Building 7 - Do you see it Fall?


#201

Well, first of all, I find your insistence on laying out what “should intrigue all readers of this thread” about me very telling. As far as I’m concerned people can make up their own minds without being told what to think. Your aspersions are particular misguided about my “determination to look no further than the official 9/11 explanations”. On the contrary, I have willingly engaged here, have dissected videos offered as “evidence” and given my considered opinion. Your concern amounts to no more than a claim that if someone considers the conspiracies, and having considered them rejects them as batshit crazy, then they are by definition a blinkered conformist, if not an outright government stooge (which you have also accused me of).

Can you not see that yours is the mindset of a zealot? What’s more you clearly have at least the presence of mind to be aware of it, as you mention an unwillingness to discuss it with work colleagues. I have never been bashful about discussing anything I believe with conviction. I suspect most “truthers” actually realise that their conspiracies are idiotic, but get some sort of mental reward out of it to compensate for being viewed as kooks by the sane majority.

Nevertheless, unlike you, I hope that people on this thread pay lots of attention to your alternative viewpoints. In fact, I wish someone would lay out a comprehensive summary of the “truther” position, not just the “explosives and/or incendiaries” style of nitpicking. A complete theory would surely be exposed for the obvious nuttery that it is. I guess that’s why we never see such a thing, except in parody. There was one near the start of this thread.


#202

This is the one I was talking about, from October '07. Twelve years later the conspiracists have yet to come up with something more plausible.


#203

id say Russell Crowe (AKA Roger Ailles) was in on it too.
Anyone who hasnt seen The Loudest Voice is missing out, brilliant TV show following the Rise of Fox news.
Anyways, back to the bait and switch,


#204

I suppose the 3,000 Architects and Engineers for Truth, fully qualified practitioners who know a thing or do about how buildings behave, must be more of ps200’s morons, stupids and ‘conspiracy theorists’:

To the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of America,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 — specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE/


#205

We dealt with the fire commissioners. Are you going to just keep posting “I suppose XXX must be morons”? Certainly, lots of stuff that AE911 writes makes them look like very dodgy. They were the ones who commissioned Hulsey / University of Alaska study debunking NIST. From what I’ve seen, that study looks like a joke.

As usual, the comments on the video are all along the lines of “if you don’t believe AE911 you must be a paid shill”. Along with the usual parroting of “free fall symmetrical collapse” and other long since debunked truther rubbish. The more I look into this, the more the truthers sound like a brainwashed cult.


#206

ps200 just doesn’t get it. Doesn’t seem to realise the 3,000 signatories of Architects and Engineers etc. are not just joe soaps off the internet, they have to be licensed or chartered practitioners in the field of architecture or structural engineering, they know from years of experience how buildings behave so they are worth listening to, but no, ps200 has decided from years of writing software that he knows better and the signatories are just a cult.
Again, I rest my case.


#207

So are the 3,000 employees of NIST just Joe Soaps off the internet then? Or are they the people who actually spent years investigating the events and writing a report? Let’s not forget AE911 has not just commented on building structure. They are apparently experts on aeroplane crashes, jet fuel fires, explosives and thermite, metallic nanospheres, molten aluminium, controlled demolitions and a bazillion other topics on which they have waxed lyrical. I don’t know any building architects with expertise in those areas, do you?

The Wikipedia article on AE911 says " their theories lack support among the relevant professional communities", citing four references. The American Institute of Architects has said of its founder: “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever”. The founder, Richard Gage, was himself converted by David Ray Griffin, the theologian who wrote one of the original 9/11 conspiracy theory books. I would have no hesitation in putting Griffin in the batshit crazy category. He has claimed that voices have been altered in recorded evidence from 9/11 and continues to maintain that quotes from firemen support the explosive demolition hypothesis. He says that phone calls from the hijacked planes were made by “voice morphing technology” that fooled the family members.

Slate magazine has a decent article on some of this, with the pithy observation that “the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world”. And from what I can see, it’s true. The 9/11 truther cult is not open to any kind of refutation. It’s basically a religious experience.


#208

I appreciate your 2nd run at this.

My first visual go to would be notable affects of chopper downdraft.

I see no visual evidence of disturbance to the smoke plumes. I’m surprised no one thought of that. I can’t imagine if helicopters are even flown through such conditions with the best of equipment, in WCS combat training, maybe only then otherwise you would have to avoid at all costs, since there are things like giant antenna sticking out of the building and other structures which would be covered by the smoke and then there is the complete loss of visual orientationm smoke, you might need oxygen masks too etc. etc.

Here is a good example of the force of a choppers down draft, keep an eye on the portaloos.

One more thing. I think you’ve picked the wrong chopper, but I’m aware you’ve added enough IF’s and the video quality after encodings, compression and enlargements is, total rubbish.

I actually think it’s a bit bigger (I wonder how that might affect your size calcs?), like a different model, more of a nose cone on it - I say this from two points, A) The shape of the pixels B) Other videos of Chopper shooting live (need to find link again) are closer to that shape and most probably that bit larger and longer, and even more, possibly one of these choppers no less.

Oh and in case it was not clear, it’s not the second black thing.


#209

Since the chopper disappears more or less completely, I’m not really surprised by that. Also, I saw someone claiming the recent Spacex Starhopper test was fake because of the lack of visible effect of the rocket plume on the billowing dust cloud. But footage from other angles easily explained why – the dust cloud was blowing directly away from the vehicle. The same is true of the chopper picture. The wind on 9/11 was blowing from the north/northwest. The angle we see of the south tower barely sticking out behind the north confirms what you can see in the picture – the smoke plume is blowing directly away from the camera and the chopper. The chopper could probably fly above the north tower without producing any visible disturbance. But, for the reasons I outlined, I don’t believe it was anywhere near the tower.

It could be bigger, there’s simply no way of telling. But it definitely isn’t the beast in your video. That’s an RAF Merlin helicopter, even bigger than the Sikorsky Sea Kings that it replaced. My police chopper has an empty weight of 600 kg and a maximum weight limit of just over a tonne. Your Merlin is 10 tonnes empty, can take off at 15 tonnes, carries 40 people, and is three times the length of the police chopper. All that weight is supported by the displaced air underneath. I don’t know if the one in your vid is low enough for the ground effect to be significant – that’s where the downwash is deflected outward – but either way I’m not surprised at the effect on the portaloos (just also noticed the loo rolls in the air at the end – hilarious). In the 9/11 vid the camera guy says it’s a “single prop” helicopter. Hard to know if he means single rotor or single rotor blade (obviously a helicopter has a minimum of two rotor blades but given he called it a prop I doubt he would know that). Anyway, there’s no chance of it being anything like your Merlin. I fancy it could be this actual police chopper which seems to be aloft at the time, or shortly after, the south tower comes down:

It gets some close-up zooms, but it’s equally clear it keeps a substantial distance away at all times.


#210


#211

There are no straight lines in nature. :drooling_face:


#212

#213

Ooh. Another fuzzy patch on another fuzzy video. Quite fuzztastic.


#214

Select comment from the video:

The Professor|40x40

The Professor4 years ago

The number of pre-collapse explosions isn’t entirely clear, but suffice it to say that explosions did occur both in the top parts of the towers and in the basements. We know with moral certainty that the Twin Towers were brought down with two MRR devices yielding about 350 tons each. These devices were placed in sub-basement shafts which we know existed underneath each tower, and which formed part of the local WTC wastewater recycling system. Almost all information about the sub-baseent infrastructure has been scrubbed after 9/11, but this we know from Eric Darton’s book on the WTC, “Divided We Stand”, originally published in 1994.

The WTC was originally built entirely without wastewater recycling. The sewage was simply pumped into the Hudson River through pipelines running in tunnels underneath the landfill, now Battery Park City. The tunnels also housed the cooling water intake lines for the WTC airconditioning plant. However, after the Clean Water Act came into force, and with rising environmental awareness, the WTC had to be retrofitted for wastewater recycling. As part of that project, the city built a pipeline specifically for the purpose of transporting the sewage to the Newtown Creek treatment plant, which is located in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, right on the border to Queens across from Manhattan. Because it was retrofitted, the system was a bit clunky, and involved pumping the sewage around the WTC complex via shafts located underneath each of the towers.

Why the shafts were there, we do not know, but it’s possible that a Dimitri Khalezov-style nuclear demolition scheme did exist, and that the towers were prepared for it from the start. It would fit in with the zeitgeist of the early 1960s, which was the heyday of Operation Plowshare and its ambitions to use “peaceful nuclear explosions” to dig canals, harbours and the like. It also fits in with the Rockefeller megalomania. The WTC was, of course, David Rockefeller’s pet project, on which he devoted substantial time and effort to get it through the legal, political, bureaucratic and financial hoops. The symbolic nature of the destruction of the World Trade Center should not be underestimated: it was a strike at the Rockefeller/CFR power nexus and the paradigm of Gentile liberalism, which is now going down to make way for the “new world order” of direct control by the chosen ones.

In any event, the nukes were placed in those shafts, and that’s how the cores were blown out. Weakening the top parts of the towers was necessary to achieve the “pile-driver” effect. By this token, the yield nukes could be limited so as not to blow a hole all the way up through the cores and through the roofs. We know they used old-fashioned thermite (or thermate) and also explosives to accomplish this. It was the thermite that caused the extreme temperatures that forced people to jump out of the towers. They were literally being roasted alive inside the towers. The nukes then took out the cores and set the collapse in motion. We know the cores went out first, because the footage shows the antenna on top of the North Tower started dropping a split second before the roofline and floors start dropping.

Turning to the basement, there is a simple reason these preparatory explosions were necessary. It is plain to see from the aerial footage of the WTC site that the explosions branched out through the sewage system and damaged adjacent buildings. This is readily apparent in the case of WTC-5 on the northeast corner of the WTC site, where a conspicuous black hole has been blown straight up through nine floors of building plus the basement. What made that hole? Was it Judy Wood’s space beams? Or was it Richard Gage’s thermite fairy? Who knows, maybe Thor the Norse god made that hole with his hammer? Seriously, the hole sits right where the sewer main connected to the building. It’s the nuke blast that made that hole from underneath.

Once this is understood, it is also easy to see that the holes in WTC-4 (by the South Tower) and WTC-6 (by the North Tower) were made in the same way, only that those holes are so big they left very little building standing around them. This also explains the internal explosion at WTC-7, as witnessed by Barry Jennings. It explains why WTC-7 suffered extensive internal damage and why it was set on fire. That is why the FDNY had to bring the building down later that afternoon. As Dutch demolitions expert Denny Jowenko has explained, a rough-and-ready demolition can be rigged in a matter of hours if circumstances require it. According to Jowenko, this would take a crew of about 30 men, from a demolition firm or from the military. For whatever reason (Jowenko suggested insurance), they decided to cover up this demolition.

We know the local WTC wastewater system was hooked up to the NYC mainlines, and from this we can infer that it was necessary to cut off the connections in order to prevent the nuclear blasts from damaging the mainlines. That explains the preparatory explosions in the basement. An additional possible reason for preparatory explosions was to cut off the cooling water intake lines, for similar reasons. We know with moral certainty that the WTC was brought down with nukes, and sure enough, all details of the entire scenario fits in with nuclear demolition. The preparatory explosions are part and parcel of the story of what happened on that fateful day at what became known as Ground Zero.


#216

Hilarious. I guess outlandish explanations like this can never be categorically disproved. Just as you can’t disprove that a nano-nuke shuffles the ping pong balls in the lottery machine every week.


#217

Comments on the internets what can you do, but classic video none the less. :man_technologist:


#218

#219

“…here we go again, another bomb…”


#220

“Dustification” is what I can’t get my head around, or think of an explanation for… 6:35 in this video.


#221

Some nose out videos to get your head around, the first one demonstrating a strange live broadcast feed blackout seemingly evident across all live broadcasts that day.

This one give various angles as a “debunk”, make of it what you will.