And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

I mean, COME ON, MAN!! That indicated either a pre-written SCRIPT or tip from insider sources WHO KNEW what was coming.

I'm gonna go with "the female news reader was transported into the future via Dr. Who's TARDIS time machine."

That's a lot more believable than the BBC's explanation that it was just a "cock-up".

You know you're starting to beat a dead horse here because you have no conclusive evidence to offer.

There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down. That you haven't made the effort to study it is not conclusive. So far what I've seen is that your knowledge of anything is 5 minutes on Google deep.

Nor do I.

Yet you blow and blow.

What we have are suspicions.

Some suspicions started before the event ;)

The Lone Gunmen episode aired March 4th, 2001, with the intrepid conspiracy theorists:

ranTing of a madman

bruce gender science - dynamics

love
boris

ps

dr mengele medical science too

When the real event happens the story has been pre-sold. Neat operational sequence, we call it a psy-op.

There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down.

You need to keep up with your reading. Among the MIHOP Truthers, it is an article of faith that nanothermite was used. Well, if it actually exists.

And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

No one has it. We also have no verification of exactly when that aired. We also know that the text crawl was not in sync with the rest of the broadcast.

We don't actually know whether that was a live broadcast. If they put a five minute or ten minute delay on broadcast that day, they could still splash it as a live feed on the chyron feed.

And why are there no other corroborating videos except this one from the BBC? All the major studios were in the area and had local affiliates as well (ABCNNBCBS)? Where are their time-coded videos of the same event? What about the amateur videos of these events that we have quite a few of? Why don't they show the same things at the same time?

The BBC is an entirely isolated piece of evidence with no other corroborating sources. We don't even know if that was actually a live feed.

Trump signs multi Billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia

The establishment neocons like The Donald and Jared Kushner are cashing in on selling arms to both sides.

As President, the Donald is in charge now of covering up Saudi involvement in 911 and calling us K0ok$. It pays very well.

Hillary and Obama are has-beens, it's all on Trump now.

bruce gender science - dynamics

A bongo message for Boris, please translate.

And has ANY one YET explained the live report from the BCC that Building 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED??

I do not know what happened there, but don't read too much into it.

Cops or firefighters on video were telling people to clear the area, that the building was going to come down. Faults had allegedly been observed by FDNY, leading them to question the structural integrity of the building. They were in the street saying the building was going to come down. It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication.

The beeb reporter might not have known which building was 7WTC, even had she been looking in that direction. Only 1WTC and 2WTC were famous before 9/11.

There is plenty of evidence that thermate (a type of thermite) was used to bring the buildings down.

A difficulty with a thermate theory is the synchronization needed on every floor to achieve a vertical drop into the building's own footprint. Unless the resistance at each floor is uniform on all sides (or removed), the descending part will tend to shunt off to the least resistant side.

It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication

The old "cock-up" story, pull it!

A difficulty with a thermate theory is the synchronization needed on every floor to achieve a vertical drop into the building's own footprint.

The link I posted above has two of Prof. Jones' papers. I have five reports he wrote from his analysis / experiments.

Edit: residue is the wrong word, tho it conveys the meaning. I am referring to the deposits of burned thermate on surfaces as evinced by the effects of it on those surfaces.

A difficulty with a thermate theory is the...

You've really stepped in it now! LOL

It is not a difficulty. I saw your comments above, which are consistent with a controlled demolition. Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.

My comments pointed to the problems with any offered collapse mechanism being consistent with the observed phenomena and the laws of physics. The buildings appear to have been brought down, but the mechanism is not clear.

The problem with thermate is how to cut the columns or beams on all sides at the same time with time synchronization to within a fraction of a second. Thermate is a pyrotechnic. It burns through steel. It is not normally used in controlled collapse. As far as I can tell, it is unusable as the primary agent. Dr. Jones does not claim that any building was brought down primarily by thermate. Explosives are used which cause structural failure of a column in a fraction of a second. A heat source is not as predictable on the timing of structural failure of columns on all sides of a building on multiple floors. Miss one by a little bit and the whole thing shunts sideways. That is why explosives are used.

Thermate residue* found on the building remains and on cars in the surrounding area is a part of the evidence.

This is part of speculation, never established as fact.

The link I posted above has two of Prof. Jones' papers. I have five reports he wrote from his analysis / experiments.

I am very familiar with Dr. Jones and his papers.

His research paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was first posted as a full professor of physics at BYU on his physics department website. BYU announced a review. Jones took down the article on September 7, 2006 and resigned on January 1, 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.

Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department. However, BYU discontinued the review. Some of Jones' colleagues also defended Jones' 9/11 work to varying degrees, and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007.

Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations have long been critics of BYU's record on academic freedom. Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review and Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.

Dr. Jones revised study paper does not claim demolition by thermate/pryotechnics. He hypothesises that a combination of explosives and incendaries were used on the core columns on lower floors, and cutting charges were detonated up higher. Regarding 7WTC, Dr. Jones argues for a serious investigation that it was brought down by pre-positioned cutter-charges; i.e., explosives. For 1WTC and 2WTC he argues for the ancillary use of thermate on the lower floors in addition to the primary use of explosives.

The requisite precise timing cannot be achieved with incendaries. He claims incendaries were used to weaken the columns and explosives to achieve actual structural failure.

His paper further asserts that his hypotheses deserve thorough scientific scrutiny. Such assertion openly declares that the hypothesis has not received thorough scientific scrutiny at the time asserted.

At page 1 of Dr. Jones' revised study paper, the abstract states,

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.

At page 42 of his revised study paper, Dr. Jones states,

Remarkably, the controlled demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives/incendiaries, near simultaneously, along with cutting charges detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus near symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermate (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel columns readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above). I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable actually than the official hypothesis. It deserves thorough scientific scrutiny, beyond that which I have been able to outline in this treatise.

At page 43 of his revised study paper, Dr. Jones states,

AFTERWORD

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives/incendiaries. I have presented ample evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is scientifically testable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 2 of 7 - Nano-thermite found in the WTC dust

[Also Dr. Steven Jones and his research paper.]

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 3 of 7 -Thermate, thermite and glowing aluminium

You've really stepped in it now! LOL

Guilty as charged.

Bottom line, there is significant evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

I was just a bit stunned that people on this forum have not made the effort to understand the case made by Jones, the most careful of the challengers to the official conspiracy theory.

I do not find the publications of Dr. Jones persuasive. They are in pay for play junk science publications. 7WTC may be a classic demolition job but 1WTC and 2WTC are different. They are pulverized or turned to dust in mid-air and settled as a covering of fine dust particles up to miles distant. Thermite and thermate did not do that. Fire did not do it, and neither did gravity.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=52077&Disp=6#C6">

I only found one link to one paper at your #6.

The link for "download page" was:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/why-indeed-did-the-world-trade-center-buildings-completely-collapse/

I am aware of the Bentham Journal mentioned in one of the Youtube videos I provided, and also EuroPhysics News.

Bentham's play for play journal has a less than sterling reputation. Peer reviewed science it is not. Neither is Europhysics News. Bentham was caught in a scam where it accepted a paper for publication which was gibberish by a computer program with authors claiming to have been from the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).

Articles where the author pays for publication in a junk science journal tend not not be scientifically persuasive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[4] however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen was accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this.[5][6][7] Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals.[8]

In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal The Open Chemical Physics Journal published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite".[9] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10]

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11] Beall has since added Bentham Open to his list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".[3]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

Bentham Science Publishers straddles the fine line between "open access journal publisher" and "vanity press scam."

Bentham was founded in 1994 and enjoyed a reputation as a small but reputable and scholarly publisher. In April 2007, it announced that it would open more than 300 open access journals by the end of the year, though it later cut this to 200.[1]

The journals work on the model where the journal is available free, and authors pay to have their paper published. A new journal will often contact people in the field noting the journal's existence and requesting submissions. However, Bentham took it as far as repeatedly spamming people[2][3], often irrelevantly,[1] and offering scientists membership on its journals' editorial boards out of the blue.[4] (As of August 23, 2014, the Scientificspam.net DNS-based blocklist lists the 117.20.26.0/23 network from which Bentham spams in its entirety.) Membership of a journal's editorial board can be quite prestigious, but when people realised what sort of company they were dealing with and withdrew their acceptance, Bentham kept their names on the masthead and ignored all demands for removal.[1] In April 2009, the Open Chemical Physics Journal published an article advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories without anyone bothering to inform the journal's editor, who promptly resigned.[5]

This aroused the interest of the curious, and Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).[6][7] The editor of said journal also quit when he found out what the publisher had done.[8] Bentham's director of publication claimed they merely sent a fake acceptance to flush out the hoaxer,[4] but no-one believes him.

Bentham's questionable behaviour, and the extensive documentation of it, led directly[3] to the formation of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association,[9] which endeavours to serve as a mark of respectability in OA publishers. Not only is Bentham not a member, OASPA has blogged specifically concerning it.[10]

Annoyingly, the scams continue.

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/09/criticism-of-oa-publisher-bentham.html

Open Access News

News from the open access movement

Friday, September 11, 2009

Criticism of OA publisher Bentham

Jeffrey Beall, Bentham Open, The Charleston Advisor, July 2009; self-archived September 10, 2009. A review of OA publisher Bentham Open. Excerpt:

... The site is supported by fees charged to the author upon publication of an article, and the fees are high. ... The Bentham Open site makes no mention of [fee waiver/reduction in cases of financial need], but in response to an e-mail inquiry, a representative stated that authors from developing countries are granted a discount of 30 to 50 percent off the publication fee charges. ...

The site states that, “All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous peer-review procedure, followed by prompt submission of an article for publication.” However, the journals contain articles that take unpopular views on topics and were likely unacceptable in mainstream journals. An example is the article entitled, “Cosmological Constraints on Unifying Dark Fluid Models” that appears in The Open Astronomy Journal. The article offers the dark fluid model as an alternative to the widely-accepted theories establishing dark matter and dark energy in cosmology ...

Because the dark fluid theory is not accepted by mainstream cosmologists, it is likely that if this article were submitted to any mainstream journal it would be rejected, and the author sought to publish it here because of the less-rigorous or façade-like peer-review process. Alternatively, the author submitted the article to Bentham Open because he knew that merely by paying the fee he could get his work published. ... In many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science. ...

Another example comes from The Open Chemical Physics Journal. In the article “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” the authors conclude that some of the dust found in the World Trade Center debris is unexploded bomb material. They lead the reader to conclude that planted explosives were the real source of the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, and not the aircraft that struck them. This article has helped fuel 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus, Bentham Open is a place for people to publish their theories, theses, and ideas that are out of the mainstream.

There is no journal impact factor data for these journals because the data takes three years to compile and all the journals Bentham Open offers are less than three years old. In response to an e-mail inquiry regarding rejection rates for Bentham Open journals, company representative Mehwish Akhter replied, “Rejection rate is different for different journals. Normally it’s 25–30%.”

The membership plan that Bentham Open Access offers is highly questionable, especially the individual membership. The cheapest individual membership is $1,600, and at this rate an author receives a 5 percent discount on author fees. For an article that costs $800 to publish, the discount is $40; to break even at that membership level, an author would need to publish 40 articles. Clearly, very little thought has been put into Bentham’s membership plan; it appears only to be a way to generate revenue for the company from the naive.

The Open Access model is a good one, for it makes research freely available to everyone. However, Bentham Open is exploiting the good will of those who established the Open Access model by twisting it and exploiting it for profit. Just because a journal is Open Access doesn’t make it legitimate or high quality. ...

Bentham Open’s emergence into scholarly publishing in 2007 has served mainly as a venue to publish research of questionable quality. The site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research. By linking to sites such as Bentham Open, libraries are diluting scholarly research and making it more difficult for scholars to sort through the abundance of journal articles available. ...

N.B. This review was written before the Bentham fake article hoax from earlier this year.

See also our past posts on Bentham.

- - - - - - - - - -

The article 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses, is written by truthers Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine....

There is the Europhysics News itself.

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Page 1 of the issue of Europhysics News states:

Europhysics news is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. The staff of EDP Sciences are involved in the production of the magazine and are not responsible for editorial content. Most contributors to Europhysics news are volunteers and their work is greatly appreciated by the Editor and the Editorial Advisory Board.

The article is on pp. 21-26. Page 21 is a basic cover page.

Page 22 of the issue of Europhysics News leads off with:

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

[Excerpt]

For their part, EPN released a statement after having been pressed by podcaster Stephen Knight:

EPN is a magazine that publishes a range of news and views to stimulate discussion – unlike peer reviewed research which would be published in a scholarly journal. EDP Sciences [their parent company] follows the most rigorous peer review standards for its journals of which EPN is not one.

As a magazine, the editorial policy of EPN is to publish news and views, which are sometimes controversial. EDP Sciences recognizes that the article discusses some speculative and controversial issues. However EPN and EDP Sciences believe that the best (and the most scientific) way to settle such issues is to publish them and have an open discussion with all due arguments in which the truth will finally emerge. A counter article is to be published by EPN in the next issue.

http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/scientific-proof-911-inside-job/

[Excerpt]

First a Few actual Facts

There are two rather important points to start with …

1. Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine

2. The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article

The editors did also add the following note:

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.

I'm just glad we finally reached the inevitable nano-thermite portion of the discussion.

Dr. Judy Wood published Where Did The Towers Go?. It does an excellent presentation of the observed phenomena from 9/11. While her directed energy weapon theory of what could account for the phenomena is controversial, to say the least, her presentation of what was observed to have happened is excellent. At page 124, she addressed "thermitic material" found in the dust.

3. "Thermitic Material" in the Dust

A report has come out stating that "thermitic material,(59) was found in dust samples from lower Manhattan after 9/11/01. The authors of the report did not say they found thermite, but only that they found "thermitic material." What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust). The Twin Towers were steel structures with aluminum cladding. "Steel is a term used for iron to which between 0.02 to 1.7% carbon has been added."(60) Typical low-carbon steel (e.g. ASTM A36) contains 99% iron. We know that a large portion of the towers was turned to dust (see Chapter 9, Dustification). And iron dust in atmospheric conditions will immediately rust. So it is natural and to be expected that materials the buildings were made of would be found in the nano-dust of their remains. The surprising thing would be if this nano-dust from the buildings did not contain "thermitic material." That the article is identified as having been "peer reviewed" is intended to imply the validity of the study. However, "peer reviewed" no longer means what it once did. Shortly after Bentham published the article about "thermitic material," The Boston Globe ran a news story about a hoax submission (an article made up of nothing but computer-generated nonsense) to another Bentham journal. This second article also passed "peer review."(61, 62) Others have written about this deliberately fraudulent study.(63)

The buildings were turned to dust, and therefore the dust would be expected to contain traces of all materials that were in the buildings.

The authors of the report did not say they found thermite, but only that they found "thermitic material." What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably,...

Presumably.

What is "Thermitic Material?" Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust).

I would read it differently. "Thermitic" suggest more general thing - thermite-like. It does not have to be aluminum and iron oxide, you need metal oxide and a substance that will binds oxygen from the oxide generating heat.

Perhaps there are more exotic non-metallic exothermic thermites?

I would read it differently. "Thermitic" suggest more general thing - thermite-like. It does not have to be aluminum and iron oxide, you need metal oxide and a substance that will binds oxygen from the oxide generating heat.

By whatever definition, it is exceedingly difficult to see how to synchronize the failure of large steel columns with the use of heat as the primary agent.

Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!

LibertyDefender84

Published on May 16, 2015

This is a 47 minute challenge about Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed at 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001.

The challenge is to watch this 47 minute video and try to maintain your belief in the official story of what happened on September 11th, 2001. This is a difficult challenge because this video features testimony from Structural Engineers, Architects, Demolition Experts, and eyewitnesses who provide evidence that Building 7 collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition. After looking at the evidence, it will be challenging to maintain the belief that fire caused Building 7 to collapse in the manner that was observed.

Take the 47 Minute Building 7 Challenge!

No thanks.

The 9/11 hucksters have re-made the same videos over and over.

If I want preaching, there's plenty of churches around here.

The 9/11 hucksters have re-made the same videos over and over.

Well, there is always the NIST report.

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

At page xxxvii:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001. The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.

Structural damage from debris did not cause the collapse.

NIST identifies specific fire observations and their earliest times.

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 194]

"A larger area of the west face near the south edge is visible in the photograph shown in Figure 5-1 10, which was taken shortly after Figure 5- 109 at 12:27:30 p.m. At this time flames were not evident in window 22-14A, but light smoke continued to flow from the window. Higher up on the face, smoke was coming from the six adjacent open windows 29-11 to 29-14A on the 29th floor, with heavy flames filling windows 29-11 and 29-12. As discussed in Section 5.5.2, the condition of windows 29-13A to 29-14A immediately following the collapse of WTC 1 could not be determined, while the glass was intact in windows 29-11 and 29-12. This suggests that the fire burning on this floor had opened windows 29-11 and 29-12 by 12:27:30 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 196]

"Prior to 12:10 p.m., there was no evidence of fire on the upper floors of WTC 7. Between 12:10 p.m. and 2:10 p.m., the only fires directly or indirectly observed were on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 194]

- - - - -

"Between roughly 2:00 p.m. and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20:52, fires were observed spreading on the 7th floor through the 13th floor, with the exception of the 10th floor. One short video clip indicated that a small fire was present on the north side of the 14th floor shortly prior to the collapse. In the following descriptions of these fires, approximate times are used. Details are included in the previous subsection." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243]

"7th Floor. Early indications of a developing fire were observed on the west side of the 7th floor shortly after 2:00 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243]

"8th floor. The earliest fires observed on the 8th floor were on the north face in windows near the center of the face. As late as 3:22 p.m., there was no indication of fire in this area, but about 17 min later a substantial fire spreading to the east was visib le between windows 8-47C and 8-53C." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 243]

"9th Floor. There was no indication of fire in the available imagery on this floor until late in the day. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., a small area of fire was observed in windows 9-54A and 9-54B on the west side of the north face. There are no images suggesting how fire reached this location." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244]

"10th Floor. No fires were observed burning on this floor." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244]

"11th Floor. A fire was first observed on this floor at 2:08 p.m. on the east face." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 244]

"12th Floor. The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 245]

"13th Floor. The first visual evidence for burning on the 13th floor was seen on the east face around 2:30 p.m." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 245]

"14th Floor. A low resolution image recorded around 5:03 p.m. indicated the presence of a fire between Columns 45 and 46 on the north face. Fire at this location or elsewhere on the floor was not evident in similar images recorded roughly ten minutes earlier and six minutes later. This was the only observation of a fire on this floor." [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 246]

"Fires on Other Floors. With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. Heavy smoke was observed coming from the opening created on the south face of WTC 7 by debris falling from WTC 1. This smoke suggests that internal burning was taking place, but provides little indication of specific locations. Light smoke was observed at the height of the louvers on the east side of the 5th and 6th floors around 4:10 p.m. It was not possible to identify the source of this smoke. [NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p. 246]

SOURCE: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Volume 1

The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.

They always rush so quickly to dismiss the ConEd substation that it makes me suspicious that it played a major role in the collapse.

They always rush so quickly to dismiss the ConEd substation that it makes me suspicious that it played a major role in the collapse.

Structural damage played no major role, ConEd fuhgedaboutit, and the fires were unremarkable and just allowed to burn all day.

Shyam Sunder stated, "WTC7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings."

Sunder also stated WTC7 "fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire-induced progressive collapse."

The official explanation for 7WTC is not persuasive.

I wonder what design practice building codes were created to prevent office fire induced thermal expansion leading to progressive collapse of entire tall buildings?

No one has it. We also have no verification of exactly when that aired. We also know that the text crawl was not in sync with the rest of the broadcast.

Web Archive has 4 days from major networks archived

https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911

And why are there no other corroborating videos except this one from the BBC?

Seems sometimes you don't do much research before you make claims.

The REAL question, of course, is who wrote what the news readers are repeating? It's been traced to Reuters but that's where the trail ends. That's like saying your lettuce came from Safeway.

The BBC is an entirely isolated piece of evidence with no other corroborating sources. We don't even know if that was actually a live feed.

Funny how the BBC "lost" the tapes, then "found" them and issued an apology. Almost as funny as when the Moon Landing tapes were "lost".

BBC: It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

And this is most interesting, what are the odds that Jane Standley would be cut off twice in one day when talking about WTC7

This bit of history has been mostly overlooked. Everyone is concentrating on the previously posted afternoon broadcast. But it's very suspicious, isn't it.

I'm guessing you've never seen that, have you.

How about this?

Explain how the beam slipping off that column due to "thermal expansion" from office fires can cause the entire building to collapse (3 seconds of free fall) in 7 seconds please. TIA

The REAL question, of course, is who wrote what the news readers are repeating? It's been traced to Reuters but that's where the trail ends. That's like saying your lettuce came from Safeway.

As though NSA wasn't capable of replacing archive.org's videos if they chose to do so after the fact.

I do not know what happened there, but don't read too much into it.

How can't we?

Building 7 was STILL standing when the reporter-ette pronounced her "news."

Considering how often and to what extent we've discovered the Mass Media LIES as a matter of conditioning the serfs and practicing Mind-Control; subverting history, and creating alternative reality, what we CAN and SHOULD do is *presume* the MSM's reporting/propaganda is run though a series of filters as their overlords wish.

Cops or firefighters on video were telling people to clear the area, that the building was going to come down. Faults had allegedly been observed by FDNY, leading them to question the structural integrity of the building. They were in the street saying the building was going to come down. It would seem the most likely explanation is BBC just had a miscomunication.

"Mis-communication" is the default convenient excuse. How can we buy it, Nolu, given the total lack of credibility of he Media and its obvious function as Propagandists and NOT actual "reporters"?

The problem NOW is the credibility of THAT as well as ANY reporting, so-called "observations" and "witnesses" on 911, specifically the presumption of inevitability that Building 7 *was* going to come down in any case.

It's just one more layer of lies that should and could have been avoided. But moreover, it proved that certain Media sources are given scripts by some un-named "authoritahs."

planted "witnesses,"

Then there's TWA FL 800 and *that* yuge LIE and so-called "investigation."

Interesting jwpegler. Thanks for sharing.

LOL

As though NSA wasn't capable of replacing archive.org's videos if they chose to do so after the fact.

Did the NSA force the BBC to make that statement above? The BBC admits everything you said was questionable. It's right there.

That's all you have to say after your "arguments" RE:Jane Standley have been utterly destroyed?

Again: Please explain how the beam slipping off that column due to "thermal expansion" from office fires can cause the entire building to collapse (3 seconds of free fall) in 7 seconds.

You can do it.

("No one has it. We also have no verification of exactly when that aired. We also know that the text crawl was not in sync with the rest of the broadcast.")

Web Archive has 4 days from major networks archived

Well done.

And this is most interesting, what are the odds that Jane Standley would be cut off twice in one day when talking about WTC7

This bit of history has been mostly overlooked. Everyone is concentrating on the previously posted afternoon broadcast. But it's very suspicious, isn't it.

Beyond suspicious. Conspicuous might be the word.

Yes, Standley's moments, reporting, and reaction is STILL archived. Great job of digging that out.

Yup, "History" itself was revised on the spot. THE priceless reaction and moment of truth can be found at 2:18 just after the BBC questioner asks about Building 7. The elites MUST maintain control over all its monkey business. 911 was tricky, yet still they pulled off the biggest charade in recorded human history (other than the Vatican's centuries of shenanigans and historical revisionism that hid/erased the pre-Flood history.)

I'm guessing you've never seen that, have you.

I don't think it matters to TC. As I suggested, many well-meaning, logical intelligent people just can NOT fathom or accept the notion that our gubmint has been hijacked and been conspiring AGAINST the Founders' Republic for quite some time.

Funny how the BBC "lost" the tapes, then "found" them and issued an apology. Almost as funny as when the Moon Landing tapes were "lost".

Again -- excellent work.

I'll admit to believing fairly recently the Moon Landings were indeed FAKE. This is upon considering the credibility -- or lack thereof of a gubmint and its ministry of propaganda (the MSM) that has lied at will about the the truth, their intent, and their actions since WW2 (and frankly, well before.)

I'll admit to believing fairly recently the Moon Landings were indeed FAKE.

You might want to check out the article I posted a couple of days ago.

Did Elon Musk just confirm that the moon landings were faked?

Follow the links too - quite interesting.

Not particularly a fan of Elon Musk, but some good questions are posed.

I don't think it matters to TC.

No, it doesn't.

Years back, I was willing to at least listen to 9/11 Truther CTs. But I find the Truthers to be arrogant and condescending and completely unable to present evidence that could pass muster in a court of law.

So I have changed and the bar now is set very very high.

Right now, the credibility of Truthers with me would be comparable to that of Scientologists. Maybe the Scientologists have a slight advantage.

Again: Please explain how...

Nope. You are the crackpot, you are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

It's up to you to produce evidence in a court of law that passes muster.

If what you say is true, there are some very big lawsuits to be won, in the billions. Yet no law firm has ever been willing to bring Truther lawsuits to court. That's because they know these crackpot theories would not survive for five minutes in a courtroom.

Or they fear being killed.

Or they think it's a load of crackpot nonsense cooked up on the internet.

Probably one or the other.

How can't we?

Building 7 was STILL standing when the reporter-ette pronounced her "news."

You can consider the obvious, that it was not it was not a deliberate attempt to fool anyone. The building is in the background. It just seems far more likely that someone relayed all the talk on the ground that the building was coming down (like very soon), and someone else took it to mean the building is coming down (like, as we speak it is collapsing).

There is an overabundance of visual evidence that 7WTC was a demolition. The BBC goof is a distraction.

Please explain how the beam slipping off that column due to "thermal expansion" from office fires can cause the entire building to collapse (3 seconds of free fall) in 7 seconds.

Three (3) seconds of freefall -- zero resistance. The lower floors had to move out of the way before the falling floors reached where they had been.

Nope. You are the crackpot,

Aww, you should be nicer to me than that, Sport, because I've introduced you to the truth about Jane Standley and her premature calling of the collapse of WTC7. You really didn't know anything at all about it yet you were making false and embarrassing statements. And this is the thanks I get? ROFL

The burden of proof is entirely on you. It's up to you to produce evidence in a court of law that passes muster.

Whatever are you babbling about? I provided videos, statements from the BBC and an archive of videos from 9/11. I countered your erroneous assumptions and guesses with absolute truth. What exactly are you asking me to prove now?

If what you say is true,

What did I say?

there are some very big lawsuits to be won, in the billions. Yet no law firm has ever been willing to bring Truther lawsuits to court. That's because they know these crackpot theories would not survive for five minutes in a courtroom.

What "crackpot theories" specifically are you talking about? And by the way, You're all in favor of a new investigation, right?

Look, pal, I can understand you're a little bruised after being beaten up a bit here, but you really should try to hide it better. Your errors and hilarious assumptions were embarrassing enough.

I've seen you here for a long time, parading around from thread to thread, pretending you are an expert on everything under the sun. Well just consider this a little speed bump on your road to Greatness. You'll forget this entire 911 lesson soon enough, I'd bet on it. No doubt, the next time Jane Standley rears her pretty English head you might just pretend you never learned the truth that was presented here, because I'm guessing you're the type that doesn't like to be corrected.

In any event old chap, Carry On!

And by the way, You're all in favor of a new investigation, right?

TC believes that the investigation carried out by the 9/11 Commission is the final word on what really happened.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening.

It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

Years back, I was willing to at least listen to 9/11 Truther CTs.

Oh, my sides! You have always been an unabashed supporter of the "official" fed.gov conspiracy theory and unwilling to honestly look at any facts posted. That much hasn't changed.

But I find the Truthers to be arrogant and condescending...

Pot - meet kettle.

Your little Kookorama recedes from the public mind year by year.

Time and public apathy are your enemy.

Are you so sure anyone even cares what happened on 9/11 any more? I mean, other than your fellow-kooks.

Are you so sure anyone even cares what happened on 9/11 any more?

9/11 was the mechanism for establishing a police state here in America.

Care to count the number of freedoms we have lost since that day?

kookery

Give these people a voting day every year, so that they’ll have the illusion of meaningless choice, meaningless choice that we go like slaves and say, Joe, I voted.

The limits of debate in this country are, are, are established before the debate even begins. And everyone else is marginalized, and made to seem there to be communist or some sort of disloyal person.

A kook...there's a word... and now it’s conspiracy, say, they made that something that’s, that is, that is should not be even entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan, it doesn’t happen you are a kook, you are a conspiracy buff.

George Carlin