9/11: Caught on Tape: WTC Building 7 Damaged by Debris from Twin Towers Collapse (Updated) (WTC 7)

[B3lievingBom]

Im not being racist but. . Fuck you Osama Bin laden !!! Fuck fuck fuck im sosososos happy you died,Die in Hell bitchas ! Why Da fuck did u hate americans ?

[way2easy2love]

theres a psychological name for people who are in denial about large events who just cant handle the truth

[rantingrich]

Yea I can see those raging fire from top to bottom! WOW! I guess I was wrong! ANd yes I can see how that big cloud of dust almost knocked down WTC7 Well done professor!

[unity100]

when you see bold or capitalized words like 'FACT' in any kind of politically charged context, know that some right-wing piece of asshat is trying to make you believe shit. live case example can be seen at any time in fox non-news channel. but, as long as there are morons who can believe that kind of shit, such stuff will always be there.

[Mainsail76]

@unity100 And grown men using bad language shows that they have nothing to say. You know you've lost the argument when you start saying "shit" and "asshat" or what have you. We all know that's how smart educated people speak. I guess you're just mad because this video disproves your conspiracy theories, and there's nothing left to say about it but "shit."

[123guitaraddict]

verizon building and post office receive no damage, only true structural damage to 7 was small southwest corner blown out, buildings get strength from center core. if this caused it to fall it would have fell at an angle. fire could have brough it down. tower 5 was a blazing inferno and never fell. look at OK city bombing, much stronger/ compact force and yet back half of building stood. wake up people.

[Huttate1]

@123guitaraddict Did you even watch the video? Have you even bothered to understand the way WTC 7 was constructed?

Don't tell me - you believe in an invisible man who created the world in seven days as well?

I suppose if you believe in that fairy tale you'll buy anything.

[iiJerv]

IT Was all a conspiracy..

[ConmanBenitez]

you have to laugh at the conspiracy theorists who believe in osama bin laden and father christmas. such gullible freaks.

[Oz1976]

@ConmanBenitez you have to laugh at the conspiracy theorist nutjobs that believe 911 was an inside job when the preponderance of evidence says otherwise. The "gullible freak" is the conspiracy nut who is swayed by seductive videos and is empowered by this belief that he's figured it out and everyone else is wrong. It gives you an ego and the deeper you go, the more incapable you are of objectively looking at the real evidenece and perform unbiased critical thinking. 911 Truth is a Scam.

[TheEots]

WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events....NIST Final report

[Emsworker68]

Interesting video. Good at showing the debris in some way hitting WTC 7. However, I still have some difficulty with the ideal that the building fell as a result of the damage caused. WTC 5 and 6 were also significantly damaged and had fires that burned far longer yet they did not fall. True there was fire but not the entire building as you comment. Later, the smoke starts to clear up and it is clear that the fire was isolated to sections of the building.

[Emsworker68]

@Emsworker68 Further more, the fires caused by the impact of the debris was content fires. Limited fuel loads and not a hot fire. Even if the entire building burned it should have stood. Nontheless, if fire had caused a collapse of the structure it should not have been symetrical but rather a fall to the weakened south face. It fell straight down. That fact cannot be explained by any means in line with the governments position. I cannot except it for that matter.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 You seem to be caught up in the nonsense about jet fuel. An ordinary fire, what you seem to be calling a "content" fire, burns hot enough to collapse steel. That has been written about for 110 years by architects. Steel is notoriously bad for surviving a fire because it EXPANDS when heated -- causing a rigid structure to rupture, buckle, or twist. On the website 911Reality you can see a video of a steel frame building at Delft U. collapsing from a "content fire"

[Emsworker68]

@JonathonMoseley I am not caught up in any nonsense about jet fuel. There was no jet fuel in WTC 7 So that is not applicable. I have 1st hand knownledge of content fires. I am a firefighter and have been in plenty in my career. Content fires are not hot enough to cause a universal collapse of a steel structure. Isolated collapses, even involving several floors is possible but not a complete symetrical collapse.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED many, many times.

Talk to an architect. The "load shifting" design of modern office buildings tends to pull a collapsing building down its centerline. This is a fundamental aspect of the design of the building. The building is designed to withstand damage by one side holding up a damaged side, shifting the load horizontally. When the structure is overwhelmed, this focuses the collapse down the centerline like a lens focuses light

[Emsworker68]

@JonathonMoseley Again, this is not so. The building will tend to lean to the weakened side as the uneffected side will try to hold it up. If the weight of the held up portion exceeds the max. there will be an isolated collapse. This has been prove throughout history. Infact it happened in 5 and 6. Yet no universal collapse in 5 or 6. My problem is to fall as they did all of the joints on every floor, (1000s) would have had to let go at once. That impossiblity of it is the answer to the question

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 WRONG. You need to talk to an architect. Modern buildings of that size and importance are specially designed to shift the load from one side of the building to the other specifically to allow the building to stand up if damaged on one side. People who build buildings are not stupid. The consequence of this design is that WHEN a building fails, the force is distributed throughout the building, focusing the collapse down the centerline.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 People who build skyscrapers have progressed since ancient Babylonians

The load-shifting design specifically PREVENTS an "isolated collapse" as you put it. The damaged section is held up by the undamaged other sides. This will keep the building from falling down to the maximum extent possible.

Only when the strength of the ENTIRE building is exceeded will the building collapse -- and it will then ALL collapse simultaneously across a horizontal cross-section

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 Your opinion of the joints failing is -- to be rude -- NOT IMPORTANT.

The man who designed the WTC, Leslie Robertson, insists that the buildings could not remain standing under these circumstances.

So we have...

a)  The man who designed the buildings

b) EMS Worker 68

Who should we listen to? The man who designed and helped build the WTC complex?

Or an EMS worker?

He says the buildings WORKED by giving TIME for people to evacuate and escape. That was "success" to him

[Emsworker68]

@JonathonMoseley I have listened to architects. Over a 1000 of them. I have listened openly to both sides. I find A&E version more believable. They have nothing to gain by opposing the governments position and everything to lose. Their careers, their retirement, their family, their lives. Where as a threatened person is most likely to toe the line.

The load would shift in the way you say. The unaffected side would hold a load but if failed it would not fall straight down as you say.

[Emsworker68]

@Emsworker68 If the 911 happened as they said, there wyould be no hostile opposition to people that do not believe it. They simply would let the truth of the evidence speak for the governments position.

Another thing I find difficult to accept is that there was no going through the debris and doing a systematic and thorough investigation of the worst crime america has ever experienced. It is not good enough to say we know what happened, it has to be proven.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 WRONG. You prove my point. The 9/11 kooks were IGNORED for about 5 years, and are mostly ignored by most people as being irrelevant kooks.

Those who do not believe the PUBLIC story (the people told the Govt what happened on 9/11, not the other way around) are accusing people of 3,000 counts of mass murder. They are trying to destroy the country's defenses, and prevent us from defending ourselves against real threats. They are treasonous traitors helping our enemies.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 THERE WAS a massive systematic investigation of the rubble. See the entire 9/11 kook story is based on LYING about every aspect of 9/11.

All of the rubble from the WTC site was taken to the "Fresh Kills" salvage yards on Staten Island. There are still 1 million tons of material there right now.

2,000 agents combed thorough every speck of dust. Human body parts as small as the tip of a finger were recovered and identified by DNA

You are listening to LIES

[Emsworker68]

@JonathonMoseley There was no systematic examination of the evidence. They moved the rubble to Fresh Kills land side, everything was sifted (the loose material) but the steel. The good evidence of why the buildings collapsed was not studied indepth. That material was put into ships and sent to China. Why so quick. The steel tells the truth. It holds the evidence and so it was sent away to be melded down. Oh, some of it was used to build a war ship. A good propagando tool. I cannot accept this.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 That is NOT correct. There were engineers and specialists all over the WTC site within hours. You an read their reports on the internet. I did. What about you? I know people who were there within hours.

Everything was studied in extraordinary detail.

Every bit of rubble was combed through so that tiny personal items were located and body parts as small as the tip of a finger were located, identified by DNA, and reassembled for burial.

The myth is simply false.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 There were 2,000 agents assigned to comb through the rubble and WTC site. It was massively examined and investigated. NOTHING was allowed to leave the assembly area at the "Fresh Kills" salvage yards until the investigators were satisfied. The investigators were allowed to pick out any steel or other items they wanted to hold on to permanently.

There are 1 million tons of remains still sitting there today.

The steel was carefully examined, and samples SAVED

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 Go to the 911Reality website (I can't post a website address here). It has many news articles about the MASSIVE investigation of the 'crime scene" for MONTHS.

Of course the #1 priority was finding first survivors and then bodies. Finding survivors is the priority, of course. Recovering bodies #2.

But because of that, the crime scene was "OWNED" for months by firefighters and cops looking fo r their buddies.

THEY SAW NOTHING suspicious

[Emsworker68]

@JonathonMoseley See I have a problem with this. The first priority is survivors. The second is not recovering the dead at the cost of destroying evidence. The dead are dead and cannot be harmed by leaving them where they are. A person does not run in to a gun murder where the person has been declared dead on scene or Code 5 as we call it, and snatch up the body and leave the scene. The body is left there and the scene examined. Only after it has been examined is the body removed.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 No evidence was lost or destroyed.

Every argument by the 9/11 kooks has two parts: (a) A LIE and (b) an argument based on the lie. The argument distracts people from the fact that THE LIE was never proven.

For example, THE LIE that there was no investigation. Is that ever proven? NO! Is it true? NO!

Nearly everything the 9/11 truthers is based upon FALSEHOODS

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@JonathonMoseley How do you explain the BBC announcing WTC 7 had fallen well before it ever did? How do you explain that the highest possible burning temperature of jet fuel isn't nearly high enough to melt steel and yet not only did it melt it here, it did so in such an extremely rapid rate that the buildings entered free fall? Or that no steel building has ever previously fell like this? And these arent conspiracy theorists saying this, but accredited engineers and demolitions experts.

[Huttate1]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo Of course! If I was going to commit the crime I would tell everyone before hand! Duh! The New Channels heard a building was going to collapse. Miscommunication = it has collapsed.

It doesn't have to melt the steel - just soften it.

So what? What if One steel building had collapsed before? Buildings are not designed to collapse. How many would make you happy?

Back under your tin foil hat.

Or try to do research that is not simply aimed at shoring up your decided view.

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Huttate1 Sure, it was only hot enough to soften the steel. Think about this next question critically. I know it might be hard for someone like you, but at least TRY. If the steel didn't melt but only bended, wouldn't the building have fallen unevenly, to one side or another instead of collapsing downwards perfectly in on itself. Further, if the steel didn't melt, why were salvagers still pulling molten metal from the base weeks after 9/11 happened?

Back to being a naive asshole.

[Huttate1]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo Poor grammar, spelling and syntax and an ad-hominem; all in one reply. Well done.

Your problem [apart from the basic lack of educational standard] is that you are taking incorrect and uncorroborated details presented to you by others and accepting them as fact because they fit a conclusion that you have already made. That is not the rational way to investigate a claim. But it is a very common trait within religious, superstitious and conspiracy groups.

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Huttate1 So what part is uncorroborated exactly? Lrn2Google. There are photos of dozers pulling out huge chunks of molten metal. There are news stories about it. These are facts. You find them on news sites, not with your head that far up your own colon.

Oh, and for future reference, throwing around labels like conspiracy theorist doesn't make you right, it just makes you the same naive asshole you're so deadset on proving you are.

[Huttate1]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo How does hot debris equal a controlled demolition? The conspiracy sites ignore the reality of the damage to building 7. They have made up their minds what happened. No one could seriously produce a scenario in which the building was rigged. I have examined the evidence. I worked in buildings 1 and 2 for a short period in 2000 and 2001 and had serious concerns when I heard the thories. But a rational mind quickly rejects them.

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Huttate1 Dude, you're the one saying jet fuel brought the buildings down as a result of warped (not melted) steel. If the fuel wasn't hot enough to even melt the steel, how is it hot enough to turn those same steel beams into pools of molten metal still blazing hot WEEKS later.

As far as Building 7, the building's owner, Larry Silverstein is on tape admitting he gave the order to "pull it", or in demolitions terms, "pull building 7 down". So who put explosives in the bldg, and when?

[Huttate1]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo The pools could not have been aluminium - like the aircraft was made of?

Show me an example of a demolition controller issuing the order 'pull it' if that is your evidence. Could 'it' not simply have meant the efforts at rescue and damage control.

Do you know what is involved in rigging a building for demolition? Do you have a theory for how that was done without anyone noticing?

You are fitting things to your predetermined theory rather than applying Occam's razor.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

Pools of molten metal that weren't steel, but rather aluminium and various other metals you'll find in any office. And no shit are they still going to be hot, what with all the debris on top serving as a perfect insulation trapping the heat. As for the SIlverstein tape, the only "pulling" he's talking about is pulling the firefighters out of the building after it became clear that there was no saving it when siad firefighters heard the foundation cracking apart.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

As for your question: Nobody and never as there were no explosives in the building and all factual evidence outright denies the possibility of such.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

Miscommunication. It was clear that WTC7 was going to come down well in advance as firefighters were able to hear the foundations cracking. At this point, it was decided to pull out and a press release to that effect was given. ALong the line, it turned from "it's going to come down" to "it's down". Chinese whispers on a bigger scale.

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Magni56 Let's just agree to disagree then. Clearly he meant "pull it" as in pull the building down. In the very same show on PBS another demolitions guy says "pull it", clearly referring to pulling a building down. There's even footage of firefighters saying, "Get back, they're going to pull the building down."

Someone had to have "pulled it" as otherwise it hadn't sustained nearly enough structural damage to fall. So again, who put the explosives in there, and when?

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo The other demolitions guy wasn't talking about pulling wtc7 but I mention this to show the common usage of the word means to pull a building down.

Lastly, when I say no other steel building has fallen like this, yes in fact there have been plenty of other steel buildings to catch fire. They burned for literally hours without a steel beam warping and/or a free fall collapse. Typically all the flammable stuff goes up but the steel skeleton stays there.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

Which is completely fucking meaningless as the "pull" in question was to pull out the firefighters. THAT is the proven fact supported by all evidence. As for "no steel building, that's utterly meaningless. No steel building of a similar construction has ever been in the same scenario of structural damage from massive iompacts combined with out-of-control fires.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

And there was no "free fall" collapse. It's another outright lie by conspiracy nutsos that has been debunked years ago already. You are literally parroting idiotic shit that is not supported by even the tiniest shred of actual evidence and has been completely and utterly debunked a million times over by now-

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

No, we don't "agree to disagree". Everybody from Silverstein himself to the firefighers that were pulled out and their superiors all repeatedly told the stupid "pull" thing off. Every last bit of evidence and every fucking person there says it's bullshit. And yes, it did sustain enough damage to fall and nobody "pulled" it. That's the proven facts, supported by all evidence. You making shit up out of thin air doesn't change that fact.

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Magni56 Sure, whatever bud. Silverstein can backslide all he wants, I know what he said. "Pull it" does not mean "pull the men out". I suppose you're one of those people who could literally get pissed on and be told it was rain. And these buildings are on video tape falling down. You're aware of this, right? No conspiracy, just what's on tape.

Also, calm down bud. Agree to disagree, remem? Oh wait, that's not acceptable to you.

Well, tough trucknuts then, kid.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

Provide factual evidence that it is a "backslide". Also, he never said "pull IT". That's another complete invention by the conspiracy szene. As for those buildings on the tape, they're still not free-falling. So yes, anyone saying they're free-falling is either ignorant or spouting conspiracy drivel. Meanwhile, the actual fucking learned experts on the subject say differrent things.

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

@Magni56 Ok, if you haven't even done the most elementary of research on this then frankly, your opinion is invalidated and i'm done with this conversation.

Silverstein clearly said "Pull it", this is a FACT, it is on VIDEO, on this very site. As far as evidence of 9/11 being an inside job, there are tons, but if you haven't even bothered looking this far into it, i'm done. Agreeing to disagree means i'm not going to change your mind, you certainly won't change mind. But I don't care anymore

[Allergic2StupidAchoo]

Argue semantics all you want. I really don't care what you believe. Whatever, i'm done with this.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

There is no "agreeing to disagree". You have been unable to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence while there is plenty of evidence against you. Thus, you are wrong. Ths is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. And factually, all evidence points at the same conclusion: That there was not a sinlge microgram of explosives involved anywhere and that there was no grand conspiracy besides that of a few guys to hijakc planes and ram them into buildings.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

So again, nobody and never, because there were no explosives there Not a single piece of actual evidence exists that supports the presence of explosives and quite to the contrary every last bit of evidence and every last actual expert going through the wreckage outright debunk the very notion as nothing but paranoid delusions.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

As for the fire, it didn't melt steel, merely weaken it. Which was enough when combined with the pre-existing damage from the impacts. Also, uncontrolled fires in enclosed areas will gradually heat up the place because the heat can't escape. It's why a coal-fired furnace burns hotter than a coal-fired open forge.

[Magni56]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

As for "free fall", that shit has been debunked a million times over by now. It's literally nothing but a soundbite betraying ignorance of the actual events. And no steel building has been felled like this because no steel building (let alone one of the same construction) has ever been in the same situation. By your logic, since no steel building was ever destroyed by a nuclear warhead, the WTC building should have survived a direct hit by a strategic nuclear weapon.

[marvelfannumber1]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

Well maybe they reported it earlier because the firefighters were expecting it to collapse. I mean the building had a huge hole in it, it was leaning to the side and it had massive fires. The fires did not melt the steel the weakened it (that's a fact). The buildings never went into freefall:

WTC 1-2 freefall-9 seconds. Real time: South tower: 15 seconds North tower: 15 seconds.

Wtc 7 freefall: 6 seconds Real time 15 seconds

[Heavensrun]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo

It was known that it was -going- to fall well in advance. Firefighters had pulled out long before because the corners of the building were already starting to buckle. The BBC just got misinformed. Better question, why would "the conspiracy" send the BBC a memo to announce that it's collapsed when the BBC would've reported that on their own anyway?

[Heavensrun]

@Allergic2StupidAchoo And I'm pretty sure "no steel building has ever previously" had the world trade center tower one fall on it before this one.

[Emsworker68]

@JonathonMoseley I have been to many many sites. Like I said, I researched it for both sides of the issues. To say the site was owned by the FF and Police is incorrect. The FBI, FEMA etc government agencies swooped down on the site right way. Many with the strike of the first plane. Hell, FEMA had already contacted the offical photographer after the first strike but before the second strike. At a point which most people thought it was an accident. Where FAA should have been involved not FEMA.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 No, you haven't. The liars are very good at putting up a lot of crap. But if you are smart you can recognize it as crap within minutes.

Go to 911Reality website (I can't post exact URL here on YT).

It is a set of links to hard news and other hard information.

Go to 911Myths website

Of course National Geographic literally wrote the book on the subject.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 Did you know that FEMA had an office in another WTC building? So, yes they were there.

However, the WTC site was crawling with firefighters and police who would have LYNCHED anyone responsible for killing their buddies.

They saw nothing.

Not a shred of evidence.

Nothing

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 You have NOT listened to architects. The 9/11 front groups are FAKES. EG, the head of "Scholars for Truth" is a PHILOSOPHY professor, but he passes himself off as a scientific or technical expert.

Listen to the man who DESIGNED the WTC, Leslie Robertson.

His debates against Steven Jones are posted on one of the 3 video pages at the 911Reality website.

The liars DO have something to gain. They make money on books, DVD's, lectures. And they want to CHANGE our foreign policy

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 You don't understand how the load-shifting mechanisms work.

The undamaged side of the building is designed to hold up the damaged side, to prevent a rolling collapse from side to side. The weight on the damaged side is supported by the undamaged side.

But when the building is overwhelmed, the building fails.

But because the weight is being transferred horizontally across the cross-section, the weight is focused down the centerline. When it fails, it fails everywhere at once

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 Furthermore, those spreading conspiracy theories talk about the collapse in ways that defy physics. In order for something to move to one side, there must be a FORCE pushing it to one side. Things will fall straight down under the influence of gravity.

For something to move sideways you must have a FORCE PUSHING IT TO ONE SIDE. There was no force pushing the buildings anywhere but straight down.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 Look again at the video. You see smoke exiting one side of WTC7 -- driven by the winds to blow out only that one side of the building.

The smoke is evenly distributed up and down the entire height of 47 stories of WTC 7.

The smoke is clearly coming from EVERY FLOOR -- all 47 floors.

Fire fighters report that they saw flames in EVERY window on EVERY floor -- all 47 floors.

[JonathonMoseley]

@Emsworker68 Comparing different buildings is a fallacy. Anything as complex as a building cannot be compared in this way. You have tens of thousands of components that are NOT the same from one building to another. The fires are not the same. The damage is not the same. It is one of the foolish bits of nonsense of the conspiracy nuts to expect every building to do the same thing. That is sheer nonsense. No two buildings are the same. No two fires are the same. Behavior won't be

[OpenMawProductions]

Some of the more damning video and imagery is not here unfortunatly. The images of the side facing the WTC is not shown here, and the damage on that side was critical. The video of the fire fighter talking about WTC 7's structural integrity, noting that the building was showing signs of bowing and becoming increasingly unstable. "Its coming down. There's no way to stop, because we'd have to get up there to put it out." "The structural integrity of the building is not there."

[whatsitallaboutthen]

Those pictures do not show debris hitting building 7 they are deceptive as building 7 was farther away than it looks in that photo.

[MoseleyJon]

@whatsitallaboutthen Buliding 7 was very, very close. That is why the video starts out showing how close WTC 7 was to the Twin Towers. The debris is seen hitting WTC 7. The fire fighters on site described that the burning side of the building was so severely damaged that hte front of the building was missing in a gash about 20 stories high (out of 47 stories). We can all see in the video the massive damge to WTC 7 from falling debris.

[whatsitallaboutthen]

@MoseleyJon no!! building 7 was the farthest away from the towers, the damage actually was not all that bad compared to the Bankers trust building which outer made mainly from glass yet stayed standing........would that have something to do with the fact that Larry Silverstein didn't own it?

[OpenMawProductions]

@whatsitallaboutthen Yes debris did hit the building, in the few shots that show the side facing the towers, the entire building was burning, and critically damaged.

[KnastPlanet]

In order to debunk this nonsense you just have to look at WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6: They were massively damaged by falling debris AND fires broke out in some if not all of them, yet none of them collapsed and all had to be professionally demolished in the aftermath.

NIST reports that WTC7 partally fell with freefall accelleration. That makes NO sense whatsoever if NIST says "primarily due to fires".

Wake up people! We are all in this together!

9/11 OBVIOUSLY was an inside job!

End the wars!

Peace!

[jtrish23]

"So EVERY FLOOR was on fire inside the building."...what a bunch of CRAP!!! EVERYONE knows that's a lie. If that's your reason for the collapse of WT7 then you should be fired!!! Yea we see fires but NOT on every floor and NOT all throughout the building and NOT so serious that it would take a building down especially the COMMAND CENTER for the city!!! Give it up because I will NEVER BUY what you selling because it's PURE JUNK!!!!

[JonathonMoseley]

@jtrish23 Yes, you can see in the video that every floor was on fire. The video shows fire coming out of EVERY floor. You do not see smoke concentrated in any one space. The smoke is a solid block the entire length of the building top to bottom with EVERY floor generating smoke.

Of course, the WIND is blowing the smoke from inside the building out in only one direction.

[jtrish23]

@JonathonMoseley... don't you get it that you're talking to the wrong one!!!! I'm not like you...I use my brain. ENOUGH already. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!! if u can't show me how it wasn't then you need to go crawl under the rock you came from. prove to me why the government lied about everything they told us. prove it and i'll think about believing you one day. until then go try to sell that LIE to someone else because I'm not buying it.

[HeavyMechanics]

@JonathonMoseley Actually even in official versions of the story, there are only certain floors that are on fire in the 7 building. It certainly was not every floor. Where does a video show fire coming out of every floor? I have looked at just about every video there is of 9/11 coverage and I have never seen this.

[Jaaab]

I love how these truthers act like they are world renwned structrual engineers and chemists when the real professionals (i.e. Popular Mechanics) refute every single point mad in Loose Change... the revised edition, of course, because, y'know the truth needs revision.. I used to have my doubts but then I watched the hour long Pop. Mech. debunking of loose change and now I am embarrassed to say I once made such a strong judgement prior to knowing the other side. Watch it for yourselves..

[n1gm]

AHAHAHAHAHA.

"LOOK DEBRIS STRIKING THE BUILDING!"

Uhh....it's smoke, you disinfo dumbass. Get a life.

[JonathonMoseley]

Look again.

It's massive pieces of debris.

Smoke moves UP.

Smoke does not FALL in a curving arc downward.

Where do you fantasize that the debris went?

The WTC Towers, each with a 1 acre footprint, fell across a 16 acre field.

On the ground, we can see that the debris -- of massive size -- fell EVERYWHERE across 16 acres.

[ScrabbleMonster1]

It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly stupid people are. Our government has sold us up the river so many times. Lie's and bullshit, nothing changed with Obama--nothing, he's just another cooperate puppet who's main job is to finish destroying America. One world government here we come. God please save us from the greedy satanic snakes that run our world!

[JonathonMoseley]

@ScrabbleMonster1 It is irrelevant what the government has done in the past. The question is what happened THIS TIME on 9/11. The government did not tell us what happened. The public told the government what happened on 9/11.

[ho2cultcha]

out of control? and yet one whole side of the building was not burning at all nor was smoke visible from that side - in any quantity to arouse concern anyways. the story just does not add up.

[JonathonMoseley]

Let's see, we could listen to YOUR OPINION or to professional NYC firefighters.... Hmmm.... Tough choice !!!!

The fire was INSIDE the building, not the BRICK exterior burning.

THe wind was blowing in one direction.

The smoke from the fire INSIDE the building was pouring out of EVERY part of EVERY floor EVERYWHERE.

The smoke is pouring out of EVERY part of WTC7. So there was fire EVERYWHERE inside the building

[whiterottenrabbit]

Well, let's lelieve the firefighters then. There are firefighters and policemen, who say that there were bombs going off in the buildings.

[JonathonMoseley]

Yes, let's believe the firefighters and policeman.

THEY SAY THERE WERE *NO* BOMBS IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.

They lost friends on 9/11, and would not support any conspiracy.

BTW: "explosions" DOES NOT MEAN BOMBS.

When a fire bursts from one room to another, a naturally-progressing office fire can make sounds like explosions, etc.

However, the NYC firefighters are adamant that if they run into any 9/11 Truthers, the firefighters will beat them to a pulp for slandering the USA

[whiterottenrabbit]

LOL, explaining explosions with fire is the same sort of thing as saying there were holograms instead of planes. The fact, that they lost friends and don't support any conspiracy has nothing to do with the fact that the firemen and policemen heard and felt explosions and saw molten metal in the basement.

Also, all you patriots of a war hungry nation have a serious problems with attitude. Everytime you either insult people or want them to get beaten up.

[JonathonMoseley]

1st you must explain how a bldg can collapse ONE HOUR LATER AFTER EXPLOSIONS.

That defies physics.

Second, we KNOW the jet fuel exploded all through the building. Witnesse smelled jet fuel strongest in the lower floors while evacuating. Hundreds smelled jet fuel in the lobby and basement.

The doors of the elevator shaft in the lobby were blown out by a giant explosion, setting people on fire IN THE LOBBY

3rd go to a large bldg fire and LISTEN. Sounds like explosions are FACT

[whiterottenrabbit]

Ohh please, don't use the word "fact" - everybody uses it for everything and it's worn out.

There were reports of explosions not only an hour but also minutes before the collapses. Collapses after explosions do not by any means defy physics. And speaking of defieing physics: how come the buildings 4, 5 and 6 were not destroyed completely, but the building 7 fell? Also, if it was struck by debris from the towers, why did it fell straight down and not towards the damaged side?

[JonathonMoseley]

Your unwillingness to deal in FACTS is your problem.

1st there were NO reports of exploSIVES -- only sounds LIKE explosions and NONE before collapse.

2nd, there would need to be 22,050 explosions to bring down the WTC as the kooks suggest.

Did you hear 22,050 explosives during collapse?

And controlled demolition involves DISASSEMBLING the building for weeks & months by cutting structural members. The explosives are the LAST straw, not the first, in a controlled demolition.

[JonathonMoseley]

268 steel supports around the perimeter + 47 internal columns (which did NOT support the bldg vertically, only vs. horizontal sway) * 70 floors = 22,050 explosives.

Ignorance is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Modern buildings are designed so that they MUST fall straight down.

1st it's called GRAVITY. Without a sideways force, nothing can move sideways. Gravity pulls DOWN, not to the side.

2nd "load shifting" designs redistributes the weight throughout the bldg to resist collapse

[whiterottenrabbit]

Speaking of how buildings get designed: one of the original designers statet that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand an impact of a plane comparable to the planes on 911. Also, there are architects who state that the buildings probblys would have withstood multiple plane impacts.

[JonathonMoseley]

The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.

How did that turn out?

The Space Shuttle Challenger was designed NOT to explode in flight

Yet it exploded in 1986

The Shuttle Columbia was designed NOT to burn up on re-entry

Yet it burned up in 2003.

The WTC was designed -- BUT NOT TESTED -- to survive a SLOW-MOVING, smaller plane

its designer agrees the fire caused the WTC to fall

[JonathonMoseley]

Again, demolition experts CUT all the structural supports and methods for WEEKS before "the day." When the explosives go off, the bldg is barely hanging on by a thread.

You can't do a controlled demolition with an occupied bldg.

And controlled demolition has NEVER been done from the top down. It starts at the BOTTOM so the bldg will fall into the footprint.

No one knows how to do it. It could never be done for the first time ever with the whole world watching.

[whiterottenrabbit]

You seem to suffer from the same illness as you think I do: unwillingness to deal with facts. And why 22,050 explosives? You don't need a bomb on every floor at every column.

And there are many reports of explosions. If you wouldn't be obstinate and searched a little bit on youtube, you'd already found many clips of news reports and firemen/policemen inteviews, where pelople tell about "bombs", "explosions" and "molten metal".

[JonathonMoseley]

You DO need a bomb on every column on every floor = 22,050.

YOU nuts say the WTC fell "FASTER than free fall"

So, EVERY column must be removed to satisfy your nonsense about the bldg falling very fast (which it DID NOT).

But in the video, NO floor moves until struck from above.

So, every floor must be individually demolished. NO group of floors moves as a group.

& you nuts say the bldg falls STRAIGHT down. So ALL supports must be cut EQUALLY

= 315 explosives on 70+ floors

[JonathonMoseley]

There are many lies published on the internet.

I am talking about REALITY, not lies in the blogosphere.

There are NO "real world" reports of explosions before the building collapsed.

But note that CRACKING of a gigantic structure can be reported as "like an explosion" WITHOUT their being any actual explosives involved.

NO FIREFIGHTER ever talked about "bombs" or "exploSIVES"

NO ONE EVER talked about MOLTEN metal -- only red hot = SOLID

[whiterottenrabbit]

Hold your breath, I never said that the buildings fell "faster than free fall speed". And why do you "anti-twoofers" always call people names when you see that somebody do not believe things you believe in?

Yes, there are many lies on the internet, but I'm talking not about any "crackpot twoofers", I am talking about real news reports and interviews with firemen and policemen. You just are too bullheaded to look beyond your own nose. There are such reports, just look for them.

[JonathonMoseley]

The founder of "Scholars for Truth" Jim Fetzer DOES post on the SFT website that the buildings fell "FASTER than free fall" -- which is of course impossible.

The original, official statements of the firefighters have all been posted on the NY Times website, and are being copied onto 911Reality.

There are NO such statements by any firefighters.

There are plenty of liars who MISREPRESENT what other people said, reporting what was NOT said.

[whiterottenrabbit]

So if somebody on the internet does distribute false propaganda, you think that I am following his lies and am therefore a nut?

I see, that we both are likely to talk at cross-purposes here. Don't be bullheaded; even if it pains you, watch some of the "twoofer documentaries" to see what's going on on the other side. There are many strange factors, which simply don't fit with the original explanation - regardless, how you'll try to put them.

[JonathonMoseley]

Yes, I think you are, because the truth is very easy to find. Yet conspiracy theories keep repeating the same falsehoods.

Everything you need to know is at the 911Reality website. These are LINKS to original sources -- not opinion.

I know more about the 9/11 Truthers' arguments than you will ever hope to know.

I know how they all DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER, and violently attack each other as WRONG.

There are no strange factors. Only people who don't really want to know the truth.

[jtrish23]

that web site is full of lies!!!! 9/11 reality should be call 9/11 false reality with all the bullshit it has. it looks like it was put together by a 2nd grader. maybe it has. by Jonathonmoseley himself!!!!! He's such a scum bag. A FALSE PROPHET!!!!!!

[whiterottenrabbit]

Exactly: this website looks very poorly executed and full of propaganda. Since I argued with this bullheaded knob here, someplace else I was offered two other "truth" sites. One of them was as bad as the 911Reality and the other was made rather professionally, but also contained only propaganda. And talking about lies: if someone supresses evidence by not talking about it, is it a lie? If so, then this other professional site is full of lies too.

Thank you and good night!

[jtrish23]

@whiterottenrabbit tthis video and every video this kid has is full of lies like "WT7 the ENTIRE building is on fire". it's so sad had he makes a fool of himself with his LIES. his time has come to be exposed for the FRAUD he is.

[JonathonMoseley]

@jtrish23 You can see in the video that EVERY FLOOR is on fire. Smoke is coming from EVERY FLOOR of WTC7. You do not see smoke coming from specific points. You see a giant block of smoke the entire height of WTC 7.

So EVERY FLOOR was on fire inside the building.

Since the wind was blowing in only one direction, the resulting smoke is pouring out ONE side, from the fire inside burning on EVERY FLOOR.

[HeavyMechanics]

@JonathonMoseley It was not every floor, sorry. Do some research.

Wiki: Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.

[whiterottenrabbit]

You're like John Gross, the lead engineer of the NIST report who, when asked, denied the existence of molten metal even if there is photographic evidence of it.

The whole world is talking about, that something fishy was going on that day. The puffs of smoke well below the zone of actual collapse on the Twin Towers, the absence of any plane debris at the Pentagon (except small parts), the quick disposal of the remnants of the buildings and so on. You're the one who is being ignorant, not me.

[JonathonMoseley]

There was no molten metal at the WTC, except possibly a flow of molten ALUMINUM from one window -- could have also been PLASTIC burning. (Try setting a plastic milk carton on fire and watch how it flows while burning).

There were reportrs of RED HOT metal, which is NOT molten. Molten metal is WHITE hot, not red.

There is no photographic evidence of molten metal.

There are photographs which are -- provably -- the acetylene torches of the workmen carving up the debris AFTER 9/11.

[JonathonMoseley]

It is a shame that americans fail basic high school science.

WHERE do you think the AIR inside the building went when it was collapsing?

There was NO quick disposal of the remnants. MONTHS after 9/11, the debris was moved to the Fresh Kill salvage yard and MOST OF IT IS STILL THERE TODAY.

The Pentagon was filled with airplane debris inside the building.

And thousands of people watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. See the 911Reality webvsite for their statements

[whiterottenrabbit]

I am not from America but from Germany (which coincidentally is higher ranked in mathematics and science in general than USA).

I am talking about puffs of smoke well below (up to 30 stories) the collapse zone. As for the molten metal: watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk, watch?v=cCdRA09pztM, watch?v=FqyDaUaGCBA

I say it again: try to watch some of the twoofers' documentaries. You dont need to believe everything they say, but you'll likely to see the whole thing from a new point of view.

[JonathonMoseley]

Europe -- once great -- is in a new Dark Ages of uncivilized ignorance.

A building is 90% AIR, so that humans can walk around inside

Where do you think that air will go when a building collapses?

The elevator shafts and stairways force air down throughout the interior of the building.

There are no puffs of smoke 30 floors below, but only 2 or 3 floors below the collapse.

But you'd need to see 268 puffs of smoke around the outside on EVERY Floor.

Where are the OTHER 265 ??

[whiterottenrabbit]

Ohh brother, you are megalomaniac, very bullheaded and even more ignorant. God knows I tried to reason with you but there is really no sense for me to continue to speak to you. I will ignore you from now on. Feel like Bush felt after raiding Iraq to wipe out a "homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction" where in fact no WMD were to be found - Mission accomplished!

[jtrish23]

those fires were not "out of control"!!!! lies lies lies!!!!

[JonathonMoseley]

The New York City fire department are the best in the world.

They said the fires were out of control.

I'll put the best fire department in the world up against your opinion any day.

Sorry you wish it were not true, but WTC7 collapsed from damage from debris and from fire.

Sorry that the real world does not match your desires.

For 5 hours before WTC7 fell, eveyrone on site said it could not remain stanidnig. It was going to fall. it was inevitable

[EarthsGravitySucks]

raging fires, i said RAGING FIRES! just look at them, look real close now, they might be hard to pick out with all of the photographers in the way. ya know the kind, photographers that like to take pictures of RAGING FIRES!

[JonathonMoseley]

I am sorry, you weren't there. So you lost your opportunity to see what you want to see.

It is a fact that the fires were out of control, so that the building could not be saved.

It is a fact that the building collapsed because of the fires.

The fact that you want to see something may indicate that you were not spanked as a child and expect to get whatever you want.

But we all know what happened at WTC 7

[EarthsGravitySucks]

as you can see @ 2:48 raging fires claimed to have existed are roaring out of control - somewhere? as usual debunkers cite outrageous lies but have no proof. DO YOU SEE raging fires? Go To 2:48 again hit pause and look close. a lot of smoke, but if there were raging fires they would be seen would they not?

[JonathonMoseley]

Yes, you can see them. Notice how fire is being blown out of WTC 7 from EVERY part of EVERY floor.

As a child, did you learn INSIDE vs. OUTSIDE?

Smoke is pouring out of the building from EVERY floor EVERYWHERE, driven by the prevailing wind out one side.

Expert firefighters who were on the scene reported flames in EVERY window on EVERY floor up and down 47 floors. Firemen who know fires were there.

The Fire Chief determined that the building could not be saved, because fires were so bad

[DarkwingScooter]

One of the problems with your thesis is that those buildings standing right under the towers did not collapse despite being in the immediate path of the debris.

In fact, they had to be brought down by explosive demolition later.

[JonathonMoseley]

Yes, actually, they did collapse.

But so what? Your argument makes no sense. Watch the video. Massive debris is caught on tape striking WTC Building 7. Case closed.

In a severe earthquake, some buildings collapse, some don't. Do you deny that some collapsed because others didn't? Isn't that a really stupid argument?

WTC 7 collapsed. We know why. Massive failure from the fires and the physical damage, although NIST found that the fire alone was sufficient. Massive damage was extra

[DarkwingScooter]

Yes, as a matter of fact buidings do tend to collapse in earthquakes.

Know which ones are more likely to perchance?

Oh yes, that right! It's the small ones, high rises don't just collapse, and when they do they tend to fall sideways not through themselves.

Extensive damage to the exterior makes it more likely rather than less that the collapse would have been progressive, not instantaneous as witnessed here.

Only 3 buildings were supposed to have fallen on their own that day.

[JonathonMoseley]

That is absolutely false. The buildings that tend to survive earthquakes are the NEWER, more sophisticated buildings that incorporate the newest techniques to survive. The newest, best buildings survive.

But buildings big and small collapse during earthquakes and from fires.

THE TALLER THEY STAND, THE HARDER THEY FALL

High rise buildings require light-weight, WEAK, construction in order to present the least weight up high. To reduce the weight, high-rises are WEAKER than other bldgs

[DarkwingScooter]

I do not think you know what you are talking about, this conversation is going nowhere if you believe that taller buildings are are weaker than smaller ones.

This is a common problem with skeptics and debunkers, just making up random things like yours only serve to convince people that something is seriously amiss.

[JonathonMoseley]

Taller buildings HAVE to be weaker, because they have to minimize their weight. In the same way that an airplane has to weigh as little as possible, a tall building has to minimize the weight in the upper floors.

YT does not allow links, but go to 911Reality [] come

Click on

Why Twin Towers Fell

and read

NY Times: WTC used UNTESTED technologies, were "A GAMBLE," "lightweight, almost willowy structures,"

also read the comments by the DESIGNER of the WTC Leslie Robertson