This outta generate some discussion

[Truant]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2995115331

the Zeitgeist movie. It's 2 hours long, so set aside some time. But whether you agree or disagree with it, I feel pretty confident in saying most of you will want to see it.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html

Official website. I'll post my thoughts and more after work.


edit. Oh and there's a 5 min intro of images and music before speaking begins. Just in case you get impatient.

[Xouqoa]

If half of what that movie claims is true, they just blew my mind.

I don't want to think a lot of it is (at least the part about 9/11 and such) but it wouldn't surprise me terribly.

[Nick]

The first bit about Christianity was interesting, although I'm not sure quite how true it all may be. I'm still watching the 911 TRUTH shit they are trying to shovel but frankly its a waste of time - another version of the lamentably innaccurate Terrorstorm/Loose Change ilk.

[Fash]

Part I is very interesting and I'd love to corroborate some of this about the gazillion dec. 25th saviors who died and resurrected as analogies to the sun and the solstices.

Part II im on right now, and while I'm still skeptical about 9/11, I'm not sure it belongs in here with part 1...

[Nick]

Turned it off, the third bit is just a yawnfest.

The only worthwhile bit to watch is the first bit. The rest is pure nonsense.

[Fash]

I wouldn't say that, Nick... I found part 3 about banking to be pretty interesting, and horrifying.

[Braxter]

Just got done watching it. Not sure what to make of it just yet.

[Xyun]

lol @ this video. Maybe there are bits and pieces of truth in it, but the majority of it is a gigantic conspiracy theory aimed at WHAT? They engage in the same type of fear mongering and scare tactics that faux news engages in, except aimed at liberals. Even if we were to take the entire video as truth, what would they have us do? Rise up and revolt against our government? Oh please....

The fact is that the logical fallacies are numerous, the cherry picking of historical information is blatantly obvious and the conclusions are erroneous.

Who are these mysterious "international bankers" that are enslaving our society? How do they explain new money and people like Bill Gates who are able to overcome this conspiracy? How do they explain that many people are able to pay their taxes and still live a luxurious life? How many fucking people would it take to cover up the massive conspiracy they believe is behind 9-11? They argue that there are all these people working for the government that know about some conspiracy are keeping quiet and not a one has an ounce of fucking dignity and moral character to come forward with information. Are you fucking kidding me? 2 british guys in Iraq masquerade as terrorists and that somehow entails that some secret society is causing Iraqi's to kill each other? I could go on and on.

This entire video is nothing but leftist propaganda. I do not deny that there are several truthful statements throughout this video, but the links between them are about as strong as the links between Saddam and Bin Laden. What a giant fucking joke.

The nature of a capitalist society is that there are rich people and poor people. That's just the fucking way it is. You can conjure up all the cockamamy conspiracy theories as to why this is, but that's a brazen violation of Occam's Razor. If they were as logical and scientific about their deduction methods as they purport to be, they would fucking realize this and snap back into fucking reality. This is proof of why extremism on either side of the isle and ignorance are detrimental to the society at large. Ironically, they pretend that they aren't the ignorant ones, the rest of us are....

[Zaelath]

Haven't watched it, but having watched several similar efforts, I'd probably just agree w/ Xyun. In at least, while there are significant problems with the documentary evidence for parts of 9/11, I've yet to see a conspiracy theory documentary that didn't go one step too far and destroy their own credibility in much the same way the government has.

[Fash]

They talk about how similar videos are not 'sourced'... but their only sources for 9/11 info were other similar videos.

What do you guys think of the idea of 'false flag' operations? Obviously its a shitty thing to do, but do you think it happens anywhere?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I tried watching this. I completely agree with Xyun.

[miir]

Part 1 was very interesting.
The rest, not so much.

[Nick]

Frankly I thought the first bit was cool, but I'm 100% with Xyun on the rest of it, I almost had a seizure with the intensity of the face I was pulling after the 35 minute mark.

[Lynks]

I stopped watching it somewhere in the second part.

[Xatrei]

I struggled through watching this thing. Xyun summed it up pretty well, although I'd disagree that this is liberal or leftist propaganda. Much of the anti-Federal Reserve conspiracy schlock out there seems to come from the right-leaning, isolationist, anti-U.N., John Birch Society types. I attribute this kind of garbage to kooky conspiracy lunatics, not to right wing or conservative propaganda. Part III of this video is a rehash of a couple other previous anti-Federal Reserve / return to the gold standard wingnut "documentaries," just as the first 2 parts are rehashes of previous conspiracy garbage on those subjects.

I got a good laugh out of this video in a few places, so I won't say I wasted two hours on it. Luckily I was doing other stuff and keeping an eye/ear on this in the background, otherwise, I'd want my time back.

[masteen]

I'm not the biggest fan of the Federal Reserve in the world, but going back on the gold standard is just crazy talk.

[Braxter]

There are essentially three things wrong with conspiracy theories: first, they rely on faulty arguments because their ultimate goal is to prove the unprovable. Not only that, but they compound faulty logic with more faulty logic, like a house of cards. When each stage of theory necessarily relies on the stages before it, the whole theory can collapse pretty easily. Ironically, conspiracy theories share this trait with religion, which was, of course, the victim in part one of this "documentary." Another funny similarity with religion: if they're wrong (which they are) then you don't really get to mock them for it .

The second problem these theories face is that they are almost always met with skepticism and mockery before they have a chance to make their points. This is most likely because those points are (predictably) erroneous. In this case, despite what everyone else has to say about it, the third part was the most interesting, but apparently most viewers didn't even reach that stage. Sure it was outlandish, but if *any* of these theories is true, I certainly hope it's not some of the stuff in the third part.

The third (and most tragic) problem with conspiracy theories is that the truth they do stumble upon, if any, is lost in the cesspool of shit they spew. This is their very nature...they turn observable events that require explanation into jokes, and by doing so diminish the issue. So much so that a normal person who legitimately inquires about the unexplained events is branded a conspiracy theorist and brushed off.

In this case, I would like to know the following:
What were the plumes of smoke forcibly exiting the towers some thirty stories below the crash point?
How hot does jet fuel burn after a crash?
At what heat does industrial steel melt?
How exactly did building 7 collapse?
How long after the pentagon crash did it take the first cameras that "didn't see a plane" to arrive at the scene? (same question for the PA crash site)
And really, I agree that the FAA and NORAD really dropped the fucking ball, intentional or no, so wtf?

But most of these are simply unanswerable. Therein lies the rub... When there's no way of empirically collecting data to support a theory (short of crashing a thousand planes into a thousand skyscrapers) then the theory can be as far-fetched as it wants to be. All it has to do is provide a semblance of logic (and a shit-ton of hearsay) as support to legitimize itself.

In the end though, some good came out of this. I'm basically now use the arguments made in the first part against Christians just so I can call them pagans. And they won't be able to argue against me short of saying "nuh uh!". It's gonna rule.

[Truant]

I can't answer most of your questions, and I believe they were rhetorical anyways...but I can answer two.

Industrial Steel, or structural steel, is a low carbon alloy. Pure Iron has a melting point of 1538 C. The higher the level of carbon in an alloy, the lower the melting point. Alloys with a high ratio of carbon melt around mid 1300 C, but the lower alloys range from ~1425 C to 1538C (as the alloy approaches pure Iron). 1510 C seems to be a common number for the steel used in those buildings.

Jet fuel (kerosene) burns in the open atmosphere (where it would be after a crash) somewhere between 850 C and 980 C (the higher number is the maximum burning temperature for ideal combustion). Any number of factors would lower the temperature...a couple of examples, the fire sprinkler system would have activated, the fire was very oxygen starved (indicated by black smoke, high levels of non-combusted carbon).

I'm sorry I haven't made my aforementioned post in this thread, I've been very busy. More to come.

[cadalano]

the melting point of steel is irrelevant. the integrity of the frame would be compromised long before turning into a liquid.

[Winnow]

The building collapses during 911 were obviously planned. There should be zero doubt in anyone's mind that Bin Laden and a few terrorists were not responsible for it. Finding out who was behind it all is what we'll most likely never know although it involved members of our own government so that should always give Americans pause before accepting their word without question. As with the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam, it basically always boils down to war profiteering.

What should concern Americans (and any other nation) is how far corrupt insiders will go. If they're willing to take down several major buildings in New York to get the ball rolling for war, it's not beyond reason that they'd also set off a nuclear device, use chemical, or use biological weapons somewhere in the world, including within the U.S. to keep the war (and oil) industry healthy.

[cadalano]

you forgot FDR orchestrating Pearl Harbor, man

[Truant]

the melting point of steel is irrelevant. the integrity of the frame would be compromised long before turning into a liquid.

The melting point is irrelevant except for the fact that molten steel was found all throughout the rubble.

You're right though, the integrity of the frame would be compromised long before turning into liquid...but the entire building wouldn't collapse on itself at a rate very near free fall at that point when the frame was compromised.

[Wulfran]

the melting point of steel is irrelevant. the integrity of the frame would be compromised long before turning into a liquid.

bingo

The grain structure and load-bearing ability of the steel would become suspect much cooler, believe it or not, as low as 300 F. Now before someone mouths off about their home oven being hotter, I'll point out that your home oven is not bearing a high stress load either... but how many of you have seen warped pizza/cookie sheets and what do you think caused the warping? The ramifications when you add a stress/load bearing component become much more severe.

[Xouqoa]

I think a good analogy for the way the buildings collapsed is this:

Get an ordinary 12oz. soda can without any dents in it and place it on a flat, smooth (concrete is best) surface.
Carefully stand on the top of the can on one foot, with your weight centered as best you can over the can.
Once you are standing on the can, ever so slightly touch the side of the it with your free foot.
Splat... can is instantly flattened.

I'm sure it doesn't account for all the circumstances, but the principal is the same I would guess.

The one thing I found interesting in that video re: the 9/11 stuff was when the demolition guy was talking about how they pre-cut steel load bearing structures at an angle (I think it was 45) so that when the building begins to collapse, it falls in on itself. Shortly after that statement, they showed a photo from the rubble which clearly showed a steel girder cut in such a manner.

[Boogahz]

Now before someone mouths off about their home oven being hotter, I'll point out that your home oven is not bearing a high stress load either... but how many of you have seen warped pizza/cookie sheets and what do you think caused the warping?

The airliner I slammed against the oven whilst baking a pie?

[cadalano]

I think a good analogy for the way the buildings collapsed is this:

Get an ordinary 12oz. soda can without any dents in it and place it on a flat, smooth (concrete is best) surface.
Carefully stand on the top of the can on one foot, with your weight centered as best you can over the can.
Once you are standing on the can, ever so slightly touch the side of the it with your free foot.
Splat... can is instantly flattened.
.

ha. i was just typing out the same analogy but with an egg in your fist instead



the melting pt is relevant to the molten metal found "throughout", i thought we were talking about the jet fuel being the cause of the collapse

I'd be more interested in knowing the likelihood of frictional forces involved w/ a skyscraper collapsing on itself causing temperatures that high. i'd also like to see proof that the liquified metal was actually entirely structural steel

[Sueven]

Winnow, given that perspective, your support for the war and the administration is pretty stunning.

I don't deny that there are legitimate questions that ought to be answered regarding the collapse. But there is absolutely no consensus as to what the answers are. I've heard very well qualified people argue both sides of the issue, and claiming that it was obviously a conspiracy is nonsense.

Further, claiming that some in the government were in on it and claiming that you know their motivations is even more absurd for myriad reasons, the most obvious of which is "how on earth did our incompetent government successfuly cover up such a massive conspiracy?"

[Xyun]

Sueven,

[Winnow]

No way building 7 collapses even if a small kiloton atomic bomb detonates a quarter mile away. The steel I-Beams used in its construction were huge. No steel constructed building had ever collapsed due to fire and building 7 was sturdier than most. It doesn't just collapse in a perfect detonation style implosion by itself.

Sueven, I'm just making my best guess when I say individuals in the government were involved, the same as those that think Bin Laden was more than a stoolpigeon for the 911 events.

I posted a movie here awhile ago that went into the physics involved with the collapse of the towers, jet fuel, etc. providing several valid question regarding the official explanation.

Unless some of you have first hand evidence of what the government has fed you on this, you're just along for the ride like everyone else.

I supported the war for the purpose of securing Middle Eastern oil supplies for the United States to preserve our excessive lifestyles along with the rest of the western nations. Past the initial steamrolling of Iraq, the entire occupation has been poorly handled. We need to return to a periodic steamroll policy in the Middle East with no long term occupation followed up with routine air strikes to take out anything new being built deemed potentially hazardous to the American way of life. (with the rest of the western nations bitching at us but enjoying their fat lifestyles at the same time)

[Braxter]

the melting point of steel is irrelevant. the integrity of the frame would be compromised long before turning into a liquid.

I asked not because of the molten metal that was found afterwards, but because of the molten metal that could be seen exuding out of the building in the video. Your point is well taken, but if that really was molten steel in the video, then it lends weight to the argument that the pancake theory is contrived and untrue.

[Nick]

Horizon: World Trade Center
Screw Loose Change

Watch both of those and stop the conspiracy shit Winnow.

[cadalano]

the melting point of steel is irrelevant. the integrity of the frame would be compromised long before turning into a liquid.

I asked not because of the molten metal that was found afterwards, but because of the molten metal that could be seen exuding out of the building in the video. Your point is well taken, but if that really was molten steel in the video, then it lends weight to the argument that the pancake theory is contrived and untrue.

much more likely for that to be aluminium (mp 660 deg C)

[Jice Virago]

I am of the mindset that building 7 was deffinately an inside job, given all the evidence and the amount of information that the govt got to sweep over with its destruction. As for the Twin Towers, I think a far more plausable explanation would go something like this:

Arab nutjobs fly planes into the buildings and they know they are going to collapse at some point, due to loss of structural integrety. This collapse will ultimately be uncontrolled and damage tons of surrounding buildings, possibly annihilating a couple blocks of NYC. So, someone makes the call to do a controlled collapse, regardless of the presence of survivors and rescue workers, to minimize the collateral damage to that part of town. Obviously, they could never admit to something like this, but pragmatically, a controlled collapse with people inside is going to do less financial and body count damage than if the buildings tipped over. So someone makes a tough call, Cheney approves it and quietly orders the demolition of building 7.

That, in my mind, is a fairly likely scenario, with the only real evil being dropping #7 and being pragmatic about minimizing the attack. I really would not care, personally, if that is how things went down (aside from the building 7 thing), but the general public would go apeshit if they knew that sort of decision was made.

[Xatrei]

I am of the mindset that building 7 was deffinately an inside job, given all the evidence and the amount of information that the govt got to sweep over with its destruction. As for the Twin Towers, I think a far more plausable explanation would go something like this:

Arab nutjobs fly planes into the buildings and they know they are going to collapse at some point, due to loss of structural integrety. This collapse will ultimately be uncontrolled and damage tons of surrounding buildings, possibly annihilating a couple blocks of NYC. So, someone makes the call to do a controlled collapse, regardless of the presence of survivors and rescue workers, to minimize the collateral damage to that part of town. Obviously, they could never admit to something like this, but pragmatically, a controlled collapse with people inside is going to do less financial and body count damage than if the buildings tipped over. So someone makes a tough call, Cheney approves it and quietly orders the demolition of building 7.

I don't buy into any of the conspiracy lunacy, but this is the least plausible, most nonsensical one I've heard yet. You can't just decide to drop a pair of 110 story buildings on the spur of the moment, which is exactly the scenario that you describe. Do you have any idea how much planning goes into dropping a building a tenth the size of this? Are you really saying that you believe that within 56 minutes of the south tower being struck, some secret group of demolition ninjas sneaked into it and successfully managed to place all of the charges in addition to doing all of the countless other things necessary to ensure the safe collapse, make their way out and then repeat the whole thing in 25 minutes on the north tower? It's even more impressive that none of the survivors on the site, including firefighters in the only usable stair wells, were aware of all these things going on. More impressive still is that no one has ever dropped a building even close to this size in ideal circumstances, let alone in the chaos of the morning of 11 September. Frankly, it's more plausible (in the same way that Celtic creation myths are more plausible than Christian creation myths) that the whole thing was secretly planned, coordinated in advance, executed and covered up by some secret society. Bollocks.

[Winnow]

Are you really saying that you believe that within 56 minutes of the south tower being struck, some secret group of demolition ninjas sneaked into it and successfully managed to place all of the charges in addition to doing all of the countless other things necessary to ensure the safe collapse, make their way out and then repeat the whole thing in 25 minutes on the north tower?

There's already mention elsewhere that the WTC towers had extensive maintenance in the months prior to 911 with only a new security company guards around for the most part.

Such an investigation could reveal some embarrassing Bush family connections with a company “that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.” As Margie Burns reports in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.

Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities.

According to Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, it is somewhat unusual for a single firm to handle security for both an airline and a airport. It’s also unusual for a firm linked so closely with a foreign-owned company to handle security on such a “sensitive” international airport as Dulles. “When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything,” he said. “Somebody knew somebody,” he added, or the contract would have been scrutinized more carefully.

Marvin Bush’s alleged connections to these companies may shed new light on the Bush administration’s determination in the days after 9/11 to push legislation protecting foreign-owned security companies in the Homeland Security bill. These and other issues will be taken up this week, when Roemer and his colleagues convene the commission’s first meeting.

[Xatrei]

There's already mention elsewhere that the WTC towers had extensive maintenance in the months prior to 911 with only a new security company guards around for the most part.

Yes, I've seen that nonsense before as well, but that is only relevant here to prove my point. Jice's theory is that during the 56 minutes between impact and collapse of the south tower, someone analyzed the structural integrity of the building, concluded that the building would fall over and cause great collateral damage to nearby structures, decided to drop the building in a controlled manner, devised a plan to accomplish this, organized the required personnel and materials to facilitate the drop, entered the building, rigged charges and weakened necessary structural elements, left the building to go to work on the other tower, and then dropped the south tower.

Like I said in my previous post, it's more plausible (although equally nonsensical and foolish) to assume that the whole thing was planned and coordinated in advance.

[Boogahz]

There's already mention elsewhere that the WTC towers had extensive maintenance in the months prior to 911 with only a new security company guards around for the most part.

Yes, I've seen that nonsense before as well, but that is only relevant here to prove my point. Jice's theory is that during the 56 minutes between impact and collapse of the south tower, someone analyzed the structural integrity of the building, concluded that the building would fall over and cause great collateral damage to nearby structures, decided to drop the building in a controlled manner, devised a plan to accomplish this, organized the required personnel and materials to facilitate the drop, entered the building, rigged charges and weakened necessary structural elements, left the building to go to work on the other tower, and then dropped the south tower.

Like I said in my previous post, it's more plausible (although equally nonsensical and foolish) to assume that the whole thing was planned and coordinated in advance.

If you re-read Jice's post, he was referring to building 7. My memory isn't all that it used to be, but I am pretty sure it was not 110 stories.

[Xatrei]

Reread his post again:

I am of the mindset that building 7 was deffinately an inside job, given all the evidence and the amount of information that the govt got to sweep over with its destruction. As for the Twin Towers, I think a far more plausable explanation would go something like this:

Arab nutjobs fly planes into the buildings and they know they are going to collapse at some point, due to loss of structural integrety. This collapse will ultimately be uncontrolled and damage tons of surrounding buildings, possibly annihilating a couple blocks of NYC. So, someone makes the call to do a controlled collapse, regardless of the presence of survivors and rescue workers, to minimize the collateral damage to that part of town. Obviously, they could never admit to something like this, but pragmatically, a controlled collapse with people inside is going to do less financial and body count damage than if the buildings tipped over. So someone makes a tough call, Cheney approves it and quietly orders the demolition of building 7.

That, in my mind, is a fairly likely scenario, with the only real evil being dropping #7 and being pragmatic about minimizing the attack. I really would not care, personally, if that is how things went down (aside from the building 7 thing), but the general public would go apeshit if they knew that sort of decision was made.

Building 7 was only 52 floors.

[miir]

If you re-read Jice's post, he was referring to building 7. My memory isn't all that it used to be, but I am pretty sure it was not 110 stories.

I think you misunderstood.

[Boogahz]

Reread his post again:

I am of the mindset that building 7 was deffinately an inside job, given all the evidence and the amount of information that the govt got to sweep over with its destruction. As for the Twin Towers, I think a far more plausable explanation would go something like this:

Arab nutjobs fly planes into the buildings and they know they are going to collapse at some point, due to loss of structural integrety. This collapse will ultimately be uncontrolled and damage tons of surrounding buildings, possibly annihilating a couple blocks of NYC. So, someone makes the call to do a controlled collapse, regardless of the presence of survivors and rescue workers, to minimize the collateral damage to that part of town. Obviously, they could never admit to something like this, but pragmatically, a controlled collapse with people inside is going to do less financial and body count damage than if the buildings tipped over. So someone makes a tough call, Cheney approves it and quietly orders the demolition of building 7.

That, in my mind, is a fairly likely scenario, with the only real evil being dropping #7 and being pragmatic about minimizing the attack. I really would not care, personally, if that is how things went down (aside from the building 7 thing), but the general public would go apeshit if they knew that sort of decision was made.

Building 7 was only 52 floors.

I did.

To sum it up, twin towers will be going down regardless, let us go in and destroy some of the surrounding buildings in a controlled manner to prevent any more damage if possible.

[Xatrei]

I understand that Jice is talking about Building 7 in addition to the towers. I'm taking exception with the notion that someone decided to drop the towers to prevent collateral damage. He says that in this scenario, the towers are justifiable (which I would agree with if it were possible in the first place), while building 7 goes over the top because it was done to cover up the fact that the towers were dropped by design.

[Winnow]

I'm saying that in the months prior to 911 there was ample time to rig the WTC's for demolition if the above mentioned security company in charge of both the WTC and American Airline security was part of the inside job. Pretty simple stuff here but easy to wipe under the table like everything else I guess.

Building 7 was the command center which was later destroyed.

Emergency Command Center

The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

* Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
* An independent, secure air and water supply
* The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph

These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor. 2 3 The command-center bunker was the the subject of much ridicule when it was created

Building 7 was the dark flat-topped 47-story skyscraper immediately north of the World Trade Center super-block, across Vesey Street. Its designation as 7 World Trade Center is somewhat misleading: whereas WTC 1 through 6 surrounded the WTC plaza and were completed in the 1970s, Building 7 was 300 feet from the plaza and its construction did not begun until 1985. 1 It was of an entirely different architectural style than the other six buildings. It was completely destroyed late in the afternoon on September 11th.

Building 7 was privately owned from the beginning, in contrast to the other six buildings, which were publicly owned until the summer of 2001. Building 7 was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the savings and loans collapse and $500 billion bailout of the latter 1980s.

Another tenant was the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC case files, on companies such as WorldCom.

[Xatrei]

I'm saying that in the months prior to 911 there was ample time to rig the WTC's for demolition if the above mentioned security company in charge of both the WTC and American Airline security was part of the inside job. Pretty simple stuff here but easy to wipe under the table like everything else I guess.

Building 7 was the command center which was later destroyed.

I know very well what you're saying, and it proves my point that the "planned in advance" conspiracy is more plausible than Jice's theory that they decided to drop the building after the attacks. Are you feeling extra thick today?

[Winnow]

I'm saying that in the months prior to 911 there was ample time to rig the WTC's for demolition if the above mentioned security company in charge of both the WTC and American Airline security was part of the inside job. Pretty simple stuff here but easy to wipe under the table like everything else I guess.

Building 7 was the command center which was later destroyed.

Emergency Command Center

The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

* Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
* An independent, secure air and water supply
* The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph

These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor. 2 3 The command-center bunker was the the subject of much ridicule when it was created

Building 7 was the dark flat-topped 47-story skyscraper immediately north of the World Trade Center super-block, across Vesey Street. Its designation as 7 World Trade Center is somewhat misleading: whereas WTC 1 through 6 surrounded the WTC plaza and were completed in the 1970s, Building 7 was 300 feet from the plaza and its construction did not begun until 1985. 1 It was of an entirely different architectural style than the other six buildings. It was completely destroyed late in the afternoon on September 11th.

Building 7 was privately owned from the beginning, in contrast to the other six buildings, which were publicly owned until the summer of 2001. Building 7 was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the savings and loans collapse and $500 billion bailout of the latter 1980s.

Another tenant was the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC case files, on companies such as WorldCom.

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC complex 2 weeks before the attacks.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Hmmm. Some interesting facts there Winnow. I've always thought conspiracy theories involving 9-11 were junk. I've always dismissed them without a moment of thought, but maybe I shouldn't be so close minded. I kind of feel like doing so would be equivalent to the christians dismissing evolution without a thought. I'm not saying I buy it, but in a wordl where governments and people in power have done more outlandish things, it's not all that hard to fathom.

[Boogahz]

I'm saying that in the months prior to 911 there was ample time to rig the WTC's for demolition if the above mentioned security company in charge of both the WTC and American Airline security was part of the inside job. Pretty simple stuff here but easy to wipe under the table like everything else I guess.

Building 7 was the command center which was later destroyed.

I know very well what you're saying, and it proves my point that the "planned in advance" conspiracy is more plausible than Jice's theory that they decided to drop the building after the attacks. Are you feeling extra thick today?

He's just as thick as any other time

As for my point, I can see where it would go both the way I read it (Jice's post) and the way others are reading it. I guess we will have to wait for him to come and clarify!

[Winnow]

More info on Building 7:

In addition, aerial photos of Ground Zero appear to confirm that the debris raining down from Tower One's collapse fell well short of WTC 7. These photos show a huge crater in the roof of WTC 6 (the low-rise building standing between Tower One and Building 7), the result of damage caused by this debris. This crater provides a clear imprint of the limits of the destruction and, despite some bits and pieces of rubble that made their way across a full city block to WTC 7's location, the bulk of the truly destructive wreckage clearly fell safely short of Building 7.

Another even more stunning fact is that pictures of the two buildings flanking WTC 7 clearly show that they were barely scratched by the debris that had somehow, according to Popular Mechanics magazine, "scooped out" 25% of Building 7's depth. In fact, both of these structures still stand in near pristine condition, shoulder to shoulder with WTC 7, despite their being well within the same radius of destruction. And what about the debris from the identical South Tower (or Tower Two)? Did it cause similar damage to its neighbors? Apparently not. The photos in question also show that the Banker's Trust Building, a building similar in size to WTC 7 (but not a WTC building), standing just across the street from the South Tower, suffered no such catastrophic damage and it certainly didn't catch on fire and collapse.

* Explosions occurred in WTC 7 before it sustained any damage from the twin towers' collapses.
* The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
* The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
* Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

[Braxter]

hi. where are you getting this information?

[Boogahz]

hi. where are you getting this information?

Dude, we don't want him to post a pic of his ass!

[Nick]

Am I missing something and everyone's being ironic or what?