Closer Video of WTC7 Explosion (same explosion as in other video?) [Archive]

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 02:03 PM

Controlled demolitions don't have a single explosion.

Garb,

I am making no conclusions here. I don't know the proximity of the explosion to the collapse.

But if you want to see a demolition that does use a primary explosion at the base, then look here for the street view of the Philips building in Oslo, Norway:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2024862568112882772&q=oslo+phillips&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2024862568112882772&q=oslo+phillips&hl=en)

It doesn't appear to have all of the preceding explosions as in some demos. Remember the high speed photography here "slows" it down. It sounds like one explosion from the outside coming from the basement and the building settles straight down.

Then it appears two floors may have been blown as well in the following clip that are not so evident in the street level view. If so, then the explosions seem to be blended in with the collapse sound. I don't know.

For theory sake, keep in mind that most demolitions are concrete shells. Not fully furnished buildings that could absorb sound and the repercussions of an explosion. They can also control the sound in demolitions as well as the "back" explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW8FOPRLc9k&mode=user&search (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW8FOPRLc9k&mode=user&search)=

There is this one quote as well:

Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”

Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."

All I can say is that the Oslo demo appears to sound like a single explosion followed by a building collapse.

Russell

Pardalis

26th October 2006, 02:04 PM

We all know what you're after, Russell.

:rolleyes:

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 02:21 PM

First video: no idea if it was shot before WTC 7 collapsed. Could be a sonic boom, a vehicle exploding, etc.

Second video: what explosion at 0:11? :confused:

Gravy,

The explosion occurs at 00:06 in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

The reference I made to 00:11 was intended to juxtapose the building in the right background with the building in the right background in the payphone video. I believe it is the same building and the same explosion. If you listen closely in the following clip at 00:12 one of the firefighters refers to it as an explosion and gestures towards WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Then again in the top video link after the explosion at 00:06 you see the workers look back towards the building and say, "did you here that?". They do not appear to associate it with a sonic boom from above. It also sounds like it is at street level. They associate it with the building coming down which means it is prior to the collapse of WTC7.

I have never seen any vehicle blow up in my time as a firefighter. That is a substantial explosion recorded in those two videos.

Russell

snagswolf

26th October 2006, 02:29 PM

That appears to be the same building at 00:11 in the following video. See the white building and the tree?

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/October2006/261006Explosions.htm

I am making no conclusions. Just posting for discussion.

Russell
On kind of a side note, in the explanation of that video, it makes the claim that WTC 7 "was not hit by a plane". With all the evidence that has been presented in form of photographs, videos, and firefighter testimony describing the damage and fire to the building, don't you think it's dishonest to make that claim? While it's technically true that no plane hit the building, it's a misleading statement intended to misinform the viewer that the building wasn't damaged.

uk_dave

26th October 2006, 02:38 PM

For theory sake, keep in mind that most demolitions are concrete shells. Not fully furnished buildings that could absorb sound and the repercussions of an explosion. They can also control the sound in demolitions as well as the "back" explosions.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW8FOPRLc9k&mode=user&search)

Russell

Whooooa!

Could you elaborate on that a little?

Somehow I feel that if an explosion is powerful enough to demolish a building, the office furniture and carpets aren't going to do very much to muffle the sound.

Also bear in mind that convention controlled demolition with explosives only occurs after a great deal of weakening of the structure beforehand (partially cutting beams etc).

So, assuming that no such pre-weakening was carried out prior to 9/11, then surely the explosives used to bring it down would be larger than normal?

Unless of course the conspirators are soooooo devious as to be able to predict the amount of damage that would be caused to wtc7 during the collapse of the towers and could then allow for just one or two explosive charges to finish the job.

If so I am truly impressed.

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 02:39 PM

On kind of a side note, in the explanation of that video, it makes the claim that WTC 7 "was not hit by a plane". With all the evidence that has been presented in form of photographs, videos, and firefighter testimony describing the damage and fire to the building, don't you think it's dishonest to make that claim? While it's technically true that no plane hit the building, it's a misleading statement intended to misinform the viewer that the building wasn't damaged.

You're correct. Technically it was not hit by a plane but there was substantial structural damage. Initially the structural damage was not indicated as the primary cause of the collapse. Now NIST is working on a new hypothesis:

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
We'll just have to wait.

T.A.M.

26th October 2006, 02:41 PM

stateofgrace

26th October 2006, 02:42 PM

Russell, you were a fireman yes?

I am not but I do know that things explode inside burning buildings. I also know about flashover, any thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8

uk_dave

26th October 2006, 02:42 PM

You know, just because the buttons on my shirt 'pop' off when I get really angry, doesn't mean that they are wired with explosives.

Structural failure can also cause bangs.

In fact I was talking with a builder this morning on a job where they had to remove a prestressed concrete beam from a property, and to dispose of it they gave it a really good thump with a hammer and it shattered.

It's not unknown for prestressed concrete beams to 'explode' when the loads are removed. Anyone know if wtc7 had any such beams?

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th October 2006, 02:43 PM

Here is a closer version of what sounds like an explosion near WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Look at 00:08 into it. See the building in the right top background with the white and the tree in front of it?

That appears to be the same building at 00:11 in the following video. See the white building and the tree?

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/October2006/261006Explosions.htm

I am making no conclusions. Just posting for discussion.

Russell

Russell, I understand that you are making no claims of conclusions based upon this video; however, are you willing to make any statements of fact concerning the video that you feel are worthy of discussion?

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 02:48 PM

Whooooa!

Could you elaborate on that a little?

Somehow I feel that if an explosion is powerful enough to demolish a building, the office furniture and carpets aren't going to do very much to muffle the sound.

Also bear in mind that convention controlled demolition with explosives only occurs after a great deal of weakening of the structure beforehand (partially cutting beams etc).

So, assuming that no such pre-weakening was carried out prior to 9/11, then surely the explosives used to bring it down would be larger than normal?

Unless of course the conspirators are soooooo devious as to be able to predict the amount of damage that would be caused to wtc7 during the collapse of the towers and could then allow for just one or two explosive charges to finish the job.

If so I am truly impressed.

UK,

Of course the furnishings would mitigate the resounding echo traditionally associated with empty concrete shells.

Here is one example of a demolition company indirectly indicating being able to mitigate sound (even though it appears it didn't happen).

"According to the article, the blast occurred when explosives destroyed an old hangar used to house Concorde. The British Airports Authority said that contractors had promised the explosion would be inaudible, the article says."

http://www.nonoise.org/news/1997/may11.htm

There is also a clip somewhere of the CDI crew talking about controlling the noise of explosions too.

None of us have proof either way of pre-weakening or not.

Russell

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 02:50 PM

That was a loud explosion, no doubt. It seemed to have a metallic component to it. Would be nice to find out how long after the explosion, that WTC7 collapsed. In CD, the building collapses within seconds of the charges going off. I suspect, it was just another "explosion" from a generator, or a fuel tank, car, etc...blah blah blah.

TAM

TAM,

I don't know.

I am trying to find more info on that clip in regards to exact location of the phone and the proximity to the collapse.

Russell

Pardalis

26th October 2006, 02:57 PM

None of us have proof either way of pre-weakening or not.

Again, trying to prove a negative...

Has there been any accounts, prior to 9/11, that there was extensive work done in the WTC7 building?

You said you had a website, what is it about? May I see it?

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 03:01 PM

Russell, you were a fireman yes?

I am not but I do know that things explode inside burning buildings. I also know about flashover, any thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8

stateofgrace,

I didn't get audio on that video to compare.

I have heard all kinds of "popping" etc. in fires. Nothing of that magnitude. There is also a lot of redundency built in to propane tanks and fuel storage devices to protect from explosion.

The only flashover I witnessed directly was not associated with an explosion.

A backdraft does produce an explosion sound in some cases as in this backdraft simulator: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3628013949862115595&q=backdraft&hl=en

With WTC7 so ventilated I don't know what the isolated conditions for a backdraft could be. It is hard to guess.

That was a large resounding explosion in those videos.

Russell

Gravy

26th October 2006, 03:05 PM

There is this one quote as well:

Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”

<EM><FONT color=black>Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."
RussellWe can be pretty sure that what we're hearing isn't the collapse of WTC 7. People who were anywhere near it when it came down ran like hell.

The only reports of explosions at WTC 7 that I'm aware of are from PAPD officer William Connors, who heard them "deep inside" the building from the north side loading dock. Note the description of all the postal vehicles with blown out gas tanks right there:

...We approached the complex from the north side via Barclay Street. Building 7 was burning and we spoke with a FDNY Chief who had his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in Building 7 were uncontrollable and its collapse was imminent. ...ESU (truck) 5308 was at the bottom of the Barclay Street ramp just short of the inner doors under Building 7. ...There were no fires inside the loading dock but we could hear explosions deep inside. ...We then continued the perimeter search. There were crushed and burned vehicles all around the complex. A postal official approached us and stated that he believed that the postal vehicles may have had secondary devices inside them as they all showed signs of internal explosions. A closer inspection revealed that the Postal trucks were all damaged in the same place, near the fuel tanks, we then ruled out secondary devices.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf (pg. 69)

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 03:10 PM

Again, trying to prove a negative...

Has there been any accounts, prior to 9/11, that there was extensive work done in the WTC7 building?

You said you had a website, what is it about? May I see it?

Pardalis,

I don't know about WTC7 construction.

Here is my site: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

It is WAY out of date. I have not updated it since my trip to DC, the release of the NTSB data or since I have concluded from solid evidence that a 757 did hit the Pentagon.

I am waiting for the Doubletree video to be released and to see what is left of my beliefs about WTC after my time here. Then I will revise it based on my current position then.

Russell

Pardalis

26th October 2006, 03:14 PM

I don't know about WTC7 construction.

I said prior to 9/11, as in "a few weeks or months prior". Do you seriously believe it was rigged with explosive when it was constructed? :eek:

Here is my site: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

It is WAY out of date. I have not updated it since my trip to DC, the release of the NTSB data or since I have concluded from solid evidence that a 757 did hit the Pentagon.

WHY DO YOU KEEP IT ACTIVE?

Since you now believe that a plane hit the building, why on earth would you want to keep spreading this misinformation?

It shows alot about your character, Russell.:mad: :mad:

Please, please take your damned website offline until you update it.

beachnut

26th October 2006, 03:14 PM

Gravy

26th October 2006, 03:16 PM

Gravy,

The explosion occurs at 00:06 in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

The reference I made to 00:11 was intended to juxtapose the building in the right background with the building in the right background in the payphone video. I believe it is the same building and the same explosion. If you listen closely in the following clip at 00:12 one of the firefighters refers to it as an explosion and gestures towards WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Then again in the top video link after the explosion at 00:06 you see the workers look back towards the building and say, "did you here that?". They do not appear to associate it with a sonic boom from above. It also sounds like it is at street level. They associate it with the building coming down which means it is prior to the collapse of WTC7.

I have never seen any vehicle blow up in my time as a firefighter. That is a substantial explosion recorded in those two videos.

Russell
Okay, I think you had the times reversed in your earlier post. I have no idea, though, why you think the second, more distant sound is an explosion and not a secondary collapse, debris falling from 7 (which we know there was), etc. I don't doubt that it could be an explosion: explosions were happening all over the place. I'm asking why you seem so sure of it.

Likewise, how do they "associate it with the building coming down?"

Gravy

26th October 2006, 03:19 PM

sounds like the gas main leaked and blew up? Or like the building failing, did you know if there were propane tanks near the area? Did a gas main break somewhere and finally blow up? Did building 7 finally have a big flash over, or some fire thing?

But not RDX and dynamite, sounds, not like the demo sounds of explosives, to me

With the big fire raging in WTC7 it was only a matter of time before the steel would be weak enough to fail. The new WTC7, I think it will benefit, has a concrete core to protect the stairs and help the building in disasters. We can only get better when outsiders poke us. There were gas leaks, and that area was evacuated at least once due to fear of a gas explosion, but the explosion didn't happen. In addition, there were oxygen cylinders and Scott Air Packs in the burning vehicles and in the rubble. There is at least one report of Air Packs exploding.

Gravy

26th October 2006, 03:23 PM

beachnut

26th October 2006, 03:24 PM

if you are looking for explosives, and based on your web site you are

then your Madrid building did fall, the steel only sections fell in a few hours as did the WTC7

i would check the accounts of madrid for explosions

and other fires

as for flight 77 the pilot, he was trained, he had a liceince to fly from teh FAA, for being turned down to fly a 172, bet he was challenged doing the real things, his goal was not to be the best pilot

and the things done on 9/11 could be done by anyone off the street, skip the flight training, new jets are too easy to fly

off topic but you sent posted you CT site

Pardalis

26th October 2006, 03:25 PM

Russell, if you have the time to post here, you have the time to change your website.

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 03:49 PM

I said prior to 9/11, as in "a few weeks or months prior". Do you seriously believe it was rigged with explosive when it was constructed? :eek:

WHY DO YOU KEEP IT ACTIVE?

Since you now believe that a plane hit the building, why on earth would you want to keep spreading this misinformation?

It shows alot about your character, Russell.:mad: :mad:

Please, please take your damned website offline until you update it.

Pardalis,

The website is left open for people to think for themselves. There is more evidence there for a plane than on many Pentagon websites. The updating has been started on the light poles page.

I will manage my site. Thank you.

Your assault on my character has zero effect on me.

Please try and stick to the evidence and considerations at hand. I have suggested before that you quit reading and/or replying to my posts if the way I look at things is so upsetting to you.

Russell

Gravy

26th October 2006, 03:50 PM

Has there been any accounts, prior to 9/11, that there was extensive work done in the WTC7 building?This document has a summary of structural inspections and a list of major modifications to WTC 7. On PDF pages 53-58 and 116-120.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf

Pardalis

26th October 2006, 03:51 PM

The website is left open for people to think for themselves.

Please try and stick to the evidence and considerations at hand.

:rolleyes:

Pardalis

26th October 2006, 03:54 PM

Russell, don't you care that your website contains false information?

Gravy

26th October 2006, 03:55 PM

i would check the accounts of madrid for explosions

A raging fire swept through the upper levels of an empty, 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, causing no serious injuries but collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris.

...The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control several hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building.

...The blaze was still raging out of control in the early hours of Sunday, having breached a fire wall on the 17th floor and reached almost to street level. Explosions could be heard within the building and authorities cordoned off a zone some 500 metres in diameter in case it should collapse.

from Pravda.RU Feb. 13, 2005

Laith

26th October 2006, 04:11 PM

Russell please stop claiming stupid things like a plane not hitting the pentagon. I have some concerns about 9/11 but they will never be taken seriously while people are claiming stuff like that!

Gravy

26th October 2006, 04:23 PM

Russell please stop claiming stupid things like a plane not hitting the pentagon. I have some concerns about 9/11 but they will never be taken seriously while people are claiming stuff like that!Laith, Russell has concluded that a plane (I assume flight 77) did hit the Pentagon, but he has not updated his website to indicate that.

Russell, you said you've left your site as is so that people can think for themselves. However, you're known as something of an authority on the Pentagon and 9/11. Your site is linked to from many other sites.

Suppose I publicly came to the conclusion that Loose Change was fairly accurate, that I had taken the LC creators' statements out of context in "Loose Change Creators Speak," that the literature handed out by NY911Truth isn't so bad after all, and that evidence shows that the FDNY and Silverstein were "in on it."

I would certainly feel obligated to update my documents to indicate those enormous changes, and I would expect CTs to be furious if I didn't. /derail

Edited to Add: Welcome to the JREF forums, Laith!

Laith

26th October 2006, 04:26 PM

Laith, Russell has concluded that a plane (I assume flight 77) did hit the Pentagon, but he has not updated his website to indicate that.

Russell, you said you've left your site as is so that people can think for themselves. However, you're known as something of an authority on the Pentagon and 9/11. Your site is linked to from many other sites.

Suppose I publicly came to the conclusion that Loose Change was fairly accurate, that I had taken the LC creators' statements out of context in "Loose Change Creators Speak," that the literature handed out by NY911Truth isn't so bad after all, and that evidence shows that the FDNY and Silverstein were "in on it."

I would certainly feel obligated to update my documents to indicate those enormous changes, and I would expect CTs to be furious if I didn't. /derail

Sorry I misread Russells post.

Laith

26th October 2006, 04:30 PM

W6102LA

26th October 2006, 05:31 PM

Larry really stuffed up using a CD to bring down WTC7, he should of made the explosion more obvious like he did in 1993

;)

Laith

26th October 2006, 05:39 PM

Larry really stuffed up using a CD to bring down WTC7, he should of made the explosion more obvious like he did in 1993

;)

Larry didn't demolish it. He wasn't even there.

hellaeon

26th October 2006, 05:44 PM

Just my two cents worth: -

It is pointless examining videos etc of explosions with regard to wtc7. We could never prove they are connected to demolition, rather than all the chaos that ensued that day, so they are just a distraction. I have my suspicions about building 7 but the chance of it being proved is virtually nil bar a whistleblower coming forward with irrefutable evidence.

Whilst im coming from a different position (no malicious suspicions) I completely concur that if a whistleblower came forward the evidence trail would need to be re-examined. But of course, they would need to be of high credence before any consideration of their claims were taken serious. I think a few have come forward but there claims are dismissed due to overwhleming evidence. Im not 100% on this, someone else could justify if I am wrong or right.

hellaeon

26th October 2006, 05:46 PM

Its funny but the idea of a 9/11 FAQ seems more and more appealing to me. A lot of the newer claims by the truth movement seem to spiral back to an older claim already shown to be false. Just a derail...

njslim

26th October 2006, 08:01 PM

Attention Moonbats! At a disaster scene you will hear loud noises. Just
because you hear loud noises doe not mean there are explosives going
off in the area!

Take WTC towers - one of the most gruesome incidents that day were the
numerous "jumpers" - people who jumped/fell from the upper floors of the
tower. A bone chilling crash resulted as the bodies hit the ground.

From Capt Chris Boyle interview in FIREHOUSE know that debris was falling
from the building endangering personnel. It was one of the reasons the
FDNY chiefs made decision to clear the building

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 08:27 PM

Gravy,

This document has a summary of structural inspections and a list of major modifications to WTC 7. On PDF pages 53-58 and 116-120.

All strengthening and improving unless I missed something.

We can be pretty sure that what we're hearing isn't the collapse of WTC 7. People who were anywhere near it when it came down ran like hell.

It is an explosion. I have no idea the proximity of it to the collapse. If you don't think it was an explosion, then fine. The firefighter standing right there referred to it as an explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

I believe it is the same explosion as recorded at 00:06 into the following video. The building in the background is the same in both. Listen to the two versions of the explosion as well. After the explosion the workers in the video say, "Keep your eye on that building it'll be coming down". That means it was prior to the collapse. WTC 7 is in the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

The only reports of explosions at WTC 7 that I'm aware of are from PAPD officer William Connors, who heard them "deep inside" the building from the north side loading dock.

There is this quote as well:

Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”

Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."

You can listen to the audio here (1:25): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

Note the description of all the postal vehicles with blown out gas tanks right there:

A closer inspection revealed that the Postal trucks were all damaged in the same place, near the fuel tanks, we then ruled out secondary devices.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/postal.jpg

This is the only photo of postal trucks I could find. Are there more? This is fairly early in the day. It appears all vehicle fires in the area were extinguished by then (the cars appear consumed). Unless the postal trucks reignited later it seems they would not be the source of the explosion later in the day when they were evacuating for collapse.

I have been to at least 30-40 car fires. I have never seen one explode. The gas tanks that did ignite "purged" and shot flame out. That is probably the damage reported near all the fuel tanks on the Postal trucks. The car fire safety website doesn't even mention the word explosion. Instead it says:

"Don't attempt to try to put out the fire yourself. (The unseen danger is the possible ignition of fuel in the vehicle's tank.)"

http://www.nsc.org/library/facts/carfire.htm

TV has exaggerated this dramatically. There is estimated to be a vehicle fire every 96 seconds in the U.S.. Explosions are very rare to say the least. Also, the magnitude of that explosion is significant.

In addition, there were oxygen cylinders and Scott Air Packs in the burning vehicles and in the rubble. There is at least one report of Air Packs exploding.

For obvious reasons this is also VERY rare. Would there have been SCBA's laying around on fire at WTC 7? Why? The tank you mentioned - was it inside the WTC collapses? Were there damaged fire vehicles still burning near WTC 7 at the end of the day?

Here is an audio clip from a Navy website:

Large Explosion
This sound can be used to start a drill based on a variety of close weapon impacts. Combining it with hull failure or fires to assist fitting the Sounds of Damage into scenarios the ship has already practiced.

Audio clip: http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/audio/DCTRACKS/07.m3u

Site: http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/audio.htm

Compare it to link at the top of the page yourself.

Russell

kc440_

26th October 2006, 09:18 PM

Russell Pickering

26th October 2006, 09:49 PM

At the very end of the video above, what are those 2 things flying towards the demolition? Are they birds? They're awfully large. I didn't think birds would fly near a racket like that. :boggled:

kc440

That appears to be debris flying up.

R.Mackey

26th October 2006, 10:14 PM

Gravy

26th October 2006, 10:59 PM

It is an explosion. I have no idea the proximity of it to the collapse. If you don't think it was an explosion, then fine. The firefighter standing right there referred to it as an explosion.Of course it's an explosion, a loud explosion. I asked you how you knew when it occurred.

I believe it is the same explosion as recorded at 00:06 into the following video. The building in the background is the same in both. Listen to the two versions of the explosion as well. After the explosion the workers in the video say, "Keep your eye on that building it'll be coming down". That means it was prior to the collapse. WTC 7 is in the background.That's your basis for believing the sounds are from the same source? Come on, Russell. You have no basis for saying that. I asked you how you knew the distant sound was an explosion. You don't. And if it was, it could have come from anywhere. Buildings were on fire. Things were exploding fairly often in the area.

There is this quote as well:

Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”Yes, I linked to the audio of this account in my paper. He's hearing the building collapse.

So,

1) You don't know when the loud explosion occurred
2) You don't know if the distant sound was an explosion
3) You don't know if the sounds were close in time to each other
4) You don't know if either originated in or around WTC 7
5) You have no way of differentiating them from the many other explosions that day

But you believe the sounds originated from the same source.

You'll need a lot more than belief to convince a critical thinker. Your belief is not based on evidence.

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 12:57 AM

Hi Russell. Glad to see you're persevering here.

About the videos you posted -- is there any evidence that the BANG we hear is coming from WTC 7? Could it not be from somewhere else, on the street, another building? Was the BANG correlated with WTC 7 collapsing?

Without these two factors, I'm not sure we have much to talk about. Do we have a rough estimate of how many BANG type noises occurred in that area? I'm betting it was a large number...

R. Mackey,

It appears to be in the immediate vicinity (2 blocks) of WTC 7 in both videos. Did you watch both? In the second video two comments are made in reference to it by the workers. One associated it with the building getting ready to come down.

It is a little more than a bang. The firefighter right there gestured toward WTC 7 and used the word "explosion".

Listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

And compare it to the Navy site for the identification of large explosions:

http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/audio/DCTRACKS/07.m3u

There could have been many loud sounds in the area but that one is a significant explosion in my opinion.

Russell

Gravy

27th October 2006, 01:02 AM

"In the direction of" doesn't tie the explosion to WTC 7 in any way.

The first responders reported many explosions in the area.

'nuff said.

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 01:17 AM

Gravy,

But you believe the sounds originated from the same source.

Do you not believe the "sounds" are the same explosion?

6 seconds in - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

6 seconds in - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

I think the evidence is pretty strong for it being the same explosion.

The guy originally on the phone has an INS shirt on. The INS was in WTC 7.

Here is his interview after the collapse with the same dew rag on and what appears to be WTC 7 debris in the background at one point. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlgqYmL_DWw

Do you want me to post a satellite photo of the building in the background to demonstrate the sound appears to come down the street from WTC 7?

Russell

Gravy

27th October 2006, 01:35 AM

Gravy,

Do you not believe the "sounds" are the same explosion?
Well, when you put it that way, of course I do.

6 seconds in - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

6 seconds in - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
Your new argument is to post the same two videos again? What the hell is going on, Russell?

I think the evidence is pretty strong for it being the same explosion. Madness.

Once again, because something must have been really unclear the first time I posted this:

1) You don't know when the loud explosion occurred
2) You don't know if the distant sound was an explosion
3) You don't know if the sounds were close in time to each other
4) You don't know if either originated in or around WTC 7
5) You have no way of differentiating them from the many other explosions that day

But you believe the sounds originated from the same source.

You'll need a lot more than belief to convince a critical thinker. Your belief is not based on evidence.

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 02:30 AM

Well, when you put it that way, of course I do.
Your new argument is to post the same two videos again? What the hell is going on, Russell?

Madness.

Once again, because something must have been really unclear the first time I posted this:

1) You don't know when the loud explosion occurred
2) You don't know if the distant sound was an explosion
3) You don't know if the sounds were close in time to each other
4) You don't know if either originated in or around WTC 7
5) You have no way of differentiating them from the many other explosions that day

But you believe the sounds originated from the same source.

You'll need a lot more than belief to convince a critical thinker. Your belief is not based on evidence.

I can leave it there if you can. It seems very clear to me it is the same explosion.

beachnut

27th October 2006, 02:58 AM

celestrin

27th October 2006, 03:07 AM

The first video with the guys on the phone appears to be shot soon after the collapse of the WTC1. We've got shadows almost aligned with the direction of the street. Phone calls were made either on Murray & W Broadway, or Park Pl & W Broadway or the sound didn't come from anywhere near the WTC complex. Assuming that it did, assuming that the camera turned towards the source of the sound and that it isn't a hoax like some eyewitness wind gusts presented as explosions, here's my take on it.

Orientation of mentioned streets, taken from GoogleEarth:
azimuth of W Broadway = 30deg (or 210deg)
azimuth of Murray St./Park Pl = 120deg (or 300deg)
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7051/videofs8.th.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=videofs8.jpg)

When does the Sun align with those streets? On 9/11, Sun rose at azimuth 85deg and set at azimuth 270deg. This means it was only able to shine up Murray/Park in the morning and up W Broadway in mid afternoon.

Taken from Starry Night:
sun @ 120deg (Murray/Park) = 10:34 (AM)
sun's altitude at the time = 42deg

sun @ 210deg (WBroadway) = 14:08 (2:08 PM)
sun's altitude at the time = 50deg

The sun is actually not perfectly aligned with the street, it's a bit to the west of it, which means we have to add a few minutes to the alignment times above. The video must've been taken at about 10:45 (AM) or 14:20 (2:20 PM). In any case way before the WTC7 came down.

Length of the shadows doesn't help in pinpointing the precise time in this case, because the sun was at about the same altitude at both times.

I'm not sure which of the two striped buildings was this taken at, but if the sound came from WTC, and the cameraman turned towards the sound, this also eliminates the W Broadway as the street, which was lit by sunshine. So this was either Murray or Park. That puts the Sun at about 120 deg azimuth and the time at about 10:45 AM, just after the collapse of WTC1.

The second video, showing leaving rescue workers, is shot looking south down W Broadway, but doesn't provide clear shadows, so I'm unable to say much. Leaving rescue workers appear to be shone upon from the back, indicating noon or early afternoon. If that video was shot at the same time as the first video, they should be lit from the left.

BTW, that's a scary avatar, Gravy ;)

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 03:42 AM

"Why no accident report on the crash?"

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/evidence.html

it was not an accident (common knowledge to most that FBI get crimes, NTSB gets accidents) , and by having NTSB working with the FBI there could be more oversight, more chance of any funny stuff to be discovered!

trick question? from http://www.pentagonresearch.com/evidence.html

sorry saw your ref to this web site earlier, just looking at the site, it has a lot of misleading stuff on it

looks like it is biased for some political reasons, rather than facts and logic

that is a lot of stuff

Thank you for your opinion.

My website and my personal political views are my own to do with as I wish.

If you are satisfied with the FBI's Flight 77 page http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm then that is your choice. If you are satisfied with the fact that Osama is not wanted for 9/11 on their site http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm then that is also up to you.

I am not satisfied.

If you wish to accuse me of being misleading I am getting very used to this strategy here.

Russell

MRC_Hans

27th October 2006, 05:36 AM

Pardalis,

The website is left open for people to think for themselves. There is more evidence there for a plane than on many Pentagon websites. The updating has been started on the light poles page.

I will manage my site. Thank you.

Your assault on my character has zero effect on me.

Please try and stick to the evidence and considerations at hand. I have suggested before that you quit reading and/or replying to my posts if the way I look at things is so upsetting to you.

RussellI find it quite telling that such an attack on your character has zero effect on you. If you say you are now convinced a 757 hit the Pentagon your website is containing lies.

I decided to answer a few of the questions on it:

a) The complex plot was never discovered.

Ehhh? Lots of track of a plot were discovered.

b) Hani Hanjour was denied the rental of a Cessna 172 after evaluation by a certified flight instructor 3 ½ weeks prior to 9/11 because of poor flying skills.

So? Those people wanted their plane back in one piece. He did not need to return the plane on 911.

b) How did 19 Arab hijackers get past security on four flights at three separate international airports with knives, box cutters, mace and bombs according to the 9/11 Commission report?

Because security was pre 911, doh. For instance, box cutters were allowed on planes (that was why they used them).

c) How was he able to navigate from the Ohio/Kentucky border and locate the Pentagon despite never having flown a 757-200?

GPS.

d) Why were there no interceptor aircraft dispatched as he violated the most secure airspace in the United States?

There was. They didn't make it in time, though.

e) Why did he pass the unprotected White House and the front of the Pentagon which would have caused catastrophic damage and where high-level officials had their offices?

He passed the White House because his target was the Pentagon. He probably did not distinguish individual parts of the building.

You are instructing a suicide pilot who can barely fly the plane. Will you telling him to hit the building or a a particular side of the building?

f) How did he perform a 270 degree turn with a 7000 foot altitude drop with military precision

He didn't. In fact he did a very poor job of that turn. I wouldn't have rented him a C172 if he had shown me a turn like that.

and bring the aircraft under control to remain just off the lawn, yet place a 12 foot diameter fuselage between floors 1 and 2 of the Pentagon which is only 14 feet?

Well, that was not bad, but ground effect may have helped him a lot.

g) Why did he target the only section of the Pentagon that had just been reinforced with blast-resistant features and was the least populated area of the Pentagon?

Probably because that was the part that showed up in front of him. You were just marvelling at him making a 270deg turn, now you want him to circle the building to select some particular side.

h) Why did he select the only wedge of the Pentagon that had physical obstacles in the flight path and required a last second altitude change to level out in order to strike between floors? The other 4 sides of the building had no obstructions, no elevation change, were more populated and hadn't been renovated with blast-resistant features.

See above.

i) He would have needed extraordinary discipline, skill and concentration to maintain control of the aircraft at 506 feet per second to hit 5 lamp poles, a fence, a generator, two trailers and a tree while subtly adjusting altitude prior to striking the Pentagon.

He didn't bother with the light-poles. He just stared at the wall he was heading for. When he hit the light-poles he was 2 seconds from impact. They could have taken half of his wings off, and he would still hit appr. the same spot. How much do you think a 757 going 500kts can change course in 2 seconds?

j) Hani Hanjour's name did not appear on the official passenger manifest or the autopsy report.

And? This has been covered endlessly. You should be ashamed to still pose it as an open question.

k) The FBI claims to have remains of all 5 hijackers. None of them have been positively identified as Hani Hanjour.

Perhaps Al Queda forgot to send the FBI a DNA sample?

l) If this scenario is true then releasing the videos and physical evidence would be no problem.

Who says it's a problem?

Hans

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 06:00 AM

The second video, showing leaving rescue workers, is shot looking south down W Broadway, but doesn't provide clear shadows, so I'm unable to say much. Leaving rescue workers appear to be shone upon from the back, indicating noon or early afternoon. If that video was shot at the same time as the first video, they should be lit from the left.

celestrin,

Good catch on the shadows. Those are not the same explosion in each video. Two different explosions.

Here is a diagram I made. From a lot of different observations I believe that the phone call was made from the area of the green dot. The red arrow is the shadow in the phone video. The yellow arrow is the shadow in the later video.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/phone.jpg

From this is it possible for you to get the times or confirm the times you have?

Russell

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 06:01 AM

I find it quite telling that such an attack on your character has zero effect on you. If you say you are now convinced a 757 hit the Pentagon your website is containing lies.

Hans,

Yes - I am a deceptive liar.

Great critique.

Thank you for the time it took to share it!

Russell

azazal

27th October 2006, 09:13 AM

From the local news

Cit Pat on MLive (http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1156262703322280.xml&coll=3)

A woman turned on the hot water to do dishes Wednesday afternoon, and her house exploded. Her hair scorched, her body burned, the woman crawled through the wreckage to save herself. She survived with minor injuries.

Firefighters arrived at the house in the 8000 block of County Farm Road in Sandstone Township about 1 p.m. Wednesday and found a burning heap of wood and metal. It took fewer than 10 minutes for the house to consume itself.

"There's nothing left," said Parma-Sandstone Police Chief Jon Sutliff. "She's lucky to be alive." ......

Firefighters on the scene suspected a propane leak led to the eruption. State and county fire investigation teams were still trying Wednesday afternoon to determine the cause of the fire.

More in the article, but I guess "they" wired her house with explosives as well? :rolleyes:

Belz...

27th October 2006, 10:43 AM

Pardalis,

The website is left open for people to think for themselves.

How can someone think for himself when fed erroneous information ? If the information on your site is incorrect, than say so on the webpage, or modify it accordingly.

It's the honest thing to do. Don't you want to do the honest thing ? 72 virgins if you do... woah. No, that's another thing.

Belz...

27th October 2006, 10:49 AM

1) You don't know when the loud explosion occurred
2) You don't know if the distant sound was an explosion
3) You don't know if the sounds were close in time to each other
4) You don't know if either originated in or around WTC 7
5) You have no way of differentiating them from the many other explosions that day

But you believe the sounds originated from the same source.

You'll need a lot more than belief to convince a critical thinker. Your belief is not based on evidence.

I can leave it there if you can. It seems very clear to me it is the same explosion.

So, even after Gravy told you you have no evidence, your only reply is that it "seems" clear to you ?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury; we have seen NO evidence that the accused it guilty. We cannot determine that he was at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. He has a solid alibi, as confirmed by the many witnesses. He didn't know the victim and was not related to him in any way. None of the physical evidence, including the murder weapon, can be traced back to him nor do they bear his fingerprints or DNA. However, it seems to me like he commited this crime. You figure it out."

<Jury members nod>

Belz...

27th October 2006, 10:52 AM

Yes - I am a deceptive liar.

Let me attempt a translation:

"Yes, my site contains lies concerning the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. However, since I consider this subject matter unimportant, trivial and perhaps comical, I have decided to leave the erroneous statements on the page so as to better mislead my visitors into believing a fantasy conspiracy theory on the events of that day and earn more hits for my website, seeing how that theory is very popular."

Does this summarize your position correctly ?

Don't you want to do the honest thing, Russ ?

beachnut

27th October 2006, 12:14 PM

Hans,

Yes - I am a deceptive liar.

Great critique.

Thank you for the time it took to share it!

Russell

When you cloud your mind with biased policitcal ideas in place of what you use to have, Judegement, you actually mean

every page of you web site is full of misleading information

you say why was flight 77 not give the old NTSB accident investigatoin!!!

It was a crime is the simple answer, you make up clouded inundo!

Gee, the investigation was performed by the FBI and they used the NTSB, as I said, now the NTSB works with the FBI and you have some extra eyes to catch your plot.

Plot, you are the site, you site has changed, you site had zero function excectp to decieve. That is just the biginning, your biased policalic oped on 9/11!!

it is just opinoin

The following are deceptive liars :
FBI
NTSB
And every american citizen who help on 9-11 is a liar!

No thank you for the time it took to mindlessly make up stuff and mislead people.

Thank you for being a disrespectful liar. This is my OpEd

cause all your web page is an OpEd, not facts and journalistic effort like exposing WaterGate, no your OpEd is like the WaterGate Breakin trying to cover up the fact of what really happen with your misleading stuff for some emotial polictical or just plane you think is is real stuff ideas?

RP going where no man has gone before, into the lala land of CT hacks.

The terrorist pilot could not of done it! To be proved wrong from day ONE, what a great web site, wrong from 9/11 read my opinion here!

No thank you for showing me that BS in hugh amounts only prove you are imune to finding the truth.

Thank you

Oops, did I tell you this is after looking at your site for a long time, misleading me, thinking you had some facts on the subject, you do not!

celestrin

27th October 2006, 12:41 PM

From this is it possible for you to get the times or confirm the times you have?
Well, your arrows roughly correspond with my previous post. I would point the yellow one more to the north, but not much. Checking the Starry Night values again, I've noticed I got too hasty in the morning in my first post. Note to self - don't do any thinking, before you've actually woken up :o

Here are the corrected times.
On 9/11/01, sun would shine straight up Murray (or Park) at about 9:55 AM. Video was shot a few minutes later, since the shadows moved for another few degrees. Shadows offset by 5 degrees would mean 20 minutes later, so a time of about 10:15 would be a good guess. Give or take 24 minutes (or +- 6 degrees; 2 for the exact position of the Murray St., 4 for the shadow angle).

For the second video, assuming the sun was shining straight up W Broadway, the time would be about 2:08 PM. I can't pinpoint the shadow positions, so this would be 2 PM, give or take an hour (or +- 15 degrees; 2 for exact street position, 13 for sun's). And I'm only talking about the first scene with the rescue people leaving. Second video is comprised of many cuts and I'm strictly speaking about the first one with leaving rescue people and an explosive sound. I haven't checked any others.

And let me stress once again that this is all assuming that the videos and sounds are genuine. You've already seen there are lots of videos with fake sounds out there. Get your hands on the originals. I'm particulary suspicious of the first video. Sound seems too clear and too concusive to me. Fireman's reaction is almost too mild for the sound and the cameraman doesn't appear to show any reaction. But I'm way more useful at analysing images than sounds. At least when I'm awake.

And, of course, you already know that booming sounds don't necessarily mean explosives, right?

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 01:00 PM

My website and my personal political views are my own to do with as I wish.

Russell, you may be polite and well spoken, but I think you're no better than Killtown.

By seeing your amateurish investigative skills, and your unwillingness to change your website when shown it's wrong, I hope the lurkers will see you for what you are.

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 01:13 PM

.....I'm particulary suspicious of the first video. Sound seems too clear and too concusive to me. Fireman's reaction is almost too mild for the sound and the cameraman doesn't appear to show any reaction. But I'm way more useful at analysing images than sounds. At least when I'm awake.

And, of course, you already know that booming sounds don't necessarily mean explosives, right?

celestrin,

Thank you for the help on the times!

The guy on the phone ducks and whips around and so does the cameraman toward the direction of the sound. The firefighters seem a little elevated in trying to get them out of there and one refers to the explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Here is the simple answer from Implosion World on the clip:

"That could be the result of any number of things...."

Russell

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 01:18 PM

Russell, you may be polite and well spoken, but I think you're no better than Killtown.

By seeing your amateurish investigative skills, and your unwillingness to change your website when shown it's wrong, I hope the lurkers will see you for what you are.

Pardalis,

Thank you!

I know you worry about the lurkers getting deceived and want them to follow the truth as you see it.

I trust that they have their own minds and are capable of sorting things out for themselves without your guidance.

I too hope they see the situation for what it is.

Russell

celestrin

27th October 2006, 01:20 PM

I'm not saying there was no sound to make them look. I'm saying it might've been "enhanced". There are more and more 9/11 videos with spiced up soundtracks.

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 02:09 PM

I trust that they have their own minds and are capable of sorting things out for themselves without your guidance.

Bubba,

how are people going to be able to sort through your misinformation on your website? Are you going to post a warning or update on your website anytime soon?

Oh, right, you're too busy to search for low-res videos on youtube...

Pathetic.

beachnut

27th October 2006, 02:13 PM

Thank you for your opinion.

If you wish to accuse me of being misleading I am getting very used to this strategy here.

Russell

Yes you are misleading. By writing BS about how an "accident investigation was not done" on flight 77, you are misleading.

It is a fact that law enforcement takes aircraft crashes that are done on purpose. Simple fact. This is standard and not some point to raise doubt except in by someone who is misleading either on purpose or who is not knowledgeable on the subject.

Which are you? Misleading people on the FBI/NTSB point, or not knowledgeable enough to know the subject?

you said "I am getting very used to this strategy here."

I just got here, I am a new guy,what is it, what is this secret strategy

You posted the sound, you directed people to your site, you are stringing us along on the sound, loud on one video, not as loud on the other, then introducing evidence later. What do you expect on an open ended request? After seeing your web site...

Does RP see CT? Do you see it everywhere?

beachnut

27th October 2006, 02:26 PM

Pardalis,

Thank you!

I know you worry about the lurkers getting deceived and want them to follow the truth as you see it.

I trust that they have their own minds and are capable of sorting things out for themselves without your guidance.

I too hope they see the situation for what it is.

Russell

Truth as who sees it?

Impressions after seeing RPs Ob-Ed over and over again, along with your I do not care attitude expressed here:

take anything and package on the web and you care zip about the content as long as it justifies your vision

are you as paranoid as Nixon

can not have the facts exposed must slant them

the old spin to save the nation

let not help others understand what happen, let them have how i think it unfolded

I will not look up facts and verify them, I will just slap this stuff together

the facts are not important, just the final conclusion

The above are my opinions behind what i found on the web site http://www.pentagonresearch.com/evidence.html

Bottom line, beware of the internet, liars and snake oil salesmen persist to tell their tales and weave fictional and flawed accounts on purpose.

He has a point, we know there is junk out there, and he is at least selling it for free!

Thank you

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 03:00 PM

When you cloud your mind with biased policitcal ideas in place of what you use to have, Judegement, you actually mean

every page of you web site is full of misleading information

beachnut,

Again, thank you for your thoughts!

Personal attacks and insulting CT's truly seems to be the primary means of some people on this site. Sad but true.

This was a thread on a WTC 7 video clip.

But since my website has become the topic to personally discredit me, I will address it here.

I remind you that I have a website to try and understand this and have put the time into it to offer what I have learned. Do you? I remind you I trust people to sort things out for themselves and don't dictate ideas to people. Do you? I remind you I am accountable to my words here in my real name and on my website. Are you?

The answer to the last question is NO. You are an anonymous critic of somebody else's work. A stranger behind a keyboard. If you want your review of my site to mean anything then please identify yourself and your credentials for all here to see OK? I did.

As far as my personal political opinions and my right to have whatever website I want to have goes, I would remind you this is America. I did my time in the military to ensure that I have contributed to the protection of those rights for everybody.

My website is essentially going to be a rewrite. When I get some personal financial matters in order and winter sets in here in Wyoming I plan on working on it. It is well over 100 pages including sidebars.

There was a flurry of new Flight 77 information released and I had a personal trip to DC that produced a lot of insight. Since August I have been testing and processing that information in the LC forums, making diagrams and numerous other things in preparation for the changes. I am now subjecting myself here to the same process in regards to what I believe about other aspects of 9/11. I take my time to work through my beliefs so that when I do major revisions of my site I know what my beliefs are and why I have them. There have been several major revisions of my site.

The thing I perceive you are not understanding about looking for answers the way I do is that I am not a groupie. In the LC forum I am despised for supporting a plane at the Pentagon. Here I am despised for being a CTer. Neither group influences my personal path in terms of dictating my beliefs. I will follow my trail of questions and my personal preferences in terms of methodologies irregardless of personal attack, unfounded accusations and insinuation.

In the end I will have fairly considered all points of view and paid the price to have a well rounded understanding of this event. Will you do the same? Yes - right now my site is out of date. But it is more current and honest than a lot of 9/11 sites.

Since the first thread here ended up in personal attack and a series of classless communications, I guess it is too idealistic to expect this will end differently. The most fascinating aspect of this "skeptics" world to me is the hypocrisy I see. Let me put that in perspective for you as I see it.

You are upset about my website being approximately 4 months out of date. It upsets you and you attack me personally. Let me remind you I am not in charge of anything or a major media outlet. I also do not take the information on my site and invade countries and kill people because of it.

So with that said, lets look at what doesn't upset you while you focus on my website:

GENERAL 9/11

1) That your current administration is full of people who devised a plan for invading the Middle East long before 9/11. That those people published a paper 1 year prior to 9/11 recognizing the benefits of a "new Pearl Harbor" to facilitate the plan. They got their new Pearl Harbor and they are executing that plan to the tee as written. That thousands upon thousands of people have been killed and permanently disabled in the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

2) That the current administration fought the formation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11.

3) That the president and vice president of the United States refused to testify about 9/11 under oath individually with any verbatim account of their testimony.

WTC 7 SPECIFIC

4) WTC 7 wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

5) That the MSM essentially refuses to show the collapse of WTC 7 on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMqPbdti39U

6) That FEMA did not find a cause for the collapse.

7) That NIST is trying to update their conclusion.

8) That 6 and 7 above are now entering their 6th year of explanation or lack thereof.

9) That the building had non symmetrical fires and non symmetrical damage that resulted in a symmetrical collapse as did two other buildings within blocks of each other on the same day. The other two buildings also had non symmetrical damage and fires but also came straight down. The other two buildings were separate incidents with two different plane strikes and fuel and damage variables that concluded in identical visual presentations. Even the Ground Zero ironworkers said, "You couldn't have paid a demolition company to take 'em down straighter." (1:10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOSZ5nVfc8Q

10) That the evidence for all of these was destroyed. WTC 7 was cleaned up first from the neat pile collapsed inward on itself.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

11) That evidence from WTC 7 is still being hidden by the USG from the American people except for releasing it to Popular Mechanics for a media campaign. http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

Popular Mechanics (PM) Well ya know, here again, there’s an interesting issue that you (Goyette) brought up before, we have seen (WTC-7) pictures, actually, they are pictures that are the property of the New York police department and other various governmental agencies, that we were not given permission to disseminate. And that gets back to your original question, I cannot speak for . . .

Goyette KFNX‑AM But you got to see them, Popular Mechanics got to see them. But the average American citizen can’t see them?

PM Correct.

Goyette Well that’s a fine kettle of fish isn’t it?

PM Yeah it certainly is, and that I guess gets back to, ya know, us trying to do our homework and having the authority to see the pictures though what we are allowed to show everyone else, what is chosen to become public domain isn’t necessarily our . . .

Goyette Did you see them?

PM Yes.

Goyette Do we have to kill you now?

PM Let’s hope not.

Goyette Well, I mean, explain it to me. What did you see there that I can’t see?

PM Actually it was pretty much just what was described.

Goyette Well there must be something that would be dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see.

PM I cannot . . ya know, tell you again, why that . . .

Goyette You’re publishers. I mean if anybody’s concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something they’ve done the worst possible thing, they showed it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM Right. And that was done for the purposes of our background research, that we could . . .

Goyette What about my background research? What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn’t know they had different classes of citizens! You can’t tell me it’s because there’s a criminal case because they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM I’m actually not telling you anything . . . I can’t answer that question.

Goyette I know you can’t . . . alright . . . let me go to the phones.

So let's compare my website that is out of date by 4 months to what you find tolerable one more time.

You don't mind a total failure on the part of our government to protect its citizens in the first place prior to 9/11 and on the day of it? You don't mind attempts to prevent investigating 9/11? You don't mind lack of information, hidden information, and a 6 year delay without an explanation for the collapse of WTC 7? You don't mind USG incompetence and perhaps a little government cover up to hide it? And you feel content to defend these people?

But you are upset about my website and my attempts to understand what happened?

I'm no "life coach" but I might recommend a reevaluation of priorities and your strategies to discredit me. It just seems to me you are using different standards when it comes to me.

Russell

Arus808

27th October 2006, 03:14 PM

Personal attacks and insulting CT's truly seems to be the primary means of some people on this site. Sad but true.

so out of the thousands of posts in this forum alone, you "pick" the few hundred as a means to weigh in on how we treat those who try to present theories that have long been discussed over and over again?

Those who persistently subscribe to a theory, despite factual evidence, and post ad nauseum over and over again the same tired lies and claims, will be treated as they are.

If you have anything pertinent to offer, and offer clear reasons why you subscribe to any theory, you will be treated, as I've seen with respect.

However, by your actions here and your replies, to requests that you take the time instead of posting here and searching on youtube for videos, to make corrections to your website, you "toss" those requests aside as if it means nothing; you dont have the time to do so; and "people" can think for themselves. That shows highly of your character, and based on those replies and your unwillingness to make corrections to your website, you show exactly the kind of person you are.

They are not attacking you. They are commenting on your actions and inactions on your part to make corrections to seomthing that is widely used by other conpsiracy theorists to "push" their ideas and opinons, despite you admitting that your website is seriously outdated, contains a lot of misinformation.

Dont you think you should take some responsibility to correct these errors because of the enormity your website is used to prove something?

This was a thread on a WTC 7 video clip.

But since my website has become the topic to personally discredit me, I will address it here.

Its used to guage the kind of person you are showing yourself to be. The fact that you keep outdated information, despite you admitting that you've changed your opinion on events that day (and your website contradicts those changed opinons) you keep your website outdated.

Shouldn't it be your responsibility as a person to either take down the site until you've updated it or put a note that you are working on correcting errors contain within the site, so that users who happen upon it, know that there is factually wrong information there and to not use anything on it to prove anything at all?

The answer to the last question is NO. You are an anonymous critic of somebody else's work. A stranger behind a keyboard. If you want your review of my site to mean anything then please identify yourself and your credentials for all here to see OK? I did.

You do a disservice to the internet community by taking such a stance. that once your website is published, that you have no obligation to "fix it" when errors are pointed out, or that you have changed your opinion.

So what if everyone here is a stranger behind a keyboard. Their message is quite clear. You have stated that you belive one thing now, but your website still promotes and lends outdated information. Their opinions on your site weighs as much as someone who publically states who they are and still says your website has too much errors to be considered useable.

My website is essentially going to be a rewrite. When I get some personal financial matters in order and winter sets in here in Wyoming I plan on working on it. It is well over 100 pages including sidebars.

Funny. You are spending a lot of time now, searching google videos and youtube, but you can't take five minutes to put a note on your top page stating that you are going to fix your site?

There was a flurry of new Flight 77 information released and I had a personal trip to DC that produced a lot of insight. Since August I have been testing and processing that information in the LC forums, making diagrams and numerous other things in preparation for the changes. I am now subjecting myself here to the same process in regards to what I believe about other aspects of 9/11. I take my time to work through my beliefs so that when I do major revisions of my site I know what my beliefs are and why I have them. There have been several major revisions of my site.
Funny. You are spending a lot of time now, searching google videos and youtube, but you can't take five minutes to put a note on your top page stating that you are going to fix your site?

The thing I perceive you are not understanding about looking for answers the way I do is that I am not a groupie. In the LC forum I am despised for supporting a plane at the Pentagon. Here I am despised for being a CTer. Neither group influences my personal path in terms of dictating my beliefs. I will follow my trail of questions and my personal preferences in terms of methodologies irregardless of personal attack, unfounded accusations and insinuation.
Funny. You are spending a lot of time now, searching google videos and youtube, but you can't take five minutes to put a note on your top page stating that you are going to fix your site?

In the end I will have fairly considered all points of view and paid the price to have a well rounded understanding of this event. Will you do the same? Yes - right now my site is out of date. But it is more current and honest than a lot of 9/11 sites.
You could make it more up to date, by taking the hour or so you spend here, by logging into your website, put a note on it stating that you are working to fix errors and take down pages that are wrong factually.

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 03:34 PM

My website is essentially going to be a rewrite. When I get some personal financial matters in order and winter sets in here in Wyoming I plan on working on it. It is well over 100 pages including sidebars.

What is so long to post a warning on your home page?

Don't you feel it would be the respectful thing to do, to all the people who died on flight 77 and at the Pentagon. Don't you feel that you at least owe that to them?

There have been several major revisions of my site.

Keep going.

I will follow my trail of questions and my personal preferences in terms of methodologies irregardless of personal attack, unfounded accusations and insinuation.

Please do continue your investigation, but at least take note of what we say, so far you seem to keep repeating your opinion regardless of our questions.

Maybe they are computing in your brain, but your replies don't show it, except your "thanks for your thoughts".

1) That your current administration is full of people who devised a plan for invading the Middle East long before 9/11.

True. Take that to the politics subforum.

2) That the current administration fought the formation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11.

Nobody is disputing that.

3) That the president and vice president of the United States refused to testify about 9/11 under oath individually with any verbatim account of their testimony.

Nobody is disputing that, it is a genuine concern.

4) WTC 7 wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The 9/11 commission report focused its attention on the attacks, WTC7 is relatively peripherical to that. Besides, nobody died, it is a relatively unimportant event in regards to the entire 9/11 day. Only people with a confirmation bias see it as disconcerning and suspicious.

5) That the MSM essentially refuses to show the collapse of WTC 7 on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMqPbdti39U

I don't know what you are talking about here, I'll look at it later.

6) That FEMA did not find a cause for the collapse.

It wasn't their primary job. The NIST is studying it right now.

7) That NIST is trying to update their conclusion.

Yes. Let's wait for their final report, shall we?

8) That 6 and 7 above are now entering their 6th year of explanation or lack thereof.

Well, the NIST had to study the WTC 1 and 2 collapses first, that took time. Now they are concentrating on WTC7. What more do you want? These things take time.

9) That the building had non symmetrical fires and non symmetrical damage that resulted in a symmetrical collapse as did two other buildings within blocks of each other on the same day.

Show me how you got to that conclusion.

10) That the evidence for all of these was destroyed. WTC 7 was cleaned up first from the neat pile collapsed inward on itself.

Show me your evidence of that. Now you are accusing people of a crime.

Show me your evidence that people hid any evidence.

11) That evidence from WTC 7 is still being hidden by the USG from the American people except for releasing it to Popular Mechanics for a media campaign. http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

I'll look at your link some other time, but I don't see how this could be true. Are you now accusing Popular Mechanics of being complicit of something?

You don't mind a total failure on the part of our government to protect its citizens in the first place prior to 9/11 and on the day of it?

Yes I do, but it's not my government.

You don't mind attempts to prevent investigating 9/11?

Yes I do.

You don't mind lack of information, hidden information, and a 6 year delay without an explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?

I don't think it's an unreasonable delay, and I have seen no substancial proof of deliberate and unlawful hiding of information concerning WTC7.

Let's wait for the final report, shall we?

You don't mind USG incompetence and perhaps a little government cover up to hide it? And you feel content to defend these people?

I am not defending these people, and they are accountable for covering up their asses. If you want my opinion on this, I hope history will judge them accordingly, and severely.

But you are upset about my website and my attempts to understand what happened?

It's not that I am upset that you are trying to find out things for yourself, I think it's commendable. But you can't accuse people of mass murder without solid proof. Your website, even according to you, is erronous. If you had any intellectual honesty (I'm not accusing you, but I'm just asking you to think about it) you should at the very least post a warning on the home page.

I'm no "life coach" but I might recommend a reevaluation of priorities and your strategies to discredit me. It just seems to me you are using different standards when it comes to me.

OK. Let me apologize for trying to discredit you, but on this issue, I think there should be somekind of moral accountability for what people post on websites. Your website isn't a funny carefree website about little bunnies. It's now willingly posting misinformation about a tragic event that led to the death and suffering of countless people, including the innocent lives of the Iraqis today. If you want to criticize Bush's policies and lies about Iraq, please do so. But don't encourage even more lies. If Bush and his ilk lied or mislead the world into the war in Iraq that doesn't give you the right to do the same, for your own political agenda.

Jocelyn Bonnier

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 03:51 PM

Here is a new disclaimer posted on the front page of my site:

"UPDATE COMING - This website as it currently exists is approximately 5 months out of date. There are factual errors here I am aware of. There has been a flurry of data (NTSB) and video released (non conclusive) and I have had a trip to DC for personal investigation in August. It is taking me time to formulate my new opinions about Flight 77, create graphics and test the ideas before presenting them here. I am planning a significant revision within 60 days.

The trip to DC produced significant evidence for an aircraft performing the maneuvers that it was claimed to have. Other evidence combined with this has led me to conclude that an impact did occur. It does not change my position that I don't believe Hani Hanjour was in control of it. It has not changed my overall opinion that 9/11 was at the very least allowed and facilitated by small elements within the U.S. government. In fact, I have found more evidence for that.

Despite my new opinions, I still intend to keep this a site where ideas/possibilities will be expressed side by side for you to compare for yourself. I do not want to push one idea.

I apologize for the delay and the inconvenience. Please read not to "accept or reject but to weigh and consider" in the words of my grandfather. I trust that each of you is intelligent and looks at all ideas on a topic such as this. I don't know of a Pentagon site right now that is current on the new data to refer you to for the updates I mention or I would. If you are concerned about any particular fact, please contact me for clarification from the about page.

Thank you,
Russell Pickering
10-27-06"

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

Due to the information I have received as a result of looking into things here, I will also be adding new pages on the Towers (firefighter quotes from the oral histories) and WTC 7 (hidden information and inconclusive investigation pending 6 years later) to let readers understand the "missing information" and anomalies that exist on those topics in greater detail.

In the end everybody should benefit. Thanks for the ideas and inspiration!

Russell

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 03:53 PM

Here is a new disclaimer posted on the front page of my site:

Sincerely, well done.

:)

ETA: My apologies for my tone earlier, 9/11 is indeed an emotional subject.

T.A.M.

27th October 2006, 04:04 PM

Russ:

Two main type of people will likely show up and lurk on this site. Those who have done, or want to do their own research, and those who want to know more, but would like someone to assist or guide them.

I personally, come here and post for the latter. If someone comes here and wants to do their own research, I will point them to some good sources. If they want the "5 minute version" of what evidence there is or is not on a particularly contraversial element of 9/11, than I will show them what I know.

TAM

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 04:21 PM

OK back on topic.

You think both videos are of the same time frame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/October2006/261006Explosions.htm

I am making no conclusions. Just posting for discussion.

Russell

How can you ascertain this? There are no time codes.

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 04:31 PM

[1] Show me your evidence that people hid any evidence.

[2] I'll look at your link some other time, but I don't see how this could be true. Are you now accusing Popular Mechanics of being complicit of something?

[3] But you can't accuse people of mass murder without solid proof.

[4] OK. Let me apologize for trying to discredit you, but on this issue, I think there should be somekind of moral accountability for what people post on websites.

[5] Take that to the politics subforum.

[6] Me - "That the building had non symmetrical fires and non symmetrical damage that resulted in a symmetrical collapse as did two other buildings within blocks of each other on the same day."

You - "Show me how you got to that conclusion."

Jocelyn,

I will address you by your name since you stepped up to the plate. Thank you!

Do take a minute to look at the links I provided. I'll address a couple here real quick.

1 - Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief:

"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

"Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything."
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

2 - It is a radio show with the editor of PM. He admits the government is suppressing photographic evidence about WTC 7 from the American people, and really the world if you're not in the states. If, as you mentioned, "WTC7 is relatively peripherical to that. Besides, nobody died, it is a relatively unimportant event in regards to the entire 9/11 day" I would ask why?
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

3 - My opinions and beliefs are not accusations. Murder is a harsh word I agree, but I just did a complete search of my site and did not find the word used. I do believe that many, many innocent people are dead because of this administration. You define it. My opinions and beliefs are based on a precedent in Operation Northwoods. Despite what some people say about it just being "property damage" if you understand the layers and options in the plan, murder was on the table.
http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronomega/

4 - See above post.

5 - I did not bring up politics. I was accused of this, "When you cloud your mind with biased political ideas.....". I responded factually as to why I don't believe my mind is clouded.

6 - It is true that the fires and the damage to the 3 buildings were not universally distributed. Yet they fell straight down. That is obvious in WTC 7. Then you can see in the top of the South tower at first the collapse was inclined towards one side yet the rest of the building came straight down under it? One iron worker plainly said, ""You couldn't have paid a demolition company to take 'em down straighter." (1:10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOSZ5nVfc8Q

I don't know how else to say it.

Thank you for your previous post!

Russell

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 04:34 PM

OK back on topic.

You think both videos are of the same time frame.

How can you ascertain this? There are no time codes.

Pardalis,

I was incorrect about that and retracted here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2044048&postcount=62

It does help to read the thread ;) .

Russell

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 04:37 PM

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 05:27 PM

I will address you by your name since you stepped up to the plate.

Actually, I prefer pardalis, my name sounds female in English.

1 - Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief:

"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

bolding mine

Does he suggest foul play or cover up?

If, as you mentioned, "WTC7 is relatively peripherical to that. Besides, nobody died, it is a relatively unimportant event in regards to the entire 9/11 day" I would ask why?

I was answering your concern that FEMA didn't concentrate its attention enough on the WTC7 collapse. In comparison to the other events of 9/11, WTC7 is not that important. Their priority was to investigate the terrorist attacks.

My opinions and beliefs are based on a precedent in Operation Northwoods.

Why do you keep referring to Norwoods? You can't blame the US government of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks based on an idea they didn't even endorse 50 years ago.

It's meaningless.

Despite what some people say about it just being "property damage" if you understand the layers and options in the plan, murder was on the table.

What are you talking about? Are you talking about WTC7?

:confused:

I did not bring up politics.

Yes you did, you're the one who brought up Iraq.

6 - It is true that the fires and the damage to the 3 buildings were not universally distributed.

I'm sorry, but I doubt your technical expertise to make such a claim.

I have no structural engeneering knowledge, zip. This is why I await NIST's final report on WTC7.

Pardalis

27th October 2006, 05:29 PM

Pardalis,

I was incorrect about that and retracted here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2044048&postcount=62

It does help to read the thread ;) .

Russell

Oh, so you acknowledge that there is no way for us to determine that these "explosions" were the exact same explosion?

Belz...

27th October 2006, 05:56 PM

I know you worry about the lurkers getting deceived and want them to follow the truth as you see it.

Sorry, there is no such animal.

I trust that they have their own minds and are capable of sorting things out for themselves without your guidance.

No thanks to you, I'm sure.

Personal attacks and insulting CT's truly seems to be the primary means of some people on this site. Sad but true.

I try to throw as many of them as I could among the evidence and logical argument. Like pepper and salt, they make things more fun.

But since my website has become the topic to personally discredit me

You've done a fine job of doing that, yourself.

I remind you that I have a website to try and understand this and have put the time into it to offer what I have learned.

So you just decided to stop updating it when you realised it was a lie ? That's very hypocritical of you.

If you want your review of my site to mean anything then please identify yourself and your credentials for all here to see OK?

I'm not sure his credentials are going to make your website any less or more BS than it already is. Do you ?

As far as my personal political opinions and my right to have whatever website I want to have goes, I would remind you this is America.

Actually, this is the world. You're right, though. You can say any lie you want. But when you are looking for the truth and you find out said lie IS a lie, isn't it your duty, as a citizen, to see to it that the people you sought to inform are ALSO informed of that fact ? Don't you want to do the honest thing ?

My website is essentially going to be a rewrite. When I get some personal financial matters in order and winter sets in here in Wyoming I plan on working on it.

So take it offline in the mean time. That probably takes less than the time it took you to write that post.

The thing I perceive you are not understanding about looking for answers the way I do is that I am not a groupie. In the LC forum I am despised for supporting a plane at the Pentagon. Here I am despised for being a CTer.

Just a note: Belz... will never despise you for the groups you belong to. Only your own actions, or inactions. And they speak loudly, indeed.

Belz...

27th October 2006, 06:00 PM

Here is a new disclaimer posted on the front page of my site:

Well, that's much better. You just went up a notch.

<Belz... takes notes>

Belz...

27th October 2006, 06:02 PM

Actually, I prefer pardalis, my name sounds female in English.

I'll stick with Belz...

Everybody, everywhere, knows me as Belz..., so it's not like it's anonymous.

jessicarabbit

27th October 2006, 06:31 PM

On building 7, I have just seen an interview with a NYPD Officer. The bit about building 7 is interesting. Can't post the link but put Craig Bartmer into google video

Enlightenment

27th October 2006, 06:36 PM

It's a shame that after our government pulled off the most complex scheme ever to attack their own citizens, they never planned on being discovered by savy internet investigators with too much time on their hands. FOOLS! IT ALMOST WORKED!

gumboot

27th October 2006, 06:51 PM

It doesn't appear to have all of the preceding explosions as in some demos. Remember the high speed photography here "slows" it down. It sounds like one explosion from the outside coming from the basement and the building settles straight down.

(Above in Ref to Norway demolition)

This demolition clearly has multiple explosions, they are simply set off close together.

I'm not sure what you mean by "high speed photography" here. Are you suggesting this recorded at a high frame rate? (i.e. slow motion).

Because it wasn't. It's a video camera. It is real time.

-Gumboot

twinstead

27th October 2006, 07:55 PM

T.A.M.

27th October 2006, 08:54 PM

Jessica and Enlightenment, welcome to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. You will find that here, all opinions are tolerated, if not accepted. If you bring up a point of contraversy, be prepared to defend it with evidence, real evidence, or your opinions will be taken as just that...opinion, and nothing more.

TAM ( unofficial welcoming party ):)

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 09:53 PM

Oh, so you acknowledge that there is no way for us to determine that these "explosions" were the exact same explosion?

I believe it was proven they are NOT the same event because of the shadows.

Do you read all of these posts before you speak?

beachnut

27th October 2006, 10:03 PM

(Above in Ref to Norway demolition)

This demolition clearly has multiple explosions, they are simply set off close together.

I'm not sure what you mean by "high speed photography" here. Are you suggesting this recorded at a high frame rate? (i.e. slow motion).

Because it wasn't. It's a video camera. It is real time.

-Gumboot

agree, a set of explosions on the Norway

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2024862568112882772&q=oslo+phillips&hl=en

who has perfect ears?

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 10:07 PM

Interesting new testimony on WTC 7 by a former NYPD officer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&q=Craig+Bartmer&hl=en

Russell Pickering

27th October 2006, 10:09 PM

agree, a set of explosions on the Norway

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2024862568112882772&q=oslo+phillips&hl=en

who has perfect ears?

My point exactly. It was a set of multiple explosions. Some of those det cords travel 27,000 feet per second.

It could sound like one explosion.

Usual Suspect

27th October 2006, 10:09 PM

WTC7 Witness Craig Bartmer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en-GB)

T.A.M.

28th October 2006, 06:20 AM

Landmark Tower Controlled Demolition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yK9XLRb1u8)

Russell Pickering

28th October 2006, 07:22 PM

Philips Building in Oslo, Norway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW8FOPRLc9k

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2024862568112882772&q=philips+oslo&hl=en

Side by side with WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XaHTI9vg4A

rwguinn

28th October 2006, 07:41 PM

Oh, so you acknowledge that there is no way for us to determine that these "explosions" were the exact same explosion?

That's what he said.

Gravy

28th October 2006, 08:28 PM

Interesting new testimony on WTC 7 by a former NYPD officer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&q=Craig+Bartmer&hl=en

Here's what Bartmer actually says:

I don't know, but that didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did.

Russell, do you know when he started expressing his doubts about WTC 7?

Also, I see that you keep posting videos of controlled demolitions. I guess you think your method of finding out what happened to WTC 7 is better than the observations and investigations of experts. Oh, well.

But since you brought it up, can you please post a video of a CD of a building that's been on fire for seven hours? Thanks.

jessicarabbit

28th October 2006, 08:33 PM

Here's what Bartmer actually says:

Russell, do you know when he started expressing his doubts about WTC 7?

Also, I see that you keep posting videos of controlled demolitions. I guess you think your method of finding out what happened to WTC 7 is better than the observations and investigations of experts. Oh, well.

But since you brought it up, can you please post a video of a CD of a building that's been on fire for seven hours? Thanks.

Bartmer also says

It didn't just sound like a building falling down. I know what an explosion sounds like

beachnut

28th October 2006, 08:36 PM

Bartmer also says

does this mean you are not going to wrap up your questions and post on the other thread?

Other than that, Bartmer said a lot of things, most of it was standard CT ideas.

jessicarabbit

28th October 2006, 08:39 PM

does this mean you are not going to wrap up your questions and post on the other thread?

Other than that, Bartmer said a lot of things, most of it was standard CT ideas.

I'm waiting on the email from Fox news. Thats the main thing to wrap up in the other thread. I looked at the rules and it does not say posting on 2 threads is a rule violation. You are doing it too

beachnut

28th October 2006, 08:40 PM

I'm waiting on the email from Fox news. Thats the main thing to wrap up in the other thread. I looked at the rules and it does not say posting on 2 threads is a rule violation. You are doing it too

The Fox thing is not even related to the thread you started.

jessicarabbit

28th October 2006, 08:42 PM

The Fox thing is not even related to the thread you started.

Number of threads I have started: 0

beachnut

28th October 2006, 08:44 PM

Number of threads I have started: 0

i thought US said he started it for you

Russell Pickering

28th October 2006, 09:06 PM

Here's what Bartmer actually says:

"I don't know, but that didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did."

[1] Russell, do you know when he started expressing his doubts about WTC 7?

[2] Also, I see that you keep posting videos of controlled demolitions. I guess you think your method of finding out what happened to WTC 7 is better than the observations and investigations of experts. Oh, well.

[3] But since you brought it up, can you please post a video of a CD of a building that's been on fire for seven hours? Thanks.

Gravy,

I am assuming you did not listen to the whole interview from the quote you posted. Please go to 10:45 into it for the rest. The dashes in the following bolded quote are indicative of non essential content.

After the quote you posted above he went on to say that there should be others to come forward and that he didn't understand the fear.

Here is the quote starting at 10:45 through 12:18.

".....just a little bit after 5:00 - walked around it - saw a hole - I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though - there was definitely fire in the building - I didn't hear any creaking - I didn't hear any indication it was gonna come down - the thing started peeling in on itself - the whole time you were hearing, "thum, thum, thum, thum, thum" - I think I know the sound of an explosion when I hear it."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&q=Craig+Bartmer&hl=en

1) His story about watching Loose Change for the first time is at 23:50.

2) If you look above it you will see where a poster put up a video of a CD that didn't look like WTC 7 as evidence. I posted one that did look like WTC 7 in response.

3) http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc-7-small.gif

Russell

Kent1

28th October 2006, 11:11 PM

Gravy,

I am assuming you did not listen to the whole interview from the quote you posted. Please go to 10:45 into it for the rest. The dashes in the following bolded quote are indicative of non essential content.

After the quote you posted above he went on to say that there should be others to come forward and that he didn't understand the fear.

Here is the quote starting at 10:45 through 12:18.

".....just a little bit after 5:00 - walked around it - saw a hole - I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though - there was definitely fire in the building - I didn't hear any creaking - I didn't hear any indication it was gonna come down - the thing started peeling in on itself - the whole time you were hearing, "thum, thum, thum, thum, thum" - I think I know the sound of an explosion when I hear it."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&q=Craig+Bartmer&hl=en

1) His story about watching Loose Change for the first time is at 23:50.

2) If you look above it you will see where a poster put up a video of a CD that didn't look like WTC 7 as evidence. I posted one that did look like WTC 7 in response.

3) http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc-7-small.gif

Russell

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Russell Pickering

28th October 2006, 11:14 PM

I consider both fairly.

Oliver

29th October 2006, 06:07 AM

On building 7, I have just seen an interview with a NYPD Officer. The bit about building 7 is interesting. Can't post the link but put Craig Bartmer into google video

Did you refer to this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en-GB

Belz...

29th October 2006, 09:24 AM

Number of threads I have started: 0

Well, well. What do we have, here ? ANOTHER nut ?

Gosh, I'm going to have to make a database.

Belz...

29th October 2006, 09:26 AM

3) http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc-7-small.gif

Russell

So the building fell down.

Why is no expert surprised at this ?

Why did the firefighters establish a perimeter around the building hours before it collapsed ?

Housefly

29th October 2006, 01:17 PM

DERAILING IN PROGRESS.we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after thatI don't suppose someone could address this? I've heard that interview repeated a couple of times and it's the closest thing the CTs have to compelling evidence, in that it does sound a bit like a controlled demolition from what little I know and have seen.

Then again, it's people like me, who don't know anything, who are most likely to be swayed by this conspiracy stuff. So is there a definitve answer to what caused the effect described above, or is this one of those "lots of things it might have been" things? I can sort of imagine that if steel supports buckle the floor they're supporting goes down with them, and the pressure of that could shatter windows like nobody's business. But I know even less about buildings than Dylan Avery.

If this specific interview has been tackled exhaustively and I missed it(very possible in the thousands of 9/11 pages round here), sorry. But I'm just asking questions! I've seen conspiracy theorists, and I don't want to be one.

DERAILING COMPLETE.

Kent1

29th October 2006, 01:37 PM

DERAILING IN PROGRESS.I don't suppose someone could address this? I've heard that interview repeated a couple of times and it's the closest thing the CTs have to compelling evidence, in that it does sound a bit like a controlled demolition from what little I know and have seen.

Then again, it's people like me, who don't know anything, who are most likely to be swayed by this conspiracy stuff. So is there a definitve answer to what caused the effect described above, or is this one of those "lots of things it might have been" things? I can sort of imagine that if steel supports buckle the floor they're supporting goes down with them, and the pressure of that could shatter windows like nobody's business. But I know even less about buildings than Dylan Avery.

If this specific interview has been tackled exhaustively and I missed it(very possible in the thousands of 9/11 pages round here), sorry. But I'm just asking questions! I've seen conspiracy theorists, and I don't want to be one.

DERAILING COMPLETE.

I'd be happy to address this. It sounds like he is describing the vertical progresive collapse below the east penthouse.

When the failure occured below the 13th floor it caused the floors to pancake down. The occured below the east penthouse.
Then the east penthouse proceeded to fall into the building causing massive damage inside the building. During this process various windows were breaking. The debris from this collapse caused further massive throughout the building. Then the outer frame of the building collapsed.
I would also suggest looking at page 23 and 26 for window breakage.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Gravy

29th October 2006, 01:44 PM

DERAILING IN PROGRESS.I don't suppose someone could address this? I've heard that interview repeated a couple of times and it's the closest thing the CTs have to compelling evidence, in that it does sound a bit like a controlled demolition from what little I know and have seen.

Then again, it's people like me, who don't know anything, who are most likely to be swayed by this conspiracy stuff. So is there a definitve answer to what caused the effect described above, or is this one of those "lots of things it might have been" things? I can sort of imagine that if steel supports buckle the floor they're supporting goes down with them, and the pressure of that could shatter windows like nobody's business. But I know even less about buildings than Dylan Avery.

If this specific interview has been tackled exhaustively and I missed it(very possible in the thousands of 9/11 pages round here), sorry. But I'm just asking questions! I've seen conspiracy theorists, and I don't want to be one.

DERAILING COMPLETE.This has been addressed here, but it bears repeating.

First, what would you expect to hear when a 600-foot tall building collapses? Those who claim surprise at what was heard are somehow never able to explain what they think should have been heard.

Next, when structural steel fails, it is makes a lot of noise.

Next, descriptions of events like this vary widely.

Finally, experts who observed the collapses from nearby did not see or hear anything consistent with demolitions charges. Brent Blanchard of Protec:

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went." http://tinyurl.com/m5kf5