9/11 anniversary

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Cobraroll - "The government, huh? As in, the invisible hand of the people in power?

Just think about it for a second: How many people would you need to fake this? How likely is that every single one of them keeps their mouth shut afterwards? How come they leave no trace? Why haven't civil engineers around the world come to a different conclusion than the NIST report?"

Oh god I can't believe I'm getting involved in this but this kind of stuff makes my blood boil.

All you 'debunkers' say the same inane things. It doesn't matter how many people were involved. You think people want to come forward if they were involved in 9/11 to be famous or something? Think about it, if you were involved in a conspiracy to kill three thousand people would you come forward? No, you'd be too scared because you'd realize that the people you work for have so much power that if you were a threat to them they could kill you and no one would blink. Trust me if you worked for someone who just killed 3000 people and lied to everyone so convincingly you wouldn't say a thing.

Conspiracies work through compartmentalization. Most of the people 'involved' in 9/11 thought they were part of drills simulating attacks on the United States. Also, there have been some 'whistle blowers' who have revealed that it was intelligence agencies that allowed the Hijackers to train in the USA and Sibel Edmunds revealed that Bin Laden a CIA asset all the way up to 9/11.

Next, many engineers and architects have come out to refute the NIST report. Just go watch

(if you have it in you) and you will see a really good analysis of the tower collapses by engineers.

Ugh, what have I done!?

[Cobraroll 138]

No, but seriously it was an inside job and a big tragedy. It is clear there were bombs in the buildings and those who can't see that are naive or ignorant.

How come? Heck, look at the footage. The walls are dragged inwards right before the collapse. There is no ejection of matter, as would be clearly visible moments before the entire thing came down.

Then there's the logistics in it. This goes together with the "how many people would you need" thing. Say you want to bring down the Twin Towers using explosives.

- First, you have to acquire explosives. Assuming you work for the government, these can be leeched from the military over a long period of time (say, every time you order three tons of explosives for the Engineers, you take away a few kilograms). You would still need people to move this around and store it.

- Then, you have to actually put the explosives in the towers. You need lots and lots of time and manpower for this. You'd have to consult demolition experts to find out where to cut beams. You have to hire guys to go up in the towers, day after day for months to actually put the stuff there without being noticed. You need to bypass tower security. You need to fool the thousands of people working there. And your hired goons can't tell anybody what they are doing, even though they KNOW this won't be an exercise. They're not stiupid either.

- Then you need to get somebody to fly a plane into each tower. Say, I don't know, some radical muslims from a group that have repeatedly expressed hate towards America and carried out successful attacks on American installations (1993 WTC car bomb, Kenyan embassy, USS Cole...). This would be rather simple, actually.

- Then the Big Day arrives. The planes crash. Then you sit and wait for some time, before pulling the trigger.

Now, look at the scenario again. An airliner has just hit each of the towers you've rigged (minus WTC7, more on that later). Fires are engulfing several floors above the impact zone. The tower's structure is BADLY damaged by the impacts. The schematics you acquired to plan where to put explosives are null and void now, because the structural integrity of the building was heavily shifted when the planes crashed. Yet somehow, all the explosives work out. No premature detonations. No wires burnt away by the fires that ravage the towers. When you hit that button, everything works perfectly. Even though for everything to look unsuspicious, you had to put the explosives right where you knew the aircraft would crash and where the damage would be the greatest.

This is EXTREMELY implausible. The impacts and subsequent fires would:

1) Mess up your rigged explosives completely.

2) Hurt the buildings so badly that explosives wouldn't be needed to bring the towers down in the first place. At best, it would be a coin toss whether or not the buildings would stand after the impact.

You might as well skip step 1, 2 and 4 and focus entirely on step 3. After all, you'll involve a lot fewer people (who all die in the crashes), leave a lot fewer traces and generally raise less suspicion.

The theories of 7WTC are even wilder. That building was on fire for six hours. You couldn't possibly calculate how the explosives would behave through that. There was a reason why nobody died when 7WTC came down, the firemen and engineers on the scene anticipated its collapse and evacuated in time. It was badly damaged, bulging and creaking for hours before it finally bit the dust.

There would also be traces of any detonations. The buildings would have behaved completely different when collapsing. NIST would have found out, and you can't bribe the entire organization. The WTC collapse is the single most studied event in the history of architecture and skyscraper technics. Thousands upon thousands of architects, firemen and engineers have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion: The twin towers were brought down because of the plane impacts. 7WTC was damaged and set on fire by WTC1 debris, and the unfought fires eventually sent the tower down.

A&E for 9/11 truth numbers about 2000 people. That's about 500 people more than ANNUALLY graduates from the Civil Engineering studies in my university alone. If I had got ten percent of the students in every year to sign a petition in support of the official explanation, we'd have outnumbered the A&E group in less than ten years. If there had been any solid proofs of explosives, a lot more people would have come out, believe me. The firemen in NYC who lost 300 colleagues. 1800 widows and widowers. The National Association of Engineers. Perhaps not the American one, but the Russian or Chinese would definitely love to publish a well-researched, peer-rewieved report pointing out the evidence of controlled demolition.

You think people want to come forward if they were involved in 9/11 to be famous or something? Think about it, if you were involved in a conspiracy to kill three thousand people would you come forward? No, you'd be too scared because you'd realize that the people you work for have so much power that if you were a threat to them they could kill you and no one would blink. Trust me if you worked for someone who just killed 3000 people and lied to everyone so convincingly you wouldn't say a thing.

This makes absurdly little sense. Why wouldn't you come forward? Would you rather keep living, knowing that you not only helped kill thousands of your own countrymen, but also helped cover it up, keeping those responsible safe and secure? Would you carry such a dark secret with so horrifying implications with you to the grave? Live to the day of your death without confessing to a relative, a friend, or a pastor? Just out of fear? Makes no sense at all. It would be the media scoop of the millennium. If one person comes forward with a testimony officially linking the collapse of the WTC to people in America, and more people back up the story, it would change more than we could possibly dream of. There would be trials we haven't seen the likes of since Nüremberg. NATO would probably expel the US. There would be riots all over the world, embassies burned, military bases shut. The guy who came out would be remembered as the very symbol of unshrouding conspiracies. Bradley Manning would be nothing in comparison. And the people who oppressed you and your (presumably) hundreds of colleagues into silence would be hung in public.

Also you have stuff like Watergate. The Bay of Pigs. Abu Ghraib. Iran Contra. Enron. Somebody, somewhere, would speak. Less complicated conspiracies have been blown in the past over way less.

Sorry, but until I see proper evidence that can't be explained with basic sense or knowledge of building physics, I won't believe the conspiracy theorists.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ A real conspiracy theorist. Now why would you think that in face of all the engineering and architectural reports? You must be one of those whose creed is "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".

Now you have made all these accusations, the next question is why?

[Cobraroll 138]

^Was that adressed to me?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Dick Cheney planted bombs in the towers and Bush personally pushed the button to detonate them. The CIA steals my blood at night.

No, but seriously it was an inside job and a big tragedy. It is clear there were bombs in the buildings and those who can't see that are naive or ignorant. The victims will not rest in peace until the real culprits are brought to justice, and that will unfortunately be never.

Right, because no one noticed that in the middle of freaking manhattan, a small army of demolition engineers were placing kilos worth of explosives at key structural points in the building. Not only did no one see this in the center of a big city, the ones involved were also able to all keep their mouths shut afterwards. Furthermore, the officials that did the actual investigation, you know, the actual credited engineers from the Engineering Association either were unable to detect what would be obvious signs of detonation, or they were all bought off and also managed to keep silent about the whole thing. Riiiiighttt.....

EDIT Oh right, didnt read, other people said the same thing. But yeah.

  Edited September 14, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I don't want to do this but I realize I stepped in it by commenting in this thread. I know it is mostly pointless to continue this argument but I have this nagging thing in my head forcing me to.

The whole first part of your analysis doesn't tell me anything. It is just your theory of how complicated the plan could have been. Complicated things are possible and secrecy is possible.

You say: "The tower's structure is BADLY damaged by the impacts. The schematics you acquired to plan where to put explosives are null and void now, because the structural integrity of the building was heavily shifted when the planes crashed. Yet somehow, all the explosives work out. No premature detonations. No wires burnt away by the fires that ravage the towers. When you hit that button, everything works perfectly."

- You are assuming that the explosives that brought down the tower were all near the impact zone.

- There were many reports by many people that there were explosives going off in WTC1 and 2 (even in the basements) before the planes hit and after, so it is possible that explosives were damaged by the impact.

- Also there was molten steel flowing out the corners near the impact zone right before the collapse. You know as well as I that if it was a controlled demolition the charges would not have needed to be placed right near the impact zone.

- There are hundreds of ways you could rig it, you could even factor in an explosive impact.

- And how do you know everything worked perfectly?

- Also there is the issue of the buildings falling at free fall speed which means that there was no resistance from the floors below. The damage of the impact of the planes could not have caused a pancake collapse at free fall speed, there would have been resistance that slowed the top sections down as they fell.

You say: "The theories of 7WTC are even wilder. That building was on fire for six hours. You couldn't possibly calculate how the explosives would behave through that. There was a reason why nobody died when 7WTC came down, the firemen and engineers on the scene anticipated its collapse and evacuated in time. It was badly damaged, bulging and creaking for hours before it finally bit the dust."

- The fires were hardly raging through WTC7, and again there is the issue of people hearing explosions, so it is possible fire damage did blow up some explosives.

- The people in WTC 7 were evacuated long before the building collapsed or that there was any indication of collapse. The building was evacuated at like 10am, thats just an approximation.

- Larry Silverstein told the fire chief that he "made the decision to pull and watched the building collapse." And if you actually look at Silverstein's whole quote and analyze it grammatically you will see that he is talking about WTC7 and not some firefighter unit.

- Also, BBC even reported that the building had collapsed 25 mins before the actual collapsed even though their reporter was standing right in front of the damned building which suggest that News Agencies were being fed a script of what was going to happen before it actually did.

- The damage of WTC7 had nothing to do with the collapse according the NIST, it was fires, they say - hard to know cause they've had at lease 4 different reasons. Many buildings were hit by debris and were on fire, only WTC7 collapsed.

You say: "There would also be traces of any detonations. The buildings would have behaved completely different when collapsing. NIST would have found out, and you can't bribe the entire organization. The WTC collapse is the single most studied event in the history of architecture and skyscraper technics. Thousands upon thousands of architects, firemen and engineers have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion: The twin towers were brought down because of the plane impacts. 7WTC was damaged and set on fire by WTC1 debris, and the unfought fires eventually sent the tower down."

- People have found traces, and NIST admits it never looked for explosives.

- You can't bribe people but you can 'brainwash' them, especially if they have been traumatized.

- Consensus isn't truth, science has shown that over and over again. Just because you study something doesn't mean you critically analyze it.

You say: "Why wouldn't you come forward? Would you rather keep living, knowing that you not only helped kill thousands of your own countrymen, but also helped cover it up, keeping those responsible safe and secure? Would you carry such a dark secret with so horrifying implications with you to the grave? Live to the day of your death without confessing to a relative, a friend, or a pastor? Just out of fear? Makes no sense at all. It would be the media scoop of the millennium. If one person comes forward with a testimony officially linking the collapse of the WTC to people in America, and more people back up the story, it would change more than we could possibly dream of. There would be trials we haven't seen the likes of since Nüremberg. NATO would probably expel the US. There would be riots all over the world, embassies burned, military bases shut. The guy who came out would be remembered as the very symbol of unshrouding conspiracies. Bradley Manning would be nothing in comparison. And the people who oppressed you and your (presumably) hundreds of colleagues into silence would be hung in public."

- I can't even begin to address how naive this statement is. If you think people can't keep dark secrets then that is your problem.

- If people couldn't keep their dark secrets and deeds then we wouldn't need criminal investigators would we? We could just wait until the criminals or accomplices confessed because their conscience got to them or because they wanted 15 mins of fame.

- It is just so ridiculous it makes my head spin. No one wants to be the guy to say: "Uhm yeah, I pressed the button" just to be a hero.

- If you confessed no one would actually believe you and you would be instantly discredited if not killed.

- What if (now this is a conspiracy theory) the people who rigged the WTCs were convicts serving life sentences for heinous crimes and were granted freedom after they did the job? You think those people will come forward?

- No person involved in 9/11 wants to write the book that says: "I did 9/11 and those people told me to" just for fame.

You say: "Also you have stuff like Watergate. The Bay of Pigs. Abu Ghraib. Iran Contra. Enron. Somebody, somewhere, would speak. Less complicated conspiracies have been blown in the past over way less."

- Just because you can see the tip of the iceberg doesn't mean you see the iceberg. You are just citing conspiracies that have been uncovered or confessed to, that doesn't mean that there aren't conspiracies that we don't know about. Your statement assumes that those conspiracies you cited are the whole of global conspiracies and we found out about all them because someone talked. There are just no more secrets.

- Also, there are probably a lot of whistle blowers in the system who get suppressed to maintain the institution of government. Just think of the Penn Sate Sandusky scandal. A lot of people knew what Sandusky was up to for at least 12 years and some people came even forward but in order to protect the football team which is an institution at Penn State there was a massive cover up. Of course that was exposed because Sandusky had direct victims who could actually pin the crime on him. It's not like the victims of 9/11 saw the faces of their killers.

I don't believe, I analyze, synthesize, and criticize. Sorry.

[Meg 368]

It is clear there were bombs in the buildings and those who can't see that are naive or ignorant.

(I know I shouldn't ask but I will . . . ) There were large quantities of jet fuel aboard those planes. Why would bombs be needed?

[Forthwall 1,118]

Militant, I don't think it was a bomb. Because when there was a bomb that went off before in the twin towers, nothing happened, unless they had planted something large, which would have damaged a much higher radius.

Also, the building collapsed from the top, not the bottom.

I am not naive nor ignorant. I am a realist

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Great, now I have to argue with you also Mastof? Never mind. Enjoy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^Was that adressed to me?

Actually, no. It appears that your post intervened. Conspiracies are everywhere if you believe some arm chair historians.

[Forthwall 1,118]

dw Militant, I don't want to fight. We can keep our own Ideas

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

LoL, I want to because I'm an argumentative person, but I'll keep my mouth shut because I don't want things to escalate. Besides, I'm just here for SC4 and I should keep my politics on the side.

[Easy Bakes 253]

im not a conspiracy nut but I have always wondered why one of the most secure buildings in the world The Pentagon.

which has security cameras every were, the building,roofs, parking lots ect, there was no footage of the plane hitting.

[hym 358]

There is actually some very blurry footage of the event from Pentagon security cameras. The problem is the cameras were designed for surveillance of slow moving objects like people and cars. An aircraft would be moving too quickly for the camera to get a decent look at it.

[Cobraroll 138]

- You are assuming that the explosives that brought down the tower were all near the impact zone.

That's where the collapse started. Unless they actually detonated the explosives after the building had started to come down, which comes across as hilariously unnecessary.

- There were many reports by many people that there were explosives going off in WTC1 and 2 (even in the basements) before the planes hit and after, so it is possible that explosives were damaged by the impact.

There are also reports of people saying they heard "sounds like a freight train":

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.no/

Also, what they heard could have been loud bangs, but not necessarily explosions. Have you ever thrown a rock at an empty freight container? Or heard the snap of concrete as a steel beam falls into it? Those sounds are extremely loud bangs, but no explosives are involved. This is what a controlled demolition sounds like:

Note that the video is taken from inside a helicopter, and the sound of explosions are clearly heard from several hundred metres away, over the sound of the engine. Listen to the recordings from the guy in the North tower who was on the phone to 911 as the tower collapsed. Can you hear explosions?

- Also there was molten steel flowing out the corners near the impact zone right before the collapse. You know as well as I that if it was a controlled demolition the charges would not have needed to be placed right near the impact zone.

That's where the collapse was initiated. You see the sagging floor trusses pull the walls inward, directly after which everything came down. I explained the mechanics well enough in my second response to this thread, on page 1. As for the "molten steel", it could have been molten anything, really. Molten metal from office furniture. Molten aluminium cladding from the outer walls. Molten aircraft hull. Who's to say that was the actual structural steel?

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Besides, if this actually was molten steel, implying thermite was used, all the accounts of people "hearing explosions" have to be fake, seeing as thermite doesn't explode. You have to pick one of the two arguments.

- There are hundreds of ways you could rig it, you could even factor in an explosive impact.

Could you, now? Could you know exactly where the planes would hit, exactly which beams and columns would fail, or exactly where the fire would spread? Hardly. Especially considering they "had" to rig it so that a piece of the North Tower would hit and destroy 7WTC, so it got damaged enough to look inconspicious when you blew it up.

- And how do you know everything worked perfectly?

Because otherwise, it would have been noticed. The building would have stood, explosions would have been heard clearly, there would have been clear and visible explosive rejection of debris. Everything had to fit perfectly for the thing to come down without anybody's notice.

- Also there is the issue of the buildings falling at free fall speed which means that there was no resistance from the floors below. The damage of the impact of the planes could not have caused a pancake collapse at free fall speed, there would have been resistance that slowed the top sections down as they fell.

No, my friend. This is a misunderstanding at best, rejection of facts at worst.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Notice how the debris falls faster than the rest of the towers. That is more like free fall. Also read the link above, they do the math about free fall. It would have taken 9.2 seconds for the tower to fall freely from the top of the 110th floor. WTC2 took 11.5 seconds, WTC1 approximately 13. There was resistance in the towers, but not much. After all, the top section of the tower had enough momentum as it fell to crush the floors below like a house of cards.

- The fires were hardly raging through WTC7, and again there is the issue of people hearing explosions, so it is possible fire damage did blow up some explosives.

Oh, the fire was quite severe. Look at the photos from the scene. Yet better, read the NIST report on the collapse. It's easy and fascinating reading. The inside of the building was an unfought inferno for hours. Thermal expansion of the steel beams and thermal softening of key elements caused some elements to snap. About half of floor 13 collapsed, undoubtedly with a sound that could be mistaken for explosions.

NOTE: Simtropolis only allows a set amount of phrases to be quoted in the same post. As the system wouldn't let me post otherwise, below I've changed the format to "(Italiced text) Phrase to be quoted (End italiced text)" (quote)

"- The people in WTC 7 were evacuated long before the building collapsed or that there was any indication of collapse. The building was evacuated at like 10am, thats just an approximation."(quote)

Yes, but rescue personnel evacuated Ground Zero when they saw the building was close to collapse. If they hadn't seen it coming, dozens of people would have died when hit by pieces of the skyscraper.

"- Larry Silverstein told the fire chief that he "made the decision to pull and watched the building collapse." And if you actually look at Silverstein's whole quote and analyze it grammatically you will see that he is talking about WTC7 and not some firefighter unit."(quote)

This is assuming Silverstein really meant that "Pull" was to indicate "blow it up". What a person says, and what is correct grammar, are often two wildly different things. Also, several of the rescue personnel on scene said they were "pulled out" when the engineers reported that the tower would fall soon. It's more than likely that Silverstein meant "Pull your guys out. Don't waste men trying to save the tower. We'll let it fall". This was backed by spokespeople later.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Also, in demolition business, "pulling" means "attach a bunch of cables to a key element and pull it loose", not "pull the explosives" or something like that. The link above explains the issue very well.

"- Also, BBC even reported that the building had collapsed 25 mins before the actual collapsed even though their reporter was standing right in front of the damned building which suggest that News Agencies were being fed a script of what was going to happen before it actually did."(quote)

Among the standard arguments for the WTC conspiracy, this one is the stupidest of them all, and anybody who seriously believe it deserve to have their kneecaps gouged out with a wooden spoon.

At what point in the "evil masterplan" does it make SENSE to hand a script to the media, telling them exactly what you're going to do? You're involving DOZENS of more people in the conspiracy, most of which live in New York and are deeply affected by the terrible scenario playing out in front of them. Then you waltz in, telling them what to say, and for what? WHY would you possibly what them to report that the tower has come down, before it did? Isn't it a hundred per cent certain that they will report it anyway when the tower actually collapses?

Nope, this is clearly some sort of communication error. Some engineer on site could have said "This tower is collapsing", referring to the sorry state of the building. A journalist picking this up sends to the news desk "The WTC7 is collapsing". At the news desk, several blocks away and not in direct view of the tower, they think the collapse is happening as they speak, and tell the reporter on-camera to report that the tower has collapsed, thinking it may already lie in a pile on the ground before the message reaches the reporter. Not hard to imagine, is it?

"- The damage of WTC7 had nothing to do with the collapse according the NIST, it was fires, they say - hard to know cause they've had at lease 4 different reasons. Many buildings were hit by debris and were on fire, only WTC7 collapsed."(quote)

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610 This is the NIST report. Read it, or at least skim through it. It explains very well how the tower collapsed. Structural damage from WTC1 debris wasn't the fatal blow to the building, and wouldn't have taken it down alone, but the burning WTC1 debris was what started the fire in the first place. From there, it's the tale on how unfought fires devastated a steel building. It was just sheer luck (or bad luck) that WTC7 got as badly affected as it did. It might as well have been the Bankers Trust Building, which was hit by the South Tower if memory serves me correctly.

"- People have found traces, and NIST admits it never looked for explosives".(quote)

Source?

"- You can't bribe people but you can 'brainwash' them, especially if they have been traumatized." (quote)

Everybody? Even the firemen who were rescued from the ruins? The hundreds of engineers involved in the investigation? The journalists, who, according to the theory, were handed the very script proving the government was behind the attacks?

"- Consensus isn't truth, science has shown that over and over again. Just because you study something doesn't mean you critically analyze it."quote)

Give me a break.... This statement dumbs down the entire profession of structural engineering. Thousands of people have studied the collapse. Simulating the conditions have been Master projects at universities. The NIST report has been read up and down by hundreds of professionals. Had there been a serious error in it, it had described conditions that couldn't possibly have occured, overlooked clear and solid evidence, or if the simulations all gave a different result than the report, it would have been noticed by a LOT of people.

It also goes the other way. Just because you've read the conspiracies, doesn't mean you know enough about structural mechanics to compose a valid account of what happened that day.

"- I can't even begin to address how naive this statement is. If you think people can't keep dark secrets then that is your problem.

- If people couldn't keep their dark secrets and deeds then we wouldn't need criminal investigators would we? We could just wait until the criminals or accomplices confessed because their conscience got to them or because they wanted 15 mins of fame".(quote)

When the crime is of this severety, and you had nothing to say in the desicion, you were hired in to bring the towers down and given death threats if you didn't comply, you were basically forced into helping them, you're in a rather special situation. Heck, look at trafficing victims and how often their stories pop up in the media. These people were clearly threatened, owned nothing but the stuff their "employers" owned them and were basically slaves, often for years. Yet, every so often, some of them speak out, sending the men behind them to lifetime sentences in jail. The same goes for "slave workers" in third world countries. A bunch of guys were jailed in Brazil a few years ago after the story leaked that their workers had been treated inhumanely and forced to work for them, with next to no pay, under severe threats.

"- It is just so ridiculous it makes my head spin. No one wants to be the guy to say: "Uhm yeah, I pressed the button" just to be a hero."(quote)

What about the firemen inside the towers, who would have heard the explosions? What about the people in the 911 central, hearing the blasts over the phone, right before the towers came down? The people at NIST, being told to overlook certain evidence when writing their report? The survivors? There would be a LOT of people involved who would have told.

"- If you confessed no one would actually believe you and you would be instantly discredited if not killed."(quote)

The "9/11 truthers" would make your confessions immortal. There are thousands of people like you out there, looking for evidence that the government was behind the entire thing. The testimony from an alleged conspirant, coming out of the closed after being scared to silence for years would be the very motherlode. It would also be quite a media scoop, at least in countries where the US isn't exactly popular. And if you were killed shortly afterwards, now THAT would have made the front pages.

"- What if (now this is a conspiracy theory) the people who rigged the WTCs were convicts serving life sentences for heinous crimes and were granted freedom after they did the job? You think those people will come forward?"(quote)

Good luck finding competent demolition engineers among that lot. You'd also have to explain and document how and why they would be set free. There is paperwork attached to everything in the legal system, you know.

"- No person involved in 9/11 wants to write the book that says: "I did 9/11 and those people told me to" just for fame."(quote)

Why not?

"- Just because you can see the tip of the iceberg doesn't mean you see the iceberg. You are just citing conspiracies that have been uncovered or confessed to, that doesn't mean that there aren't conspiracies that we don't know about. Your statement assumes that those conspiracies you cited are the whole of global conspiracies and we found out about all them because someone talked. There are just no more secrets."(quote)

True enough, I'll give you that. But this very story is a magnet to conspiracy theorists. It has been throrougly dissected, picked apart, analyzed and documented in a way few other events can match. I actually think the government uses the "controlled demolition" conspiracy as a red herring to draw attention away from other shady business. If anything, it keeps people busy. I once came across an article claiming that the FSB used the conspiracies to stir popular opinion against the US in Russia.

"- Also, there are probably a lot of whistle blowers in the system who get suppressed to maintain the institution of government. Just think of the Penn Sate Sandusky scandal. A lot of people knew what Sandusky was up to for at least 12 years and some people came even forward but in order to protect the football team which is an institution at Penn State there was a massive cover up. Of course that was exposed because Sandusky had direct victims who could actually pin the crime on him. It's not like the victims of 9/11 saw the faces of their killers".(quote)

What all the people scared into submission? Survivors, engineers on scene, 911 operators? The families of the victims, relatives who talked to them on the phone as they were trapped in one of the towers?

Also note that the Sandusky scandal wasn't noticed before it had been going on for some time. There was no physical evidence lying in a neat pile in one of the largest cities in the world, no big bang. Nobody died. It was all done in quiet, nobody noticed the crime because nobody were suspecting anything. To say the least, 9/11 was taken note of around the globe, and a lot of eyes were pointing in the direction of New York for most of the duration of the event. This would be akin to Penn State murdering players on the opposite team in the middle of a match.

"I don't believe, I analyze, synthesize, and criticize. Sorry."

Keep up with that, at least. But remember to analyze it from all sides. And don't forget the critical question: "Why do I believe this more than the official explanation?"

  Edited September 15, 2012 by Cobraroll  

[astronelson 339]

And, of course, there is one basic question:

If you're going to blow up a building, why go to all the trouble of crashing a plane into it first? All it does is serve to make it more complicated and less likely to succeed.

You could either get people to hijack a plane and crash it into the building, with the risk that they could fail (crew and/or passenger intervention, etc.), then blow up the building, then blame it on terrorists.

OR

You could blow up the building then blame it on terrorists. It's not like setting off a bomb in the World Trade Center in order to bring it down is something no-one tried to do before.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Cobaroll this debate is pointless because we will prove nothing to each other and this thing could go on forever, especially if we have to start sourcing everything.

I want to ask you one question?

What research have you done on alternative 9/11 theories?

Have you watched (and I know this is uber cliche) 9/11 mysteries demolitions and AE for 9/11 truth experts speak out? I'm not saying those will convince you, I'm just wondering if you've watched them because you seem to know little about what 9/11 truthers are actually saying because if you did your response would not be laden with misunderstandings of what the official story says and what 'truthers' are saying.

When I first was told 9/11 was an inside job I didn't believe it at all and when I started getting information about 9/11 I did everything I could to read to try and debunk the theory, but the debunker's arguments never held water for me and I didn't want that to be true.

I'm not saying it will ever convince you of anything, but instead of arguing with me, which will accomplish nothing because I'm nobody, I suggest you go and watch at least

in it's entirety.

To Astronelson,

Don't wanna drag this on forever but you ask: "if you're going to blow up a building, why go to all the trouble of crashing a plane into it first?"

Now this is just my theory and it is based on nothing but my own imagination - The reason the crashed the plane in the building was for a slight of hand trick to make everyone focus on the impact zone of the planes while explosives were cutting the columns at the bottom of the building. (And yes there were bombs or explosions going off in lobby and basements as reported by eyewitnesses who were injured by these explosions.)

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Lol, Cobraroll, your response is making my head explode.

[Cobraroll 138]

I haven't read the conspiracy theories in their entirety - a daunting task, especially considering the sheer amount of conspiracy theories there are. Many of them also wander off to motives of the guys involved, theories on the men behind the attacks, etc. I have no interest in reading books about the Rotschild family, the freemasons or whatever type of lizard they claim Bush to be. For all I know, they could be behind the attacks somehow. That's not my primary concern. My field is the structure of the buildings and the mechanics of the collapses. And in that field, the conspiracy theorists haven't been able to scrape together a coherent theory. There are fractions claiming the 767s were packed with explosives to enhance the effects of the impacts. Some claim Thermite was used to bring the towers down, while others are certain it was C-4 (even though using both would make no sense, and the different factions are picking on another for "supporting the government"). Then there are the folks saying there were no planes at all, and what we saw was "holograms". It seems like siding with the conspiracy is like becoming a football supporter: You have to pick a team to cheer for. I for one side with the NIST.

Also, the theories I've checked keep mentioning the same things. They cite "evidence" that can easily be debunked. Grainy blow-ups of grainy videos. That the BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened. And vast amounts of quotes taken out of context. If they have solid evidence that something sketchy was going on, why pile up with already-debunked bull-excrements along with it? Why do they keep repeating the "Pull it" sentence as if it were a mantra? Can't they cut straight to the solid arguments, instead of ominous music and grainy footage of what we know is debris being blown out of windows? As well as the "Nobody comes out because the government threatens them into silence". That's not even an argument. It's a premise the entire argument is hinging on, and it's a terribly weak premise considering the amount of people who have been in such a situation and blown cover over the years (like aforementioned trafficing victims, defactors from the Soviet government, and the folks trapped in Fritzl's basement in Austria a couple of years back).

Then there's the fact that most structural engineers worldwide know about the collapse, it's on the curriculum in several engineering studies, yet only a handful of structural engineers have ever expressed doubt over the official explanation. To me, that seems like a pretty solid sign that the official reports are sound. Meanwhile, the early-days "Scholars for 9/11 truth" (they've split into several factions now) listed 76 names on their website. Only two of them were engineers, one of which worked with aircraft and the other had retired and grown to the age of 82 when the attacks happened. Wouldn't such an organization seek more support among engineers, if they were to name themselves "scholars". If they did, how come barely anybody support them?

Now this is just my theory and it is based on nothing but my own imagination - The reason the crashed the plane in the building was for a slight of hand trick to make everyone focus on the impact zone of the planes while explosives were cutting the columns at the bottom of the building. (And yes there were bombs or explosions going off in lobby and basements as reported by eyewitnesses who were injured by these explosions.)

I know you're not addressing it to me, but allow me to bring this up:

First, it's already firmly established that the collapse was initiated around the impact zone. You can see it on all the videos. The building was coming down, and there's no possible need for blowing stuff up at the ground floor. Actually, there was nothing you could do at ground level without the tower coming down in a totally different way. A collapse in the lobby would have caused the entire building to "implode", with the facade pulled in from the bottom up by collapsing floors underneath. There would have been huge dust clouds coming out of the lobby before the top of the tower began descending. The floors below the impact zone would have been among the last to be affected, not among the first, as is evident in the footage.

On the other hand, there were four powerful electrical generators located just below the ground lobby in every tower. And given the right circumstances, this is what happens to them:

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

Here's an entire page devoted to the "sounds of explosions" heard near the WTC on 9/11.

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

While you're at it, read the "quotes" page too:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

All in all, I see no reason to trust the conspiracy theorists more than I do the government.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Are all these facts operational? or have all these people had a dose of Richard Nixon's kind of facts? All things considered, if you could really prove the truthers theory, what difference would it make? Would you want to take revenge on someone? Pfui.

The best revenge is total forgiveness without conditions.

[hym 358]

For the sake of accuracy, I feel compelled to bring this issue up...

On the other hand, there were four powerful electrical generators located just below the ground lobby in every tower. And given the right circumstances, this is what happens to them:

http://www.stupidcol...ormer-Explosion

The video you have linked to is the famous "transformer on a golf course" video that is well known in the electric power industry. It is an example of the dangers of arc faults, particularly ones that develop enough energy to sustain themselves. It is important to understand what is happening in the video because generalizing that "electrical equipment can explode under the right conditions" can lead to some incorrect assumptions. Until about 14 seconds into the video, the only thing of significance is the sustained arc fault. Around 14 seconds in, one can see stuff shooting out of the transformer. That is the transformer's insulating oil. The fireball doesn't occur till a few seconds later, once the insulating oil has dispersed to the point that it is capable of exploding. The last little white flash is an arc flash.

This is significant because a generator isn't going to suffer that kind of failure by itself. A generator is basically an electric motor built to drive an electromotive force. Electric motors contain oil, but not quantities necessary to produce an explosion of that magnitude. The rest of the motor is built out of materials that may be flammable, but they are not easily set ablaze, nor is it even possible for the materials to explode.

Now that I've said that, it is also worth nothing that the World Trade Center has had transformer fires in the past, and a transformer fire will produce explosions. So while it is improbable that the electric generators exploded, it is very possible that various transformers did explode.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

What you just said proves your ignorance on the subject Cobraroll, and don't take that as an insult because it really isn't (I stress on the subject). Every person, no matter how intelligent they are, is capable of ignorance and naivete, but is the people who believe themselves to immune to such things are the most naive and ignorant.

- "I haven't read the conspiracy theories in their entirety - a daunting task, especially considering the sheer amount of conspiracy theories there are. Many of them also wander off to motives of the guys involved, theories on the men behind the attacks, etc. I have no interest in reading books about the Rotschild family, the freemasons or whatever type of lizard they claim Bush to be. For all I know, they could be behind the attacks somehow."

You just told me you don't want to look at the evidence I've provided to you.

I told you I've already been on the other side, I've exposed myself to most of the debunking material because I didn't want to believe 9/11 was an inside job, but frankly I think when you make an honest comparison it is blatant that the debunkers are misguided or dishonest.

I asked you what evidence or research in alternative theories you have seen or done but you can't even cite anything specific which leads me to believe you haven't.

Seems to me all you've done is gone straight to the debunkers to validate what you already believed before even looking at the information they were debunking.

Besides, all I directed you to was a single youtube video. Is it that hard to watch a documentary (sure time is precious)? You only assume to know what is in it and what it says and I can guarantee they don't mention the Rothschilds once. That is called ignorance (doesn't mean you're stupid, I'm sure you're smart), you ignore it because you already have a belief system that prevents you from looking at it.

Your view on 9/11 is to paradigmatic and it prevents you from looking at the evidence, you simply use an appeal the authority (huge logical fallacy btw) to justify your beliefs and you bandy about the term conspiracy theorist to devalue and discredit people's opinions; it is a logical fallacy.

Both camps, debunkers and truthers fill in gaps here and there with their own beliefs on how things may have happened, your argument is also full of conjecture.

You're basically saying that even if it was an Inside Job people would have spilled the beans and your whole belief structure seems to rest on that assumption that big secrets are impossible to keep. That is why you can't see it. You're belief is getting in the way of your critical thinking. You rest your belief on authority and accreditation, but should an accredited authority have a view which differs from your belief you automatically label them a conspiracy theorist and anything they say is no longer valid. So there is nothing I can do to convince you and I'm not even trying to at this point. At least if you actually went and watched the vid I linked for you and then came back and told me their all liars or crazy I wouldn't be able to say that you are ignorant on the subject.

  Edited September 15, 2012 by MilitantRadical  

[hym 358]

Remember to discuss the issues, not each other. There is a lot "you are" and "your" statements in your post.

[Sgt Pepper 864]

I just wanted to say this in case anyone else knew about it or would like to clarify this for me(as in how it was possible or where would it come from).

I heard that there was molten steel found in the basements of the Twin Towers as well as World Trade Center 7 after the attacks or during the clean up.

I'm just wondering where that would come from? Not trying to stir an argument I just wanted to know if there were fires below or something like that.

But on the subject of the World Trade Center and the attacks, I really miss the Towers. I was in New York in July and went to the Memorials. I cried a little seeing the names on the fountains. The gap in the Skyline of Lower Manhattan is unsettling in person.

I do have some pictures of the Fountains and the construction of the new(and in my opinion ugly) World Trade Center if anyone is interested in seeing them.

  Edited September 15, 2012 by Sgt Pepper  

[Cobraroll 138]

Okay, watching the film now. I might not finish it today, but as this is a particularly uneventful Saturday evening, I'll give it a shot, taking notes as I go.

The first few minutes appear to be the classic "who are we and what kind of people are with us" thing. Building credency, at least.

It appears that the documentary is made in "acts". The first act concentrate on WTC7, and is again split into parts.

On to part one: WTC7 (approx. 10 minutes in)

Twelve minutes in, they still haven't addressed the official explanation, saying only something along the lines of "According to officials, fires brought down the three towers":

A sentence that ticks me off, however, is "... a building with minor damage and very few visible fires" [concerning WTC7]. He appears to be conveniently overlooking the footage from the front (south) side of the skyscraper, that showed the gash in the scorched facade and smoke billowing from several floors.

"The NIST will have us believe that the buildings came down due to standard office fires". I'd like to have the guy elaborate on this. WTC7 housed unfought fires for several hours. It's by no means a "standard" fire if nobody tries to extinguish it. The water pipes supplying hydrants in the area went under the North Tower, and snapped as the tower came down. As the building had been evacuated, while there were people trapped in the ruins just across the street, fighting fires in WTC7 was second priority.

Featuring Jan Utzon (son of Jørn Utzon, who designed the Sydney Opera House):

"What part of the WTC7 collapse caused you to be disturbed?"

"It looked like it was demolition more than anything else-"

Cut.

It didn't sound like he even got to finish the sentence before they skipped on. I hope this guy comes back later. He was introduced as a high-profiled architect, allowed to say one sentence, then they skipped to the next shot. I wonder if the next thing he said contradicted the impression of this first sentence?

End part 1.

Now, what? They showed a bunch of people say "this looks like controlled demolition", citing the building's fall speed as the only "evidence" they address. "It looked like controlled demolition" does not equal "It was controlled demolition". After all, there aren't that many ways in which a big skyscraper can collapse. It falls to the ground, that's obvious. Gravity controls the speed of the fall. You can even see in the videos that the East Penthouse gives in before the rest of the building. According to the NIST report, the major load-bearing column in the East Penthouse lost lateral support when floors 8-13 collapsed due to fire. The column buckled and fell, starting a chain reaction that dragged down the entire building. I hope the other segments of the video address the NIST report in detail, instead of setting up an "it was an ordinary fire" strawman and call that a day.

Part 2: Destroying evidence (approx. 15 minutes in).

I try to watch this with an open mind. This part features events that happened after the collapse.

(watches)

MAN, that was crap. They first bring up the fact that the steel from the WTC was shipped away about a month after the collapse, "leaving no evidence to be examined". They then feature four or five different guys repeating that "they shouldn't have done that, it is illegal", citing law text that... say that engineers should work truthfully? I don't know how they can relate the law text to what happened, but I guess there is a connection somewhere. Then there is an interview with a woman who holds a PhD in "science", more accurately Genetics. While trying to cram the word "science" into every sentence she speaks, she states that "you can't do science if the evidence is gone" and that "the NIST didn't even consider the most likely scenario". I've yet to see any of the alleged evidence that points to their so-called "most likely scenario", and the Genetics lady didn't mention that either. But perhaps that will be addressed in part 3.

Meanwhile, remind me to look up what really happened to that steel before it was shipped off. There has to be secondary literature on it somewhere, and I think it will be an interesting read.

End part 2.

Part 3: "A federal investigation that ignored the facts" (approx. 20 minutes in).

This is seven and a half minute churning over the fact that the NIST did not look for explosives when examining the debris. Four guys interviewed going on and on and on about their expertise in the field, yet they say so little about the subject at hand. One thing intrigued me a little, though: It was brought up that the investigation standards call for testing for explosives when incidents like this happened. Apparently, this wasn't done. The film spends seven minutes saying exactly what I summed up in those two sentences. Other highlights of this part was the churning about "destroying evidence", which they for some reason didn't include in the previous part, as well as repeating the "a few small fires" fallacy, again with a carefully selected picture taken from the north side of WTC7. There was also audio of a large boom. There were a lot of large booms that day, but this was apparently linked directly to explosions with no alternatives offered.

What kind of "facts" the investigation apparently ignored, was not addressed. All this part states, is that the investigation didn't look for evidence.

End part 3.

Part 4: "Fully engulfed in fire?" (approx. 28 minutes in)

This part addresses the fires of WTC7, stating again and again "I've never seen a building collapse due to fire". It also provides some examples of skyscrapers that were on fire, but didn't collapse. A notorious example clearly shows the upper six floors of a skyscraper completely scorched - not exactly close to the situation in WTC7, where the bottom floors, under immense strain from the weight of the building above, gave in due to fire. More examples mention low-rises or concrete-framed skyscrapers, all with clear pictures of fire hoses directed at the building from every angle. The only footage shown from WTC7 is taken from the north side, carefully avoiding the south face:

The gradual and un-fought heat buildup inside WTC7 is not mentioned.

End part 4.

Part 5: "47 stories in 7 seconds" (approx. 34 minutes in).

They go off more quickly this time, not wasting time introducing the experts for minutes on end. This part is heavily fixed towards the Free Fall Fallacy, stating that the tower collapsed at freefall speed, "which is impossible", citing the apparent lack of resistance in the collapse. Never mind the fact that the building did NOT fall at freefall speed (which would be a little over six seconds), they forget to bring up that it would be equally impossible for the building to fall freely even in the event of controlled demolition. There is equally much stuff in the way of the collapse, it just doesn't stick together like it used to. You'd have to physically move large sections of the building out of the way to achieve completely free fall, which would require an extraordinary amount of explosives.

They even show the NIST simulation of the collapse, showing a massive internal collapse happening in the seconds before the exterior of the building comes down.

This one:

Note how most of the inner structure is gone by the time we see the exterior of the tower come down. That explains the lack of resistance, there simply was no structure there to resist by the time the "outer shell" of the building came down. Meanwhile, the inner structure collapses in a much more "predictable" way, with partial collapses, "hesitation" and all the stuff they say isn't there. They also state there was not enough force to cut all the members in the building, but fail to acknowledge the impact of the fires on the structure's bearing capabilities.

End part 5.

At this point, I've decided to only watch an hour of the video tonight, or to the end of act one, whatever comes first. It would simply take too much time to watch it all in one sitting. If I have time tomorrow, I'll do the rest then.

Part 6: "Unnatural Symmetry" (approx. 42 minutes in).

"The building collapsed symmetrically, coming straight down!" they claim in the first few seconds, conveniently forgetting the simulation they showed us in the last part. Even then, it's clear from the exterior videos that the collapse begun at the east side, going westward through the building. It happens quickly, but gradually. Heck, when looking at footage of the collapse, you can see a plume of smoke ejected from the east penthouse, where a hole would have been left when column 79 collapsed. Some even claim that the building "should have toppled over". I'd like to see what force they say could have initiated the fall in that direction. Gravity goes straight down, and as long as the building stands, its center of gravity is located in the middle of its footprint. For it to topple over, you'd have to move the center of gravity outside the building footprint. This requires a significant external lateral force.

End part 6.

Part 6 (again?): Virtual Unreality: NISTs computer animations (approx 48 minutes in)

Finally to some technical stuff. This will be interesting for sure.

...except it wasn't. This extremely short part brings up the large deformations of the lower floors of WTC7 as it collapsed, as seen in the computer model, and states "this wasn't observed in real life". Then they show footage of the collapse, where the relevant part of the building is obscured by other buildings. To me, the animation and the footage seem to match each other rather closely.

An interesting point, though: NIST did not release all the input parametres of the computer simulation. I have to look this up.

End part 7 (apparently this part was wrongly labelled, as it goes on to 8 afterwards).

Part 8: "Experts Agree" (approx. 50 minutes in).

I have high hopes of this bringing up some actual statistics.

...and it failed spectacularly. It might as well have been called "Our hand-picked experts agree, which is why we brought them here in the first place". It was just the same few, carefully picked individuals restating what they had said earlier. 56 people with expertise in various fields were featured (as shown in the mosaic at the introduction to this part. I can't remember if all of them have spoken out on this issue). The NIST report starts with 8 pages listing contributors, all of them structural engineers. Already there you have a greater number of experts than in this video.

End Part 8. (approx. 53 minutes in)

End act 1. I'll watch the rest later.

My major issue with this documentary is this: Nobody have (so far) been brought in to speak in defense of the official theory. Excerpts from the NIST report have been mentioned, but there's nobody there to balance. Not one engineer is allowed to explain why the NIST write what they do in that report. Everybody keep saying the same. The fact that most of the world's structural engineers agree with NIST is never brought up. There is not one critical voice in the entire documentary (so far), when it supposedly is made to introduce a "balanced" and "independent" view of the events on 9/11. Not one spokesperson for any major engineering society is given a chance to support or deny their theories, even though they present them as having much backing in evidence. No firefighters from New York are interviewed. None of the rescue personnel.

Also, it appears as if the main argumental backing of the experts is "this guy is an expert, therefore he has to be right".

The fact that they only showed the pictures of 7WTC with the least amount of fires troubles me. They KNOW there were images available showing more of the extent of the fire. Why not bring those up? They are important photographic evidence! They blame NIST for not looking for explosives, yet they themselves deliberately avoid showing the damage to the building, even though they could perfectly well have done it. All the time, they speak as if the fires weren't that big, yet overlook the evidence showing that isn't true.

This is by no means a "balanced and independent" documentary. Yes, some engineers believe the WTC towers were taken down by explosives. Yet most of us don't, and that fact is conveniently overlooked. I don't have high hopes for the rest of it, but I'll watch it.

In return, may I ask you to read a few of the articles on this site?

http://www.debunking911.com/

I've linked to it a few times already, so perhaps you already have. If not, pick the ones you find the most intriguing. The list of articles as shown on the left side isn't fully updated, for some reason the full list of articles is seen on the very bottom of every page. Enjoy!

[LexusInfernus 908]

Just on a side note, I always find it interesting to see how the supposed 'experts' that are supposed to give some measure of credibility to these conspiracy theories are not actually experts at all. If you look them up you cant find them, and when you look up the institutes they supposedly work for, those institutes either dont exist, or they dont list the person as someone working for them. So, these supposed experts have worthless credentials, which wrecks the whole argument. Everyone can claim to be a PhD in engineering on the internet, and its even easier to be a PhD working for some mock university. But really, if there is so much strong evidence for anything the conspiracy theories claim, then why oh why are there only the tiniest of tiniest group of actual professors and experts with credentials that check out that support these theories. Did the government or the New World Order or whoever is supposedly behind the whole thing go past all the regular experts and pay them off? And if so, the group of people who are supposed to keep their mouth shut while knowing such a damning secret is even bigger. And to keep a secret in such a wide circle of people who are in on the secret without anyone ever talking in 11 years is pretty much impossible.

Oh, and while Im mentioning these supposed 'experts'. How many of them have access to all the evidence? How many of them where able to go to the rubble hunting for clues? How many of them even had the authority and security clearance to get to scene? Right, its pretty telling that non of the official investigators who had access to all the evidence support these conspiracy nonsense, while all these truth 'experts' pretty much base their findings on crappy footage found on Youtube.

  Edited September 15, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

On another topic related to the 9/11 anniversary:

A small group of red-necks have managed to wag the dog. First amendment notwithstanding, should there not be some sanctions? This amounts to interference in the external affairs of the country.

[hym 358]

Exactly what do you propose to do about it? The guy has a First Amendment right to say what he wants.

[Meg 368]

Exactly what do you propose to do about it? The guy has a First Amendment right to say what he wants.

There is probably some clause in the patriot act that could be used to shut people up.

This would be a bad thing, imho, in case anyone was wondering.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I'm glad you're taking the time to watch the thing, but like I said, I'm not trying to 'convert' you or anything, I can't. I will review my beliefs by going back to debunking9/11 upon your request. I'm not gonna go back and forth with you on this anymore because it is pointless and unfortunately to a certain extent it is a matter of point of view. You see error in my argument and I see error in yours, so this could just go on forever.

On a final note, and I swear this is my last even though it is hard to resist cause i get high just reading your replies; blood rushes straight to my head then down my fingers.

There is a lot of confusion about WTC7 because NIST has changed their story a bunch of times about whether or not damage or fire brought down the building, but lets get this straight: damage from WTC1 and 2 did not initiate the collapse of WTC7, it was the fire according to NIST themselves ["The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours."]. The alternative theorists suggest that a modern steel framed building has and could never collapse the way WTC7 did because of fire, so it doesn't matter how much fire there was. I don't think that AE for 9/11 truth tried to omit that intentionally to make their point because as they state themselves it wouldn't matter even if WTC7 was a towering inferno, it shouldn't collapse.

Also, sure it may not be exactly free fall, but it is virtually free fall a few more seconds really doesn't make much of a difference because the acceleration through resistance is still too rapid.

They seemed to have skimmed over evidence that I'd say even supports their theory but it is hard to condense all of that in a documentary. I especially don't like the part where they show the clips of people talking about explosions, it is cut up way too much. I've seen much more extensive footage of that stuff where people make more detailed points. The way the cut that part makes it feel more like they are being taken out of context.

Maybe that's more than one final thing, heh.