorists attacks on WTC buildings are pretty weird...
Prevoius question on ask500ppl about WTC7 building:
http://www.ask500people.com/questions/did-you-know-about-wtc7-the-3rd-building-to-collapse-on-911-and-if-so-why-did-it-collapse-6040
Websites:
http://www.911blogger.com/
http://truthaction.org/
2h amateur movie about the issue:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9153741586264750761&ei=VIuhSKbgBozQ2AKHtYgs&q=911+thruth
Some links to things that argue against the conspiracy:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html - this one is a point by point debunking of said video. It takes a long ass time to go through it all but is well worth it for the facts it throws up along the way.
I will check them.
Then just answer this simple question:
WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.
So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?
Then just answer this simple question:
WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.
So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?
No, I don't need to answer it. The burden of proof is on you not me, you're the one who wants to show what...that it was a controlled demolition? I have seen the films, read the arguments. I chose not to believe the conspiracy theories, they having less evidence I can accept, so unless you have some new and unshakeable evidence, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Then just bury your head in the sand, pay your taxes and keep watching your TV. But don't forget to pay your taxes, your gubment loves a good tax payer.
*sigh* Not that I need to justify myself to you, seeing as clearly you don't have any new and compelling evidence as you resorted to some bollocky pseudoinsult instead of reasoned argument...burying one's head in the sand would indicate ignoring, nay, refusing to acknowledge that any other viewpoint exists. I, on the other hand know of the viewpoint, researched the beliefs of that viewpoint and came to the conclusion that based on it's questionable evidence, I could not subscribe to that viewpoint. I spent quite some time doing that actually, in fact, I researched that before I researched the other side of the argument.
So put up or shut up: got any new evidence or are you just going to bark the classic CT crap at me?
>I, on the other hand know of the viewpoint,
>researched the beliefs of that viewpoint and
>came to the conclusion that based on it's
>questionable evidence, I could not subscribe
>to that viewpoint. I spent quite some time
>doing that actually, in fact, I researched
>that before I researched the other side of
>the argument.
You say you have researched it all. Then answer the question I have asked above. Since you are obviously smarter then I and more researched then I maybe you can explain it too me. How did WTC7 fall so completely vertically when only one side of it was damaged by debris and fires?
I never said I was more researched than you, I merely pointed out that your assertion that I was burying my head in the sand was wrong. I posted some links above, but I guess if you are going to insist, I'll link one more, one that you could find really easily if you wanted to, I think it comes up like 8th if you google WTC7.
Really though, the burden of proof is on you, you are trying to convince me of something I don't believe, I shouldn't have to point to reasons why.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I read your link and I can't find an answer to my question there. Maybe you could C&P it or explain it in your own words?
Well lets see...what's your argument, there was only visible damage on one side of the building and it fell vertically and in 7 seconds. Right. You want my opinion, here goes.
Just because damage was only visible on the outside of one part of the building does not mean it wasn't very badly damaged by fire inside. There was a diesel store remember, that fucker burned. Also, the seismic effects of the collapse of the other towers along with being hit by humungous chunks of debris weakened the structure. Part of it on one corner was actually broken away, causing a bit of a lean. It wobbled. Now, when a building falls, like anything else, it wants to fall straight down. Each floor of a building like that weighs thousands of tons that each preceeding floor can only support when it isn't on fire and being hit by shit. One floor starts to slip and fall and the force of that will act vertically downwards regardless of the direction in which the original slip happens. So the floor below collapses, but it has no reason to fall any way but vertically, it's not slipping, it's getting squashed. So...this happens with each successive floor, giving the vertical fall you mention.
Seven seconds? Well, anything falling under gravity falls at the same rate regardless of explosives or not, I don't get your point.
Now, there's a perfectly plausible explanation that doesn't require suspension of disbelief.
Incidentally, I don't expect to change your mind and you should know that without that compelling evidence I mentioned again and again, you wont change mine. Seems a worthless exercise here really.
> Seven seconds? Well, anything falling under gravity falls at the same rate regardless of explosives or not.
Not really. When talking about free fall, we are talking about something falling THOUGHT AIR, not something falling through tons and tons of structural steel and concrete.
>Just because damage was only visible on the outside of one part of the building does not mean it wasn't very badly damaged by fire inside.
You should explain this to Danny Jowenko. Jowenko is not a 'conspiracy kook', he is a demolition expert and watch carefully his reaction when they ask him how the building came down while showing him the videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ
You see, for demolition experts, it takes months and months of work, calculations and preparations to make sure a building falls down completely vertically like that. But I guess if you accept that 7 hours of fires and debris damage to only one side is sufficient to create the same results then all is well and fine .....
OK...I'll watch but I really can't right now, it's after 2am. This is also from a demolitions expert, he disagrees with the hypothesis of controlled demolition.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Actually, the building is in virtual freefall. It isn't falling through anything, as each floor falls, the resistance given by each sucessive floor is virtually nil as it too begins to collapse. As more building falls, the resistance becomes less and less as the falling weight increases.
I'll watch the video you suggest and comment tomorrow. Just didn't want you to think I was running out on the discussion.
> you should know that without that compelling evidence I mentioned again and again, you wont change mine.
It always amazes me when people look at the perfectly vertical demolition of WTC7 and still ask for more evidence. WTC7 is the smoking gun dude. You remind me of my buddy and his wife: every time I go over to their house she is all over me, she flirts, grabs my ass, makes sexual innuendos and she has slept with many of my other friends. But my buddy keeps saying she's just friendly and a joker ..... he just doesn't want to see the truth. No matter how much she cheaps on him, he just refuses to see what's going on..... you behave pretty much in the same manner when you tell me that WTC7 fell down due to fires and falling debris.
The truth would just be too painful for my buddy so he just blocks it out ..... seems the truth just would be too painful for you too my friend.
All is well, I bid you farewell my friend and I hope some day, the obvious can make it into your hearth.
Cheers,
PepeLapiu :)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread142784/pg1
It's not a smoking gun because there is a perfectly plausible explanation backed up by physics and structural engineering for why that building fell the way it did. I need more evidence because unless you can provide proof of explosives being used to destroy that building then it is a much less plausible explanation.
If, IF there was further evidence aside from videos of the building falling straight down then I would consider that equally. And it would be painful, hell it SHOULD be painful for anyone to think that a government deliberately perpetrated such an attack against it's own people. But it is not too painful for me to accept, it's just that there is no evidence that cannot be refuted.
The same way you cannot understand my position, I cannot understand yours. No amount of being called blind or stupid or afraid will change my mind. There are many terrible, proven truths of the horrors perpetrated by leaders around our world, I think it's better to worry about those.
>Really though, the burden of proof is on you
I am not trying to prove anything or convert anyone. I am just asking you a question. Now, if you don't want to answer that's cool, discussion is over. But I think dodging that question as you are doing is akin to putting your head in the sand..... I don't know why you join the comments page if you don't want to discuss this stuff!?!
Now can you answer my question?
How did WTC7 fall so completely vertically when only one side of it was damaged by debris and fires?
See above...
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyI doubt the US government would be involved, they have thought about false flag operations in the past (google for Operation Northwoods) But I would not be surprised if some people within the administration or the CIA/FBI let it happen.
All the world loves a conspiracy theory.
I have to believe this was genuine for my sanity.
If I really thought people could stoop that low, I really don't think my brain could handle it.
Wah, wah, wah.
The first step toward dealing with a problem is acknowledging it!
Yeah, well we all know about the river in Egypt, but there is also a theory that ignorance is bliss too.
>>> If I really thought people could stoop that low
Yet you accept that 19 Muslims with box cutters could do this but you refuse to believe that the largest war machine in the world (the USA government) could do anything immoral?
Have a look here and tell me what caused that building to collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
Then have a look here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1337231563159418946
Kindly refrain from putting world into my mouth.
I never said the US Government could not do anything immoral. All governments can and do on a regular basis.
However there is a matter of scale here.
They could easily have achieved an anti muslim reaction by producing a faked terror plot, and made themselves look good in the process by "foiling" their own set up attacks.
Then just answer this simple question:
WTC7, a building 300 ft away and across the street from the towers collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon. It was said that it collapsed due to fire but the only significant fires are seen on the side of WTC7 facing the towers. There is some very minor fires seen on the other sides of the building but not much. Then it was said that falling debris from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse, but the only side of WTC7 that was damaged by the debris was the side facing the towers.
So look at the videos here showing the collapse of WTC7 as reported by the media on that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
Now answer this one question only: How does a building that was damaged by fires and debris on only one side can fall to the ground in such a perfectly vertical manner in less then 7 seconds?
I am not qualified to answer that question.
I have no training or knowledge of civil engineering and absolutely no idea what factors would be needed to make a building collapse.
Since this seems to be a favourite subject of yours, why do you think the building collapsed?
I think they needed a reason to go to war in the middle east so they "manufactured" one
Could a group of people really be that cold blooded as to kill thousands of citizens of their own country (and incidfently causing many millions of dollars with of damage).
I can be a pretty cynical sod at times, but I can not accept this.
google for Operation Northwoods
The world was a very different place in 1962.
The Government and Government agencies were much less accountable than they are now, and the world was in the grip of the Cold War.
Also note the plan, even then, was never actioned.
You can take conspiracy theory far too seriously!
Interesting results, especially from US: 30ppl=24% YES, 94ppl=76% NO. I would say that 24% is quite large number of believers in conspiracy theory version of 9/11. I agree with Asroc, it would be to shrewd and cruel for democratic government. In Russia, China maybe but not in USA... I have checked 2 first links provided earlier by SpangeNW: nist report and popular mechanics podcast. They were very convincing...but I am not so shure about all the obscurities. Maybe I don't believe it was an inside job but there is something wrong in it.
Like I said, I don't think that 9/11 was an inside job, but at the same time I would not be surprised if some ppl, charged with defending the country, allowed it to happen. I have no prove that it happened, just the testimonies of some FBI agents who believed that their investigations prior to 9/11 were blocked.
http://billgiltner.blip.tv