• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New (?) film of gash in WTC7

Miragememories said:
Well Binglybert Slaptyback with the self entertaining avatar, anyone can climb up into the pulpit and tell a story designed to show what a self-sacrificing martyr they are.

You exhibit all the signs of someone actively enjoying themself while you supposedly pursue the regretable task of mocking and slamming others who have the nerve to disagree with you.

Quotes and tragic anecdotal stories are your stock 'n trade. They are effective and unquestionably help portray you as an ultruistic humanitarian. I have no wish to get into a sob story competition or compare my financial contribution in support of my beliefs.

Anyone with an ounce of human compassion, agrees that the human losses on 9/11 were unforgetable and unforgivable. Of course you do as well and I don't question your sincerity in that regard.

We don't all agree that the victims have received the justice they are entitled to. If a murder, or mass murder in this case, occurs, we do not limit the investigation because it might re-awaken painful memories for some in mourning. There are many family survivors who in spite of their grief, are not satisfied with the Official Story and strongly support the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I'm not only care about those 2,749 innocent people who tragically lost their lives on 9/11, but also the thousands of soldiers who have and are continuing to give their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a direct result of 9/11. I care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani people who have lost their lives and families as a result of the excuse 9/11 provided the U.S. for invading and destabilizing their countries. I'm concerned about the long term impact on the citizens of the world as well as my family and the city where I make my home.

If I and many others are right, that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed and the guilty architects of 9/11 remain alive and well while residing in the U.S., then it is gravely important that this be properly investigated and justice be meted out to those who are long overdue in receiving it.


MM
Click to expand...
Being santimonious means never having to say you're sorry.
 
JimBenArm said:
Being sanctimonious means never having to say you're sorry.
Click to expand...
He came ever so close, though:
Miragememories said:
Anyone with an ounce of human compassion, agrees that the human losses on 9/11 were unforgetable and unforgivable. Of course you do as well and I don't question your sincerity in that regard.
Click to expand...
Just one more little step, and he would have crossed that fine line that separates boys from men.
 
Sorry, but could we get a recap of what we have learned from this new evidence?

I'm still curious, is this THE gash, the one which was supposedly about 10 or so stories tall, the height and depth of which had been the subject of much debate? Or is this something different? The prelim. NIST diagrams indicate the gash is more central, do they not?
 
Miragememories said:
Well I'm not only care about those 2,749 innocent people who tragically lost their lives on 9/11, but also the thousands of soldiers who have and are continuing to give their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a direct result of 9/11. I care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani people who have lost their lives and families as a result of the excuse 9/11 provided the U.S. for invading and destabilizing their countries. I'm concerned about the long term impact on the citizens of the world as well as my family and the city where I make my home.

If I and many others are right, that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed and the guilty architects of 9/11 remain alive and well while residing in the U.S., then it is gravely important that this be properly investigated and justice be meted out to those who are long overdue in receiving it.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I share your concerns about the victims on 9/11 and those in the Iraq war (which I oppose).
Miragememories said:
If I and many others are right, that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed and the guilty architects of 9/11 remain alive and well while residing in the U.S., then it is gravely important that this be properly investigated and justice be meted out to those who are long overdue in receiving it.
Click to expand...
Yes IF, but 9/11 CTist fail miserably when trying to provide evidence to support the IF. You got NONE. You got nukes, you got thermite, you got no planes, you got energy beams, you got self proclaimed coincidences, you got a lot of nonsense, but not a shred of evidence.

That's the problem MM. If you had any, I would listen.
 
alexg said:
Sorry, but could we get a recap of what we have learned from this new evidence?

I'm still curious, is this THE gash, the one which was supposedly about 10 or so stories tall, the height and depth of which had been the subject of much debate? Or is this something different? The prelim. NIST diagrams indicate the gash is more central, do they not?
Click to expand...
Unlike the other damage they identified, though, their location of the gash was labelled "Approximate" and was unaccompanied by images of the actually damage. Their data included information from interviews, so apparently the size and location of the gash was estimated from verbal descriptions of the damage.

I believe it's safe to conclude that this is THE gash that the firefighters described and that NIST approximated.
 
Miragememories said:
In a nutshell, some experts have integrity and some will prostitute themselves at the drop of a hat.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but when ALL experts agree ? AND when they show their work ?

I bristle at that sort of thing. Forgive me for being human.
Click to expand...


You are forgiven. Of course, I'm sure you won't mind other people "being human".

Yes I will read it!

And I sincerely hope they come up with a plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

Excellent. You've just given yourself enough wiggle-room to be able to discard any and all conclusions they come to if it doesn't suit your fancy.

Can you in all honesty admit that if they were to agree that it was a controlled demolition, that you would readily disengage from your entrenched opinions??
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable.

It's simplistic and so much easier to accept the Official Story and believe that all Americans are good people
Click to expand...

Strawman.

and that what happened on 9/11 was strictly the result of the actions of arab terrorists.
Click to expand...

Well, "simpler" is usually what follows the evidence.

I care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani people who have lost their lives and families as a result of the excuse 9/11 provided the U.S.
Click to expand...

Then you can sleep easy, now. The two aren't connected.
 
Miragememories said:
I care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani people who have lost their lives and families as a result of the excuse 9/11 provided the U.S.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Then you can sleep easy, now. The two aren't connected.
Click to expand...

If not for 9/11, and as a consequence, the extraordinary powers that congress subsequently provided the Bush regime, there never would have been the necessary public and political support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can't believe you question that obvious connection.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
If not for 9/11, and as a consequence, the extraordinary powers that congress subsequently provided the Bush regime, there never would have been the necessary public and political support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can't believe you question that obvious connection.

MM
Click to expand...
Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Unlike the other damage they identified, though, their location of the gash was labelled "Approximate" and was unaccompanied by images of the actually damage. Their data included information from interviews, so apparently the size and location of the gash was estimated from verbal descriptions of the damage.

I believe it's safe to conclude that this is THE gash that the firefighters described and that NIST approximated.
Click to expand...
The big problem about that gash is that, if this is the "hole" the firefighters talked about, then we have a problem.

Because it does not seem to be related to the "kink" under the penthouse. It's actually the other side of the building.

And the stardust hotel demolition really looks like that "kink" we can see on WTC7...

I'm afraid you are all back to the beginning about WTC7.

The only thing that lacks are clear flashes (not the few ones we can see here and there) and clear sounds.... Now, maybe the USG has that kind of technology... :)

Busherie
 
Not true.

You are assuming that the trauma from the gash was suggested to be the direct cause of the initiating event that caused the vertical progression from the penthouse. If the debris that caused the gash was severe enough to be the sole cause of the initiating event in the collapse mechanism, the collapse would likely have happened within minutes of the gash being created, would it not?

NIST INTERIM REPORT ON WTC7:

"Many factors and structural components may have contributed to the start of the collapse, but there must have been an initiating event. After the collapse initiated, it progressed to other parts of the building, leading to their failure as well. From the observations of the collapse (see Section L.2), it appears that first there was a vertical failure progression, from some point in the lower eastern portion of the building up to the east penthouse. After a time lag of approximately five seconds, the screenwall and west penthouse were observed to begin sinking into the core area. This suggests that there was a horizontal progression of the collapse towards the west. Since the screenwall and west penthouse fell almost simultaneously, it is reasonable to assume that the horizontal progression captured all the columns that support these building parts."
Click to expand...

The people of NIST, smarter than you or I at this, have many diagrams where they suspect the debris damage was, and these corrispond, for the most part, with where the gash is located...read the interim report. It did not change their Hypothesis.


TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Even better, Busherie, if you go to page 37 of the report, their flow diagram clearly shows that they realized that if the debris damage were the sole contributor to the initiating event, it would have resulted in "Local Failure Only". the second part of their flow diagram clearly indicates that they feel the pathway to the initiating event that started the south eastern vertical progression that lead to the overall collapse, was likely due to fires.

Please read and see what you think.

TAM:)
 
busherie said:
The big problem about that gash is that, if this is the "hole" the firefighters talked about, then we have a problem.

Because it does not seem to be related to the "kink" under the penthouse. It's actually the other side of the building.

And the stardust hotel demolition really looks like that "kink" we can see on WTC7...

I'm afraid you are all back to the beginning about WTC7.

The only thing that lacks are clear flashes (not the few ones we can see here and there) and clear sounds.... Now, maybe the USG has that kind of technology... :)

Busherie
Click to expand...
I don't know of anyone who has been arguing that the damage was a direct cause of the collapse. I do know of many CTers who have asserted that WTC7 experienced "minor damage" and "small, isolated fires." Many went so far as to imply that the firefighters' descriptions were made up, that they were pressured and threatened to lie in order to make the damage sound worse than it actually was. These images put those ridiculous claims to rest. It never had any bearing on the preeminent hypothesis for the direct collapse mechanism. Clear?
 
Miragememories said:
If not for 9/11, and as a consequence, the extraordinary powers that congress subsequently provided the Bush regime, there never would have been the necessary public and political support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can't believe you question that obvious connection.

MM
Click to expand...

Because Iraq came after ? Come on. The "reason" they went to Iraq was because of alledged WMDs. Now, granted, there weren't any, but I can't see why they wouldn't've tried to pull off the same thing even sans 9/11.
 
busherie said:
The big problem about that gash is that, if this is the "hole" the firefighters talked about, then we have a problem.

Because it does not seem to be related to the "kink" under the penthouse. It's actually the other side of the building.

And the stardust hotel demolition really looks like that "kink" we can see on WTC7...

I'm afraid you are all back to the beginning about WTC7.
Click to expand...

So, you don't think that a 47-floor gash in a 47-storey flaming building could be a problem ?
 
busherie said:
The big problem about that gash is that, if this is the "hole" the firefighters talked about, then we have a problem.

Because it does not seem to be related to the "kink" under the penthouse. It's actually the other side of the building.

And the stardust hotel demolition really looks like that "kink" we can see on WTC7...

I'm afraid you are all back to the beginning about WTC7.

The only thing that lacks are clear flashes (not the few ones we can see here and there) and clear sounds.... Now, maybe the USG has that kind of technology... :)

Busherie
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed. I thought you were a LIHOP.

:(
 
Belz... said:
Because Iraq came after ? Come on. The "reason" they went to Iraq was because of alledged WMDs. Now, granted, there weren't any, but I can't see why they wouldn't've tried to pull off the same thing even sans 9/11.
Click to expand...

It must be past your bedtime.

It took Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to bring about Operation Desert Storm, a U.N. sanctioned military operation.

You really believe that without 9/11's influence, that the lame, or even a good case for WMD, would have sufficed to get the American public to support a full scale non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq??

The U.S. invaded Iraq because they wanted control of Iraq and thus Iraq's oil assets.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
It must be past your bedtime.

It took Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to bring about Operation Desert Storm, a U.N. sanctioned military operation.

You really believe that without 9/11's influence, that the lame, or even a good case for WMD, would have sufficed to get the American public to support a full scale non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq??

The U.S. invaded Iraq because they wanted control of Iraq and thus Iraq's oil assets.

MM
Click to expand...
Even if that were true, it wouldn't imply that they orchestrated 9/11 to get a war in Iraq to get Iraq's oil. In fact, it would rather suggest otherwise.

Anyone doing even the most rudimentary cost/benefit and risk/reward analyses on such an idea would adamantly advise that it is one of the stupidest plans they've ever heard. There are infinitely better, less risky, more convincing ways they could have initiated a war with Iraq.

The Bush admin's exploitation of 9/11 in the run up to and the early days of the war in Iraq smacks of opportunism, not premeditation.
 
I'm not only care about those 2,749 innocent people who tragically lost their lives on 9/11, but also the thousands of soldiers who have and are continuing to give their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a direct result of 9/11. I care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani people who have lost their lives and families as a result of the excuse 9/11 provided the U.S. for invading and destabilizing their countries. I'm concerned about the long term impact on the citizens of the world as well as my family and the city where I make my home.
Click to expand...

By implication, unless I believe the inside job conspiracies I don't care then?

If I and many others are right, that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed and the guilty architects of 9/11 remain alive and well while residing in the U.S., then it is gravely important that this be properly investigated and justice be meted out to those who are long overdue in receiving it.
Click to expand...

And if you are not right you are accusing innocent people of being involved in planning, executing and covering up mass murder.
 
stateofgrace said:
And if you are not right you are accusing innocent people of being involved in planning, executing and covering up mass murder.
Click to expand...

If I am not right, then the people I am accusing are not innocent because they don't exist.

I haven't named names, that's for an investigation to do.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
If I am not right, then the people I am accusing are not innocent because they don't exist.

I haven't named names, that's for an investigation to do.

MM
Click to expand...

Oh I see so you want an open and fair reinvestigation that you will only except if it confirms what you already know?
If I and many others are right, that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed and the guilty architects of 9/11 remain alive and well while residing in the U.S., then it is gravely important that this be properly investigated and justice be meted out to those who are long overdue in receiving it.
Click to expand...

You have already decided, you have made up your mind, stop hiding by your pathetic reinvestigation garbage. You know it will never happen because their as already been one. Although not perfect it is far better than any crap you want looking at.

And save your other pathetic get out clause you are accusing Americans of mass murder.
 
stateofgrace said:
Oh I see so you want an open and fair reinvestigation that you will only except if it confirms what you already know?
Click to expand...


I believe that's called answering your own question so you can have the basis for justifying the rant you so love to make.
stateofgrace said:
You have already decided, you have made up your mind, stop hiding by your pathetic reinvestigation garbage.
Click to expand...


Mind Reading 101. Sorry, I didn't take that course. Apparently it's a prerequisite for diehard JREF Conspiracy Forum members like yourself. Statement after statement you just reinforce your the fact that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. You are unable to reconsider any other possibility other than your entrenched belief in the Official Story.

You are wrong. I haven't made up my mind and I will respect the outcome of a proper investigation.
stateofgrace said:
You know it will never happen because their as already been one. Although not perfect it is far better than any crap you want looking at.
Click to expand...


The 9/11 Commission should have been called the 9/11 Coverup. The administration fought it's creation, handpicked it's members, restricted it's budget, critically limited the time allowed for the investigation, Bush limited his and cabinet member's testimony, many issues were never investigated, countless questions never asked, no one was ever criticized for dereliction of duty...etc etc etc. Yes you are quite the objective clear-thing skeptic..ha ha.
stateofgrace said:
And save your other pathetic get out clause you are accusing Americans of mass murder.
Click to expand...

I'm accusing those responsible for 9/11 of murder.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I'm accusing those responsible for 9/11 of murder.

MM
Click to expand...

Among those you are accusing:

NIST (Those involved in the report.)
FEMA (Those involved in the report.)
Larry Silverstein
George W. Bush
9/11 Commission (Those involved in running the commission.)

And more.

Don't pretend these aren't real people you have accused of being involved in the planning, execution, and subsequent coverup of 9/11.
 
Miragememories said:
I believe that's called answering your own question so you can have the basis for justifying the rant you so love to make.
Click to expand...

No it's called speaking my mind when faced with non stop BS from you.

Mind Reading 101. Sorry, I didn't take that course. Apparently it's a prerequisite for diehard JREF Conspiracy Forum members like yourself. Statement after statement you just reinforce your the fact that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. You are unable to reconsider any other possibility other than your entrenched belief in the Official Story.
Click to expand...

You patently did not take the course in fact finding neither. Present some.

The official story as you so scornfully call it came from literally hundreds of people who were there. It is their story, these people you call liars, and you do so to accuse American of mass murder of their own.
You are wrong. I haven't made up my mind and I will respect the outcome of a proper investigation.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, you read and digest conspiracy garbage to reinforce your loathing of America. You do so because you accuse Americans of mass of 3000 of their own

The 9/11 Commission should have been called the 9/11 Coverup. The administration fought it's creation, handpicked it's members, restricted it's budget, critically limited the time allowed for the investigation, Bush limited his and cabinet member's testimony, many issues were never investigated, countless questions never asked, no one was ever criticized for dereliction of duty...etc etc etc. Yes you are quite the objective clear-thing skeptic..ha ha
Click to expand...
.
please state exactly what is wrong with 911 commissions findings.
I'm accusing those responsible for 9/11 of murder.
Click to expand...
You have just accused Bush of obstructing justice above. You have just called the 911 commission a white wash. You accuse Americans of mass murder
 
stateofgrace said:
No it's called speaking my mind when faced with non stop BS from you.



You patently did not take the course in fact finding neither. Present some.

The official story as you so scornfully call it came from literally hundreds of people who were there. It is their story, these people you call liars, and you do so to accuse American of mass murder of their own.

Incorrect, you read and digest conspiracy garbage to reinforce your loathing of America. You do so because you accuse Americans of mass of 3000 of their own

.
please state exactly what is wrong with 911 commissions findings.

You have just accused Bush of obstructing justice above. You have just called the 911 commission a white wash. You accuse Americans of mass murder
Click to expand...

You read..or should I say; "take a quick glance", and then you spin and spin and spin.

I accuse the architects of 9/11 of mass murder.

If you are suggesting that NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, George Bush etc. of being the architects, than murder would be the appropriate accusation. I'm not suggesting they are the 9/11 architects. Just because we know 2749 people were murdered on 9/11 doesn't mean we know who the specific murderers were.

The difference between your point of view and mind, is that you limit your belief to just the hijackers, while I retain an open mind which due to all the unaccounted for anomalies of 9/11, forces me to conclude the necessary involvement of others on the ground who have not been investigated.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
If you are suggesting that NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, George Bush etc. of being the architects, than murder would be the appropriate accusation. I'm not suggesting they are the 9/11 architects. Just because we know 2749 people were murdered on 9/11 doesn't mean we know who the specific murderers were.
Click to expand...

Were the findings of the NIST and FEMA reports deliberate attempts to conceal the truth about 9/11? Yes or no?
 
Miragememories said:
You read..or should I say; "take a quick glance", and then you spin and spin and spin.
Click to expand...
This is why it is impossible to debate you. There are truthers on here I actually enjoy talking to, because although I disagree with them they are civil and have made some valid points. You on the other hand simply resort to childish rhetoric. This is why you are not treated civilly or with any form of respect, you do not deserve it.
You encourage people to insult you, you seem to want to be insulted and seem to wear these insults as a badge of honour.
The is no debate with you, unless you drop your rhetoric, grow up and start acting like an adult and realise that you are actually debating adults, real people, who are not here to be interrogated by you or insulted by you.
I accuse the architects of 9/11 of mass murder.
Click to expand...
Even though you have no idea who they are, other than they are Americans.

If you are suggesting that NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, George Bush etc. of being the architects, than murder would be the appropriate accusation.
Click to expand...
No if, I do not, do not put words into my mouth again, debate or keep quiet.
I'm not suggesting they are the 9/11 architects. Just because we know 2749 people were murdered on 9/11 doesn't mean we know who the specific murderers were.
Click to expand...
Don't know much do you ?
The difference between your point of view and mind, is that you limit your belief to just the hijackers, while I retain an open mind which due to all the unaccounted for anomalies of 9/11, forces me to conclude the necessary involvement of others on the ground who have not been investigated.
Click to expand...
Don't try petty psychology it is beyond you. You have no idea of my view point, other than your own preconceived ideas of my view point. You preconceptions allow you to paint me as your emery, it allows you to believe I am some Government shill who sucks up everything I am told and follows along like some little sheep. You on the other hand like to see yourself as a free spirit, an open mind with vastly super intellect. This is your vindication; it is your get out, better to demonise those that don't subscribe to your loony theories, better to paint them all as war mongers who are simply oblivious to the world problems.

You, though, see it all, you see the massive master plan,you see the slaughter, death and destruction that you falsely believe I am blissfully unaware of. You believe I am incapable of making a call, supporting or condemning a single action unless I am told to do.

Your complete lack of understanding of human nature is almost enough to make me cling, but for the time being you deserve no more or less that to be treated as a fool.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
No if, I do not, do not put words into my mouth again, debate or keep quiet.
Click to expand...

I believe that was in reference to my post. And I stand by it - that is just a short list of the people who must have been involved somehow to pull off 9/11 (if it were an 'inside job').

You can claim that you aren't accusing anybody specific yet, but if the logical implication of your assertion is that certain people must have been involved, then that is as good as the same thing.
 
Need to revisit this topic...

(1) Most important question: Is this video footage the only thing that exists showing the gash? or are there any other photos or video footage?

(2) Also, does anyone know when NIST became aware of this footage? According to their website, they received various footage in May 2004. I'm presuming that in the preliminary report (Appendix L), when they discuss the gash, they are basing that from firefighter testimony and other eyewitness accounts. I expect they will make reference to this video in the final report, when it comes out later in the year. But, I can't wait for the final report.

(3) I know the video is discussed on debunking911.com, there was a brief post on screwloosechange, and it's been discussed on various forums. Has Popular Mechanics made reference to this footage and the gash? Or any other media talked about it at all?

(4) On debunking911.com, it's mentioned about how the gash lines up with fuel supply risers and other equipment. Is debunking911.com the only place that makes mention of that, or is it mentioned anywhere else?

It's pretty significant that this video turned up to show the gash explicitly, more than just relying on testimony and what NIST says.

In the Wikipedia article on WTC7, I'm discussing this video and can use more "reliable sources" about the video and the gash. I know debunking911.com is a great source, but because it is published anonymously, more difficult to make that case on Wikipedia. Sorry, but the same goes for blogs published on blogspot, and websites hosted on google pages. I know the video is highly significant, but need to make the case that including a small screenshot (under fair use provisions) is justified, which I definitely think is but some others disagree. It would help me greatly to know what other sources talk about the video and the gash.
 
And the truth shall set you free...

As always, when every conspiracy claim dies down the last ditch effort it to reveal the real nature of the claim.

"It was for political reasons to go to war". It's always simply a matter of waiting for that claim to come forth as the root of all these claims is simply a disagreement with the political course and trying to justify ones political views by making up these conspiracy theories.

If it weren't for 9/.11 we'd likely have gone to Iraq even sooner. And Afghan was in the plans as well being that it was the headquarters of the biggest terrorist group in the world who had a habit of constantly attacking US interests. One more embassy bombing and we would have gone. 9/11 was not a requirement.
 
Kryptos said:
Need to revisit this topic...

(1) Most important question: Is this video footage the only thing that exists showing the gash? or are there any other photos or video footage?
Click to expand...
No, it's the best view, but not the only one. I think the composite photo that's going around is from two different videos, one showing the upper part of the gash fairly well. Another video shot at ground level in front of the Verizon building shows glimpses, as does Steve Spak footage and some stills. I believe I've got stills from those in my WTC 7 paper, and some links to the videos.

(2) Also, does anyone know when NIST became aware of this footage? According to their website, they received various footage in May 2004. I'm presuming that in the preliminary report (Appendix L), when they discuss the gash, they are basing that from firefighter testimony and other eyewitness accounts. I expect they will make reference to this video in the final report, when it comes out later in the year. But, I can't wait for the final report.
Click to expand...
No idea. I sent them links to the most recent stuff in case they didn't have it. They revised their south face damage assessment in October, 2006, but we won't know what's changed until the final report is out.

(3) I know the video is discussed on debunking911.com, there was a brief post on screwloosechange, and it's been discussed on various forums. Has Popular Mechanics made reference to this footage and the gash? Or any other media talked about it at all?
Click to expand...
Don't know. We've talked about the various glimpses here as they turned up.

(
4) On debunking911.com, it's mentioned about how the gash lines up with fuel supply risers and other equipment. Is debunking911.com the only place that makes mention of that, or is it mentioned anywhere else?
Click to expand...
Don't know.

It's pretty significant that this video turned up to show the gash explicitly, more than just relying on testimony and what NIST says.

In the Wikipedia article on WTC7, I'm discussing this video and can use more "reliable sources" about the video and the gash. I know debunking911.com is a great source, but because it is published anonymously, more difficult to make that case on Wikipedia. Sorry, but the same goes for blogs published on blogspot, and websites hosted on google pages. I know the video is highly significant, but need to make the case that including a small screenshot (under fair use provisions) is justified, which I definitely think is but some others disagree. It would help me greatly to know what other sources talk about the video and the gash.
Click to expand...
Sorry!
 
Gravy said:
No, it's the best view, but not the only one. I think the composite photo that's going around is from two different videos, one showing the upper part of the gash fairly well. Another video shot at ground level in front of the Verizon building shows glimpses, as does Steve Spak footage and some stills. I believe I've got stills from those in my WTC 7 paper, and some links to the videos.
Click to expand...

I think it's a composite of two shots from the same video. They pan the camera/view, showing the upper and lower parts of the gash. Somewhere on my computer (I'm having trouble finding it), I have my own composite made like that.

I have video from Steve Spak. Can look at it again. Also, now noticed this post which shows another video.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

The key thing with using the screenshot on Wikipedia is that it's used "For critical commentary and discussion" and "its presence [in the article] would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" over words alone. I think unquestionably it's valid fair use for the Wikipedia article. Three other users have weighed in to agree with me, while there is one user who objects to use of the image. It's not at all a matter of conspiracy theories, in this case.

PS - I'm not asking for anyone here to come on Wikipedia and weigh in on the question of fair use. The article is up for featured article status, but we frown upon users going out to solicit for votes and opinions. The fair use question is becoming a sticking point. This needs to be worked out and decided among regular Wikipedia users.
 
Last edited:
In terms of my other questions, maybe I just need to be patient and wait to see what NIST has to say in its final report. There may be nothing else for me to add to the Wikipedia article.

Feel free to look at it though, and let me know if any key points are missing. Or if any part of the article could be explained more clearly. Everything mentioned has to be attributed to some "reliable source".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
 
Yes, the composite picture is from two framegrabs from the same video. It's available at archive.org (streaming only). However, the two places where the framegrabs occur are separated by about fifteen minutes.
 
I just read for the first time the discussion which took place in this thread in March. I wish to comment on this...
Mobyseven said:
You can claim that you aren't accusing anybody specific yet, but if the logical implication of your assertion is that certain people must have been involved, then that is as good as the same thing.
Click to expand...
Every twoofer in the world believes either that Dick Cheney was one of the principle "inside jobbers", or that an "Illuminatti/New World Order" masterminded 9-11. And even many if not most who accept the latter explanation also believe Cheney is a principle in the "Illuminatti/New World Order".
So I think it's pretty safe to work from the premise that Cheney is "it" (or at least one of "them").

If 9-11 was masterminded by those within the US Government then what they
conspired to do is unquestionably THE most horrific and heinous example of mass murder and treason in the history of the country. And arguably the history of the world.
That is not hyperbole. That is a statement of fact.

Cheney would have been very cognizant of this as he was signing off on 9-11. That if he was ever found out that he would be viewed as a mass murderer and traitor.
Make no mistake about this. Cheney deciding to invade Iraq because "he thought Saddam was a threat because Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction" is not the same thing.
Many still to this day (mostly FoxNews viewers) still think Cheney was a hero for doing so because otherwise the "terrorists in Iraq who are responsible for 9-11 would be following us home".
However, the Cheney who masterminds 9-11 would be a worse criminal than Charles Manson and Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer all rolled into one EVEN IN THE MINDS OF THOSE SAME FOX NEWS VIEWERS. No one would say "Well yes Cheney blew up the World Trade Center and killed thousands of Americans because he had to. If he hadn't done so the terrorists would have followed us home". Not even Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could spin that.
No, every American and every other inhabitant of Earth would say "Cheney is a mass murderer and traitor and let's hang him right now".

And this is the part you must keep in mind. Cheney himself would of course have also known that should he be found out, he would have been viewed this way.

Now I ask you, does a Cheney who got five deferments to keep from putting his own butt on the line in Vietnam, sound like the same Cheney who would risk being found out as the worst mass murderer and traitor in history?
If you're answer is "yes", then I ask why? What possible motive could Cheney have had to risk his neck doing this?
Money? He's already got plenty of money. Power? He's already the power behind the most powerful government in the world.
Oil? Cheney is going to risk being found out as the worst mass murderer and traitor in history "so someone can get oil from Iraq"? Frankly, that one's just silly.

So, somebody got to splain why he took such a risk. Otherwise the claim that he did is just a crock of bs.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
You really believe that without 9/11's influence, that the lame, or even a good case for WMD, would have sufficed to get the American public to support a full scale non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq??

MM
Click to expand...

I haven't seen much evidence that the US Public as a whole has ever been behind the invasion of Iraq. Support for the troops when the US Government decided to go in, certainly. I don't see why an NWO controlled US Government with an agenda to invade Iraq and secure it's oil would need much of an excuse, they would just go right ahead and do it anyway surely?
 
[qimg]https://i.imgflip.com/3wnybb.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]https://i.imgflip.com/3wnzdi.jpg[/qimg]

A spire of North Tower perimeter wall, travelling about 70 mph, slammed into the top of 7WTC at column 20, approximately 25-30 deep into the foot print. If you look at how the column "spacer" lintels were sandwiched between each column, it was easy for the falling spire to knock the lintels away. There is video of it getting hit. Video from several angles prove it penetrated deep into the building. There's photo/video of the entrance hole, which is two columns wide at the top for 5 floors, then narrowed to one column width, showing the falling spire either twisted or folded as it hit.
Debunker Joe Hill
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom