You probably heard about this, yet I didn't find a thread about it. Somebody found the archives of BBC and found a live news broadcasting on the day of 9/11 2001.

In this broadcast, the female reporter was in the city at the time, and while they were announcing the collapse you could clearly see the 7 building right behind her. Only 5 minutes after they finish does it actually collapse. 5 minutes after!!! And this was all live.

Some people say BBC predicted it. Well... how could they predict a steel building collapse due to fire? No building in history collapsed due to fire. There's the steel building in Madrid that burned for so long (a lot longer than the twin towers). And second, the 7 building was set up in a controlled demolition. Nobody died in the building, because nobody was in there.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html (madrid building)

here's the video of the BBC screw-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7bRmHm0Obo

I want to know other people's input on this. But the only way BBC would have gotten the news was from the U.S. Government. They received the warning beforehand or they just out of the random predicted that it would happen (which is really impossible).

Here's an article that raised the similar questions I had.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...bbcresponds.htm

And Alex Jones takes the news right from the press and has no media making his news biased.

My gosh, this is the second time I've seen this in as many days. Again, its from the same site that spews out bull crap on income tax laws not being legal. These people can't read the constitution or a basic book on structural engineering.

This isn't US News, in fact, its not news at all. I'll move it to Potpourri.

How could they predict it? The very same way that the entire city of New York could predict it if they had any base knowledge of structural engineering, heres something from my post "9/11 was not a conspiracy"


14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

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;
  
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
  
• Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

---

And here is more:


"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

---

And yet more:


WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

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

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

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

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

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

---

And just like Maddox (yes, a comedian, but he still makes a good point) says in his bit, "There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons," in addition to claiming that in addition to the thousands of FBI agents, firefighters, demolitions experts, scientists, CIA workers, rescue personal, police, airline pilots, NSA, a majority of the US House of Representatives, air traffic control, upper level military officials, and the entire Bush administration keeping a secret, you are also claiming that a few hundred of the press are in on it.

Simple as that.

The "kink" in the middle of the building was done specially for a proportionate collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

When i watch this video over and over. I don't see a "disproportionate collapse"... to me this collapse is similar to that of this, controlled and proportional:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

But the question is still not answered. How did BBC get the news that WTC 7 was going to collapse and announce it before it collapsed? The press is in on it of course, the media gets payed to make up conspiracy theories and have people believe in them.

Why doesn't the 9/11 commission include the WTC 7 in it?

Same old arguments-

The same way that CNN got it. Also, the same way that the Fire Department knew to evacuate the building, simple logic and understanding of structural engineering.

So, first you don't understand basic building design, now through a grainy video you're a demolitions expert? 39 seconds of youtube footage can really outweigh expert analysis and understanding of metal fatigue, steel reinforcement, engineering, and other such things?
No, it can't.

The NIST did investigate it, along with the Twin Towers. On all counts, they found that:

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  
• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Facts win. Grainy Youtube videos don't.

---

If you'd actually read the other links I provided, and then realize that the collapse of the WTC 7 was known well in advance due to the fact that people know things like...... jet fuel burns and the like, then you'd see that the whole thing you started this thread on is a joke, an attempt to prove something that simply isn't true.

I don't have to fully understand the basics of constructions. If an article suggests that the building fell diagonally and in the actually footage of the collapse the building CLEARLY collapses perpendicular to the ground, one would question the article.

I don't just look at youtube videos and make conclusions right off the bat. In these cases, knowledge of Physics and science is useful. I found out that this substance called thermite exceeds well above the melting point of steel, and is used in controlled demolitions. The towers (including the 7 building) fell at free fall speed. How would you explain the free fall speed then? It's common knowledge that they fell at nearly free fall speed.

Here's a study that was done on the 7 building
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_coll...examination.pdf

here's another one
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/wtc7.pdf

I can find more sources on this if you want.

Only a controlled demolition can cause a building to collapse like that...

And around and around we go. I'm done with this topic, you can just read the links I gave you, because thats what I'll be quoting the entire time. I suggest you read it all the way through, because your point is addressed.

And I'm out.

NIST is a government agency. It still can't explain the collapse of the building. Yes I did read the links you gave me. the laws of physics contradict the official reports. You can quote the NIST but it'll be pointless.

And your site is a site that is full of crap on almost every single topic on there.

But yeah, Snopes and Popular Mechanics are also "evil government."

Laws of physics? What laws of physics are being broken?

Also what is the big deal with the kink?

What time did WTC 7 fall?

a steel building cannot collapse at free-fall speed unless it's a controlled demolition destruction. I don't know how else to say it, i mean it's common sense. Physics professors already spoke about about this. Physics plays a huge role on this, are you kidding me? I don't know how in the world you could be reading articles that go against the free-fall facts and believe the articles.

I read the NIST articles and all the stuff if bullspit. It doesn't explain the free-fall collapse, because it's afraid to admit that it was a free-fall collapse.

Science cannot be denied. Free fall is free fall and will always be free fall. The calculations prove it.

So you're gonna ignore my other questions?

well according to the FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm Eastern Time

the "kink" is done specifically to have the two sides collapse in on each other. That's why in the videos (every video from every single angle) you'll see there was no sign of "disproportionate collapse".... It's how controlled demolitions work. It's called an "implosion"

http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

The first question I addressed already... about the free-fall speed. That's the scientific law that's being broken.

[/QUOTE]

I know what an implosion is. I seen them countless times on TV. I've witnessed 3 personally. I don't get how you can confuse that with an actually implosion. The building shifts to the right as it falls in the video. It's hard to gauge how far to the right it shifted, but regardless it shifted away from the center. Not exactly a characteristic of an implosion now is it?

The idea that these buildings fell at free-fall speed breaks the laws of physics.

Ok... this is funny to me. One video is viewed by two people. I see one thing, and you see a different thing. The WTC 7 building did not lean anywhere. It only leaned towards the center in order to collapse in its footprint, hence the term "implosion."

I think you're confusing the 7 building with the world trade center 1 and 2 buildings, because the 7 building clearly did not lean anywhere. I've watched numerous videos from every angle on the 7 building and i cannot see it lean anywhere...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZWF7N1ztWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

in the 2nd video the 7 building only leans at the very very end of the collapse, not at the start. But the collapse is still similar to that of a controlled demolition. You can't really deny that it was a controlled demolition. The implosion is seen at the start, that's what the whole "kink" is about.

Well of course it does. Controlled Demolitions made it possible though, to collapse at free fall speed.

It shifted to the right. When you watch the video look at the outline of the building compared to the buildings in front of it.

Except it didn't.

The 'kink' doesn't mean shit.

And I'll tell you why.

After the initial drop of the middle(The kink) the building then collapse down to the ground at the same speed as the "kink". Also even with said kink the building didn't collapse inwards on itself. It dropped to the ground(with a small shift to the right).

Really because when you compare the 'free fall speed' vs how long it took to collapse you realize that if they did fall at 'free fall speed' they would have travel twice as far in the amount of time it took to collapse.

Not only that but video and photos show pieces of the building and the dust cloud traveling faster than the building itself.


But to honest I know this won't convince you because you've already conviced yourself. You claim to have science on your side but...I've seen it debunked numerous times already. I've seen the calculations myself and I even ran a few of them to be sure.

well I used to believe the same thing the NIST is talking about right now. I used to think that the planes were the cause of the building collapses. But after watching and reading a different perspective on it, and doing quite a bit of research, I chose a view that made more sense to me.

I did calculations using the Physics formulas that are in my reference table. I compared the time of an object (any object that has a good mass, like an apple or a golf ball, etc.) to fall 174 meters, which is the height of the 7 building.

now this is simple formula i used distance=.5x(gravity)x(time squared)

you most likely know this already... which makes it even more interesting...

Now the building took 6.5 seconds to collapse. If you plug in the distance and gravity in that formula 174=.5x(9.81m/s (squared))x(time squared) You will get 5.9 seconds...

6.5 and 5.9 are really close... Less than a second apart. The building fell nearly at free fall speed. There's the scientifical fact. NIST denies this for some apparent reason. There's really nothing much I can say. I've convinced myself using formulas and not NIST conspiracy theories.

Please don't spam this topic, valjean24601. If someone doesn't instantly reply to you, it might be for any number of reasons.

For example mine:
Talking to a wall is more productive


Yeah, don't insult the staff

Except the actual collapse started 6 seconds before the building actually falls to the ground.

I just found an interesting bit of information that you (probably on purpose) left out.

The mechanical penthouse on the roof of WTC7 had collapsed into building 6 seconds before you even see that 'kink'. That makes the 'real' collapse time around 12 seconds.

well the penthouse adds more height, so if you add height it'll take more time to collapse down.

But it took 6.5 seconds for the roof to get to the ground (excluding the penthouse).

And then another thing, if the penthouse collapsed into the building, wouldn't that contradict NIST's theory of the whole front of the building collapsed due to fire, eventhough no building in history collapsed due to fire?

One more thing. Here is another video that contradicts the whole conspiracy theory of a steel building collapsing due to fire...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

The height of the penthouse isn't gonna add 6 seconds.

After the internal structure had already started failing 6 seconds beforehand.

What exactly are you comparing the WTC7 collapse to?

penthouse or not, the building fell at free fall speed. I know about the penthouse collapsing. I see it in the video, but it didn't affect the building to collapse at free-fall speed. I had a conversation with my Physics teacher a couple of days ago and he said all three buildings collapsed at nearly free-fall speed.

I compared the 7 building to the building in Madrid. the Madrid Building burned on fire for a lot longer than the 7 building, but the building in Madrid did not collapse at all. The steel frames were still there, yet everything inside was burnt. You can go read articles about the Madrid building, and see some videos that the news captured.

...
...
You're kidding, right?

You're not seriously saying that the buildings internal structure failing 6 seconds before the rest of the building collapses has nothing to do with the speed in which it fell right?

I mean really. Why wouldn't the building fall at near free fall speed if most of it's internal structure had already collapsed before it?

You're comparing a building that had an electrical fire that started roughly 3 quarters up the building to a building that not only suffered structural damage(mostly at it's base) but probably also had it's fires around the base. While we're at it let's also mention that the madrid building would still have the fucking insulation around it's steel while WTC7 would likely have a portion of it ripped off by the falling debris.

When you compare things like this aren't the circumstances supposed to be similar?


Frankly though, I'm tired of this nonsense. I can't take you seriously if you're just gonna leave facts out of your reasoning and offer comparisons that quite frankly aren't comparisons at all.

What are you suggesting here then?

I'm making a clear comparison. The steel frames burned in both buildings. Madrid for 15 hours, and the WTC 7 for 7 hours. The only difference is that the 7 building collapsed at nearly free fall speed and the Madrid building stayed put.

He's suggesting that once the internal structure goes, there's nothing really left to counter gravity - free fall is the natural result. And I don't know anything about the Madrid fire, but there are almost certainly different circumstances (different burning material, different steel purity, etc...).

The reason you get a near free fall speed is because the internal structures had already started collapsing. There's gonna be less resistance.

Careful how you compare things. It just might come back and bite you in the ass. Like so.

The top 6 floors of the Madrid Skyscraper did collapse. Considering that's around where the fire started that sounds about right. Where did WTC7's fires start again?

Ok... I understand. The only question is... what caused the internal structures to start collapsing?

Windsor Building in Madrid did have a collapse of the top floors. But the little house at the top (penthouse?) stayed. The core of the Madrid Building stayed too.

The fires in the 7 building were at the bottom floors. But if you look at the way the 7 building was built, it was well planned out and constructed. The fire was not nearly hot enough to melt it. And I have question. If the fire indeed melted the steel, the building would not collapse, it would start "sagging" and the metal would start getting slowly bent out of shape. Right? Instead, the building collapsed in its footprint...

But it's already established you don't have to have melted steel for the building to collapse.


Also if it was a controlled demolition then there are quetions that need to be answered. Like...

Why wasn't there a neat pile of rubble like in normal implosions? Debris had scattered in the streets.

Why did it damage the buildings next to it? The building didn't fall inwards on itself.

Why can't Rosie O'Donnell just shut the hell up? I mean really...

Oh really... then how come the building fell in its footprint?

then what caused the collapse? If the fire is not at a hot enough temperature to melt the steel, what caused the collapse?

The reason why i bring up the 7 building is because many people thought that only 2 buildings collapsed on that day, i'm serious about this. I myself didn't know that a 3rd building collapsed until i started researching this shit.

Did you know that molten metal was found in the basements of all 3 towers even though jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel?

There are so many questions that have not been answered by the official report.

Like here's a good question, why was building 7 brought brought down with nobody inside it, with no deaths in it? The 7 building was a home to so many departments and organizations. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, admitted that the building needed to be pulled. But... guess what happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs Boom!

Before the collapse of the 7 building, police told people to leave the area around the 7 building.

There's a video showing the rescue workers saying "keep your eye on that building it's gonna come down" clearly before it went down. How do you explain that? And all of this is about the 7 building.

I think Rosie O'Donnell is never going to shut up, because she woke up and now she just can't stop. You know how dangerous she is to the government now? She knows that she will be fired and she's ready for that.

According to Zogby, 42% of Americans think there is some kind of cover-up regarding the government and 9/11

http://www.tulsatruth.org/files/Zogby_Poll.pdf

Not the most accurate poll. The number is closer to 25%, and thats the most accurate poll any creditable polling agency will give you.

But yeah, that, and 35% still think Bush is doing a good job, whats your point?

Holy crap man, if you'd read the facts I gave so many days ago, this is all covered in it

How about the fact that steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C? How about the fact that the collapse of that building for all the points given by Kevin could be predicted (because its a whole different building from the Madrid fire) so they evacuated.

I mean gosh man, are you seriously saying that nothing posted in this topic has an ounce of chance of getting through to you? All it is is going in big circles, and if you want to preach, and do really discuss (and discuss does, in fact, mean that you take previous posts into account).

This thread will now serve as a big thread about 9/11 Conspiracy things. I don't want this stuff cluttering up the US NEWS section, which is about the current political culture in the united states, not that the BBC reported foreseeable things early, or that people like to believe anything. Please focus all your posts into this thread.

-Thank you

Because it didn't. Photos taken right after the collapse show a different story then the one you're telling.

I just said why.

Was the molten metal in the basement steel?

Ah hell, it doesn't matter anyway. A controlled demolition doesn't melt steel either so you're only shooting yourself in the foot with this.

Well I'm pretty sure that after the planes hit the towers they would evacuate the area around the towers.

The firefighters were saying that building was gonna come down right after it got hit with debris. It's not some big secret here. I mean these guys are rescue workers they should know.

Rosie just doesn't think before she speaks.

Alex Jones predicted that the September 11th attacks would occur on that day 2 months before it happened. You can research the archives for yourself if you want on his website that i linked a couple of times (the website you call biased)..

He said specifically that these things are going to happen and that the public should call a certain number of offices and ask questions and NOT take everything he says and believe it.

He had documents right in front of him to back up his foreknowledge of the attacks, he had so many sources that proved that it would happen (unlike BBC with the 7 building).

I don't know how the hell you trust government agencies on their "facts". If the government is behind the attacks, it would make up the facts so that it would look like it didn't do it. NIST completely dis-regarded the free fall speed idea and the controlled demolition, when fire-fighters clearly saw that it was a controlled demolition.

How do you explain Alex Jones successfully predicting the september 11th attacks? If his conspiracy theories about 9/11 were actually correct, then it doesn't really make it a conspiracy theory then.. right?

Another question... what are those things that are circled? Just some random puffs of smoke, right?

I guess when you can no longer argue about the science you have to resort to hearsay.

Here's the funny thing about that so called prediction. I've seen 5 different videos of it, but all of them have been cut or edited. I can't seem to find the original uncut version of this so-called prediction.

I'm not gonna go over all this evidence again with you. You're just ignoring every piece of evidence we throw back at you.

Only if the Fatima prophecies that predicted the end of WWI, WWII and the Assasination attempt on Pope John Paul proves God exists.

Well they sure aren't consistent with a controlled demolition.

If you have ever had a leaky garden hose, you can probably figure out how that can relate back to these circled areas.

A possible explanation is that you have to have somewhere for the excessive pressure waves to go. While most of it will expand outwards laterally and parallel to the horizon, you will also have high pressure waves going upwards and down. This pressure, akin to the pressure of water through the garden hose... will squirt out any place it can. If a hose has been kinked a few times, the stress of the material allowed for the water pressure to break through.

So think of the building as a huge water hose standing on end... with all the doors on the inside opened in a combination to allow pressure to blow into specific rooms on the outer perimeter. And with a directed blast, it could quite easily blow out pane glass windows. People have had their windows blown out of their homes when tornadoes passed closeby without actually "hitting" them because they failed to open their windows for change of pressures/wind velocities.

Of course, it's much easier to ask questions and then argue the logic behind the answers that try to derive your best guess on accurate solutions.

If the water symbolizes the fuel, the fuel could not go down the building that fast. And secondly, the fuel and fire is only hot enough to deform the steel and make it "sag", not make it explode. That's a big difference right here.

About the windows... well there were reports that said bone remains were found at the top of the surrounding buildings. This is some very bizarre evidence. How could the fuel possibly explode that hard? only thermate or thermite can. Those go well above the melting point of steel.

I'm not asking questions just for the sake of asking questions. Delta quoted NIST many times, i went on its website and found all the explanations on the collapses of the buildings and didn't find any sense in it because it could not explain the free-fall collapse of the buildings. Physics professors went out a couple of years later after the collapse and contradicted the official report. Why would Physics professors all over the world go against the official report? I asked my Physics teacher, who taught at top universities in Europe for many years, what he thinks about the building collapses, and he said they fell at nearly free fall speed. What.. are you going to say the Physics professors are making things up?

Have any one of you asked your physics professors/teachers about this and what they think about the free-fall idea?

They had a thing on TV about it, I don't know if this is true but the architect said when he built it, where the plane hit it was like some special type of weak material, which caused the building to collpase. That stuff in the picture could be falling debri too, it's not like that picture was taken exactly after the building started to smoke.

Actually he was talking about pressure.

Wait. When did thermite start exploding? I thought it just burned.

Well the real question here is do we need to? What are you comparing the collapse times to? The official NIST times? They got those times based on siesmic data. I believe the official collapse time for the towers is 10 seconds. However video evidence shows that this is not the case. The actual fall time was between 14 and 16 seconds.

thermite is used in grenades and other explosive devices. And explosive devices were implanted into the buildings in order to create the free-fall collapse. Fire-fighters admitted that they saw the building collapse like a controlled demolition. Mayor Guiliani slipped it in by saying the buildings were going to collapse and that he was aware of the whole situation.

if the building is missing a chunk of itself on one side, wouldn't it just fall on the side that it's missing, not collapse?

When the plane hit one building, the workers were forced to stay in the other wtc building and got fooled into thinking it was safe. Why did the police force the people back into the building? Wouldn't it be logical to make them go as far away from danger as possible?