Zeitgeist - fantastic documentary

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
Genseneca,
I'm curious for your explanation of the third building that collapsed in its own footprint on the same day as the Twin Towers, if you wouldn't mind please.:)
 
Werbung:

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
DISCLAIMER: I have worked with a buddy of mine on a private forum to debunk 9/11 myths. CT's like to hurl copy-n-paste arguments or videos like "Loose Change" at their opponents, so we teamed together to split up the work. As far as WTC7, he dealt with the collapse of WTC7 while I took on the conspiracy theory angle about Larry Silverstein (Insurance fraud, His famous "pull it" quote about WTC7, and the general facts surrounding his acquisition, maintenance and tenant records concerning the entire WTC site and the affected buildings)
But you asked about the collapse, so here's just some of what my friend Cman found concerning the collapse:
Lets talk about WTC 7 which seems to be biggest smoking gun in the CT arsenal.

Why did the professionals say it collapsed? Was it only due to fire?

The WTC 7 structure had 47 floors and was 570 feet tall. It suffered damage on multiple floors and especially on floors towards the bottom. It had massive fires raging within reported by several firefighters who were actually at the site and weren't making assumptions based only from pictures.

Witness accounts of WTC 7 fires.

Witness accounts of WTC 7 damage.

Here is a photo of building 7 amid the collapse of WTC 1.
WTC7damage.jpg


Here is a report authored by Brent Blanchard, senior editor of implosionworld.com and Director of field operations at PROTEC Documentation Services Inc.

Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable, independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.

--- "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument." --Blanchard


As far as the fires are concerned, conspiracy theorists again love to pick out quotes that aren't from anyone who was actually there on scene and directly involved in the action.

Here is a photo of fires raging in WTC 7.
WTC7fire1.jpg


Now lets look at some of the quotes from the firefighters on scene ---

FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."

FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

Remember. WTC 7 was more than twice as tall as any of the other buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. It sustained severe damage mostly on the lower floors. They were attempting to fight fires in the building until an operational decision was made to pull back and not risk the lives of any more people that day. The building then burned for approximately another hour and a half before finally collapsing.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Lets take a look at what would have to happen in order to bring down WTC 7 with a controlled demolition ---- A demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of the buildings. Then the massive charges would have had to been initiated with precision to bring down the building they way it fell.

There is simply no evidence (seen or heard) of the amount of explosions it would take to bring that building down.

Take a look at a real building implosion ---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8mjwXshpU&mode=related&search=

A very informative page with hundreds of links to accurate information about the Collapse of building 7 was created by Mark Roberts - probably the most well known 9/11 researcher.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
In regards to the "pull it" quote, Silverstein was specifically referring to pulling out the firefighters trying to fight the fires in WTC7 and this is backed up by witness testimony from the people on the ground with him that day. WTC engineers on the scene told him it was a lost cause - Firefighters were reporting that the water pressure was almost nil after the first 2 towers collapsed, as the falling buildings crushed the underground pipes feeding water to ground zero. CT claims about the fire being "Under control" are taken out of context as those particular fire fighters were only on ONE floor and thats the fire they were referring to, the floor they were on - They were not saying the fire was under control for the entire building.

Together, Cman and I are quite the Debunking team! If you want to check out the Silverstein stuff I worked on, I'll be glad to share that as well!
 

Federal Farmer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
922
Here's some for the CT's. kindly explain the following;

1) When were the alleged explosive charges set?

2) How is it possible for them to have been set in such a fashion as to bring down the buildings, and not disturb the day-to-day operations of the offices they were set in?

3) How is it possible for the buildings to have been structurally weakened (as is done in all implosions) by the removal of all interior non-bearing partitions, (including the stairwell walls) the removal of all of the desks, chairs, and other equipment, and the weakening of the structural bearing members of the towers (by cutting all of the steel columns which were enclosed inside the non-bearing partitions) without disturbing the day-to-day operations of the offices on the floors the weakening occurred?

4) How is it possible for explosive charges to be set, and remain, intact, in a burning structure, without the charges themselves burning?

5) How is it possible for the detonators, detonating cords, and/or wires to remain, intact, in a burning structure, without the cords and wires themselves burning?

6) How is it possible for the explosive charges, detonators, detonating cords and/or wires to remain, intact, inside a burning structure, that was just hit by an aircraft flying at over 550 miles per hours, boring a hole through several floors (the ones where the explosives were allegedly set) and ripping everything inside the impact area to shreds?
 

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
What started the fire in WT 7? Any info on that? Wasn't there a fire suppression system in WT 7? When did the fire start?
 

Federal Farmer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
922
What started the fire in WT 7? Any info on that? Wasn't there a fire suppression system in WT 7? When did the fire start?

The fires started when the fuel lines from the fuel storage tanks to the Con Ed substation generators in WTC7 were damaged by debris falling from WTC1. The fuel itself was stored in the lower levels of the building, but the generators were on the 5th floor, in a heavily ventilated room, and the debris from WTC1 damaged the fuel lines to these generators, the fuel sparked, fire erupted and the building was quickly involved in fire as it moved up through the open and damaged sections of the building. The pumps to the fuel storage tanks were on their own generators, and designed to start immediately upon a power outage, and as a result, the highly pressurized fuel (75 GPM @ 50 PSI) was being pumped up the lines, and fed the fire which is believed to have begun in ernest in the cafeteria immediately below the level of the generators (4th Floor), which then weakened the trusses for the 5th floor through heat deformation.

Other fires throughout the building were started as a result of hot falling debris from WTC 1 (which if you'll recall, had been burning from thousands of gallons of aviation jet fuel for quite some time) striking the building, penetrating it's exterior walls, and igniting materials inside the offices.

For more information, please refer to THIS document.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
collapsed in its own footprint

I meant to bring this up and forgot... WTC7 did NOT collapse into its own footprint. It did in fact list to one side as it fell, doing a massive amount of damage to an adjacent building. Look at the Aerial view after the collapse:
gz_aerial_wtc7.jpg

Bottom Right - Near the Red Crane Boom - You can clearly see where the building had tilted far enough to one side that it took out one corner of the adjacent building - across the street.

The Debris outline is pretty distinct, outline the debris with your cursor and you can see it didn't fall on its own footprint, there was nothing neat and pretty about it.
 

Truth-Bringer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
880
Its silly to pretend Zeitgeist ISN'T packed with lies....

To find mistakes and then claim "that means the whole thing is a lie" is invalid. I haven't taken the time to literally go through the entire documentary and validate every little part of it.

But take the first topic in the 9/11 section - "No Warnings" - Bush, Condi Rice, and Cheney clearly stated there was no way anyone could have had warning or known they would fly planes into buildings. I checked each of those newspaper articles with warnings from various governments, and the fact is that our own government had run exercises involving planes flying into buildings at an earlier time. SO SOMEONE WAS LYING ON THAT POINT.
 

Federal Farmer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
922
Let's see him slam dunk anything in "9/11: Press for Truth"

Ya gotta love it! This nimnod is shilling for a movie that isn't even out yet, attempting to hold it up as some "Holy Grail" for "trufers" (no, I didn't misspell it), as if he even has a clue what they're going to be talking about! He even has the temerity to accuse GS of being a shill, after he's shilling for a not-yet-released movie! ROTFLMFAO!!!

I guess TB hasn't heard of the concept of HYPOCRISY.
 

Truth-Bringer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
880
Ya gotta love it! This nimnod is shilling for a movie that isn't even out yet,

Ummmm...it's been out for quite some time, idiot. You can rent it on Netflix or Blockbuster if you don't believe me. I'm not "shilling" for a movie anymore than anyone is shilling for any source they present. "9/11: Press for Truth" makes no conclusions itself as to who made the attacks. It simply deals with the evidence.

It is not a conspiracy documentary. It is the story of the search for truth about 9/11 by the surviving family members of those who were killed in the attacks. Although it's quite interesting to note that the government still won't answer over 70% of their simple questions.


I guess TB hasn't heard of the concept of HYPOCRISY.

Of course I've heard of it. I have to witness you doing it on this forum every time I stop by.
 
Werbung:

Pandora

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
11,790
Location
The people's republic of Eugene
Yes. Quite a bit. I've been asking people on multiple forums to point out any flaws in the movie for over 6 months now. So far, there have been no takers.

Ah ok then I will pay close attention when you guys start talking about that film. I have been reading these posts. I think I agree with the other posters about this film. But if the other one has new information then it will be worth paying attention to.

This film you had posted, the first part irritated me. The religious section. Not because they showed pagan influence, I already knew about that and agreed with allot of it. It just left a bad taste in my mouth from beginning to end with telling half truths or alluding to things. I especially didn’t like the assumption we came from pond scum. So, I went into it not trusting the film maker and probably having bias against it.
 
Top