Read CAREFULLY:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

Then read the comments underneath.

A witness has already come forward and stated they heard a Countdown to destruction of WTC7 along with other witnesses and audio of explosions and shockwaves before collapse/demolition initiation. I believe the witnesses more than I believe a bunch of Yellow Journalism Experts at PopuLIAR Mechanics. They never talk about the White Smoke at the base of both buildings or the explosions and shockwaves felt prior to both WTC 1&2's demolition.

Thanks for explanation, but no thanks...

PM Magazine
"Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, "

This incorrect assessment of the damage to the south face of WTC 7 was given to PM by Bush appointee Shyam Sunder.

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium [ground to floor 5], noted that the atrium glass was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

The atrium, ground to 5th floor, is the area between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right.




FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
“According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html...es_full_01.html
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of WTC 7 ?]

NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

It sounded reasonable to me. The missing section of the building from floor 18 downward was likely a fatal injury suffered by the building. Corners are very important pieces of buildings (hence cornerstones being the first stones layed).

At any rate...all of the rubble from the buildings had to go somewhere. Nearby buildings seem like a logical destination.

As for PM, they've been around for something like 70 years have they not? If they were "yellow journalists" (give me a break especially when you look at the journalistic standards of the rank and file here on this board--PM looks like a bunch of Pulitizer Prize winners) they would likely have closed up shop long ago.

Content does not lend or extract credence.

Well I guess you got me there ahah... nope! Ok now you need to research PM. Owned by Hearst Publications the Father of All Yellow Journalism... Did you know Ben Chertoff helped write the initial Debunk of Loose Change and is the cousin to Michael Chertoff the head of Homeland Security? Did they think this would go overlooked? I guess you can see why truthers are kinda skeptical about the sources and why certain info is not addressed when we are only seeking complete truth and unbiased investigation.

You're going to see what you want to see and read into it what you are going to read into it.

But look at this truth: Somehow you contend that 70 years of "yellow journalism" by PM has gone un-noticed by the general public who buys the magazines and subscribes to it.

That is...UNTIL NOW!!! Now they are yellow journalists because they disagree with the "truther" community. Content does not lend itself to credence.

But lets' go down your road. What "mainstream" media outlet print or television isn't "yellow."

This should be good. And brief.

Corporately owned mass media publications, whether they be well known magazines like POPULAR MECHANICS, or newspapers, radio or TV Networks, have evolved throughout history but still retain the common denominator of being a business and representing the interests of their owners.

I'm currently finishing reading an autobiography of a former premier of the Canadian province of Ontario. Bob Rae is a Rhodes scholar and quite possibly will be a future Canadian prime minister.

In his book, FROM PROTEST TO POWER, he comments on the mass media's power to effect events based on their own agenda;

"Business and editorial response was sweeping. My favourite was a polite, but blunt private exchange with the major newspaper publishers of the province (Ontario), who made it clear that their business and editorial views were one and the same, and this would continue with a vengeance....Now the publishers were only reminding me that newspapers were, above all, a business, and they didn't like what we (Ontario government) were doing.

Did these views affect their coverage and view of the government? Of course, absolutely. It would be absurd to pretend otherwise. The government is a democratically elected body and the people have the right to know a great deal about it. The problem is the only place to find out anything is through business-owned media with its own political agenda or preference while pretending to be an objective witness to events. Hogwash." emphasis added.

MM

NIST and PM contradict eachother.. Well I thought so..

PM supports pancake wich NIST doesnt

you should research the owners of popular mechanics (hearst publishing) and the term "yellow journalism".

Would you trust a magazine published by Fox News which printed articles about how we found WMD's?

Would you trust a corporation that helped sell wars in the past?

I think Architects and Engineers have less motive to cover up - and have a much better argument - than a couple editors from a rag that's DIRECTLY TIED to yellow journalism.. http://www.ae911truth.org

I see you have your dancing shoes on.

c'mon give me a mainstream outlet (TV) that isn't "yellow".

Just a name. I'm betting that you can't. I'm sure you can't. I dare you to.

As for the silly assed "motive to cover up" I'm really curious about what you think Popular Mechanic's "motive to cover up" is? Why would they do that? Oh yeah, one of the people who wrote an article is the cousin of the DHS that wasn't even around when the 9/11/01 attacks happened.

Congratulations, you're making Head Spin and Elder for 1/2 Truth looking good. At least they can usually smell their own BS.

No argument there. They are in business to make money.

However, it is unclear how that truly interferes with them doing their jobs.

Likewise, I do not notice any lack of profit motive on the behalf of the "truther" community.

Lies only sell when people buy them. :D If someone from PM could write an article that explains how Yellow Journalism works I would be impressed. :lol:

All of the sudden Yellow Journalism appears after 70 years, I guess they coined the term all those years ago just to save it for an event like 911 too.

So how long should it take to create the Patriot Act? Congress must be very efficient and in complete agreement for once as its volumes of information and legalease happened to roll out the week after 911. It makes no difference if we notice or even know about a rigged vote and the "Hacking of Democracy". We are just supposed to sit back and read popular mechanics to somehow make sense of the absurdity that this administration and its official coverup truly is. And we can't use any of that to factually make a decision about the administration or a conspiracy for that matter, but shouldn't it matter? At least to say, how is it that incompetance is actually rewarded? And the questions raised by hunches only lead back into an unprovable conspiracy committed by faceless perpetrators.

Now I can actually understand if persons in power know something that average americans should not be privy to and witholding info in order to protect them. But when the implications reveal doing so on this magnitude of profiteering and an undermining of middle class americans, then it takes a group of concerned people coming forward and saying unpopular things mechanically which now also represents the resentment, that within even the slightest possibility of coverup has created.

Listen to the witnesses about WTC7. If you don't believe or need more proof then you can read and study looking for facts supporting CD or just accept PM's explanation. You may just as well be happy with this 50/50 chance that you get it right. Flip the coin in coincidence and listen to the Tales from the Heads of those that have come forward to implore people to just listen to them. They were at the time average americans now called conspiracy theorists and it really makes me cringe to think perhaps they are telling the truth and no one listens or believes. So I believe in them, as it takes more courage for them to explain the Unpopular Mechanics of it all. And if what the witnesses say is true then PM uses their intellect in the same way that they say Truthers do.

A countdown to demolition is not rocket science, even though one preceeds launches but not hunches, and mine is that I don't need to be saved from the truth or protected from the truth by PM and the Official story. I am with the witnesses all the way on this about the countdown and the audio that backs up explosive shockwaves seen and felt by them close up at WTC7.

Lets see about this.

In the greatest conspiracy of all time, that spans numerous agencies and organistations, involving thousands of people, the government goes and blows it by having a countdown to the demolition (the so called smoking gun), right in the open where some random witness could hear it.

Really how sensible does that sound to you? Do you really think they would go and do the countdown in some place where some witness heard them?

This conspiracy would have been extensively planned. WTC7 was an integral part, where they somehow magically rigged the entire building with explosives and not one single person ever saw that happen. Extremely difficult and apparently very succesful.

Then they go and give up all that hard work (spanning years! ) in a few seconds, by deciding to do the countdown where somebody who was not in on it could hear.

Doesn't make sense to me.

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

There are some very difficult questions concerning 9/11.

And then there are some answers that come as easily as believing your own eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."

So?

What does that indicate.

People on the scene may have seen the extensive damage, the intensity of the fires and believed that it to would collapse.

Doesn't prove a thing for ANY side.

The guy in the 8th floor that went to the OEM to find the Mayor witnessed an explosion before WTC1 or 2 came down. But he can be discredited because he said that the lobby looked like King Kong had gone through it. This is where you will have to just ignore the witnesses account and the 100 Foot Gorilla in the room.

So piece this together with a person talking about a countdown that didn't realize he was not supposed to hear a countdown and how illogical it would sound that he heard something that exposes a major problem with WTC7. Perhaps this prooves that he is telling the truth because you would think he could have thought up something better if he was going to outright lie about it. Do you think he makes it up to have a laugh? Or just to bolster a CD theory that is easily refuted by PM and mainstream media, who will never report about his story anyways. He came forward just to be ridiculed then, and must be crazy to think up all the details about a worker with a radio and a conscience.

Does it make more sense to you that he would lie or is confused about what he saw? Or would it mean that he is really trying to get through to people the severity of what he saw. Even if they could have wired the explosives for the countdown it is still controlled demolition, and if in that case you would believe, then now know you were lied to about it. And if they would lie about this what else could there be to cover up as there are plenty of anomalies to go around.

White Smoke at the base of both WTC 1 and 2 prior to collapse, and explosions occurring prior to both. The videos are real and you can see white smoke from several different angles. One angle was a reporter from Fox 5 and his camera man panned over to catch a huge white plume coming up from the base of the towers immediately before the collapse. A distant angle shows huge plumes that are timed precisely with all the other videos. So did all the hoaxers get together and time all these videos out? Or are these our only solid proof that something was not right at the base of the building and rightfully so, it would be the smoke from the smoking gun.

Does seeing the white smoke mean someone was careless or could just care less about what you think you saw and at the same time lets see you try to do something about what you saw. How do you prove who planted it and you can actually say to a certain extent that the gov would not want this info to get out. Because it would implicate them or it would show a group of highly trained people could pull this off with impunity and thus cause even more panic and societal unrest. But to understand that the underpinnings of the economy and the way things work currently with our currency then you would know the whole thing is a scam. If you ignore it or explore it, that is up to you... I only implore that you explore it and understand it, even if there is nothing we can do about it; other than get the word out and wake people up!

What does it look like to you?

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

...This report is an overview of the results of the mechanical and metallurgical analysis of structural steel from the World Trade Center (WTC),

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

The key point here is this:

Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7,


The NIST did not examine any of the steel from WTC 7 in producing their unsupportable hypothesis.

That is not their purview.

Either that or you're seeing it where it doesn't exist. Still waiting for one TV station that isn't "yellow" in your view.

Should? It shouldn't have been created at all. One of the worst ideas in the history of juris prudence (sp?). We need tough laws on terrorists. Not tough laws on Americans.

You'll gain little traction plodding onto the slippery slope of alleging incompetence in Congress. Such has been tried before and it has never failed. Tell us something we don't know....like a single mainstream televised media outlet that isn't yellow. Still waiting for that one.

Okay...you sort of lost me there (and they accuse me of going off on tangents). The 9/|| Commission had a very narrow scope and that distresses me. However I have yet to hear a single source piece together the events of that morning with more plausibility than the Commission. If you'd like to weigh in, please do. I'd even accept a link to a site that goes step by step showing us exactly how it happened and exactly where the 9/|| Commission got off track.

As for sitting back and reading PM, I doubt their circulation was over 10,000,000 before the attacks and I'd bet it is now about where it was when Flight 11 hit the north tower.

Huh?

Huh?

The building was incredibly damaged. Few deny it was on fire, big time.

Here is a quote from a fire-fighter at the scene: Captain Chris Boyle:

"So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody?s going into 7, there?s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. ".

Brandies is a firefigher. Visconti is a fire chief.

Those are the witnesses I believe....those who were there and risked their lives. That is courage.

This is jibberish that makes all of the above look coherent. You blieve them because it takes courage to tell the truth?

Oh but you're not!!!

Those on the scene were first responders (the ones who said the heard the building creeking and saw the 18 story gash in the bottom of the structure). You're "with" those whom you agree with.

Still waiting for the televised news outlet that isn't yellow. Still waiting.

Go back to JREF holycanoli!

You are just another garbage shill!

MM

Am I shill too?

I actually worked at WTC7 and I'm still waiting to hear how my building was wired for controlled demolition while many floors had people on there almost every day and late for SSB including three that had coverage 24/7


IT's great to guess and watch You Tube but it's another thing to spend three years up to and including 9-11 and think it's possible.

What I don't understand is why WTC7 was built to collapse. Why would Rudy put his command center in this building? It's bad enough that it was in the WTC, but it was just waiting to fall over. So you remove one column and the whole thing comes down? What kind of sense does that make?

Below is the NIST photo of the southwest corner damage.




Below is a link to a photo of the actual damage to the southwest corner.


http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-110.jpg

Here is a comparison.

If I knew what or where (for that matter) JREF was, perhaps I would. JREF is a mystery to me.

He says he listens to witnesses. Eye (and Ear) Witness testimony from firefighters (schills too I guess???) of creaking from the building. Yet he doesn't listen to these professionals. This isn't curious or strange. It is flat out insipid.


I would know that if I were running the operation of a conspirator who wanted WTC 7 taken down, I would have fired up the explosives around noon instead of waiting until around 5:20 PM. The confusion was exponentially more chaotic at noon than it ws near 5:00. But for some reason, the uninformed minority thinks they waited until 5:20 PM to blow it? That is strange given that anytime prior to that would yield less scrutiny.

This fact is just one of the many I could bring up to convince most that it wasn't a CD. The tell-tale flashes prior to all CD's were not there, the stocatto cacophony of blasts was not there, the wiring necessary was not there, the four months or so it would take to place the charges in pin-point precise position wasn't noticed, the sawing through floors, piping, conduit, walls, and ceiling panels was not noticed, the unavoidable interruption of untilities wasn't there, the economic motivation wasn't there since rebuilding is costing more than the judgment award, etc...

Another poster posted the "actual" picture of damage. Somehow discounting an entire corner of the building missing below the 18th floor (40 percent of the way up the building or so).

Garbage is your ply and trade. I've read your posts. To call them garbage does injury to garbage around the world.

Analyzing the posts of others and injecting some much-needed common sense into the discussion is mine. And I'll continue to do so as long as the people who run this board allow me or until I decide to stop.

What's the name of this witness by the way? I hear everyone always talk about this countdown witness but I've never once seen a name and a source.

Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down:


What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running. 8

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho

Canoli, If there was a demolition charge that went off in the lobby then yeah you would hear structural creeking and they are valid witnesses to that fact. You take their word over another witnesses word and then commend yourself on it instead of combining the two. Sorry you probably still don't understand me Huhly Canoli...

Televised News that isn't Yellow? The Daily Show with John Stewart! :P

If you believe Indira's account, then you believe the FDNY was involved in the CD of WTC7.

Are you saying the FDNY were involved?

The evidence is overwhelming that police and fire personnel knew that WTC 7 was
going to be pulled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Larry Silverstein:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."

"The building is about to blow up."

The "actual" picture showing "the building missing below the 18th floor (40 percent of the way up the building or so)" is a deception. Either the image was manipulated or smoke obscurred part of the building making the damage appear to be more substantial than it was.

The actual damage to the southwest corner is shown in the picture at the link below.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-110.jpg

Here's a photo showing fires burning in WTC 7 before either collapse.
No explanation of the WTC 7 collapse is complete unless the fires and explosions in WTC 7 before either Tower collapse are explained.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11817




Structural engineer Matthys Levy, one of several so called "expert" opinions cited in the "History Channel" documentary "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact Or Fiction", makes the following claim regarding WTC building 7, during the programs 2nd hour.

Matthys Levy: "The initial fires started around 9:30 in the morning."

Fires in WTC 7 are said to have been caused by debris from the collapsing WTC tower 1, which did not fall until 10:28am.

Levy, was chairman for Weidlinger Associates, one of several firms recruited after 9/11, by Silverstein Properties to assist in its $7 billion WTC insurance claim.

Which there wasn't.

Which there was

I suppose I'm funny that way. I seem to take the words of dedicated public servants who risk their lives to keep ours in tact. I seem to take the words of people who were on site (not sitting behind their computer 6 years later analyzing it) trained in recognizing and analyzing structural integrity. You made a choice to believe people that say they heard something like a countdown or even the one first-responder who was quoted here as "having heard a rumor." I'll take the word of one of New York's finest who was on site, had zero motivation to cover up anything--just lost 343 of his brothers--over an entire batallion of innuendo laden quotes any day.


As I stated at the beginning...you're going to believe what you want to believe and thats your right. I have a certain set of beliefs that maybe an Oscar Wyatt type (Oscar who just pled guilty to flouting the Oil for Food Program) free lanced the operation to drive oil prices up--nobody can seriously contend that the strife in the middle east--which assuredly an attack by middle eastern terrorists would create--was good for oil companies. See Exxon Mobil's huge gains.

At some point though, you really should take a look at the evidence or the lack of evidence and analyze your wacky position (demolition charges in the lobby--please!! and I'm guessing that your demolition charges in the lobby charge is just the tip of a sick ice cube) and examine your position for the many--what is the politically correct term--quirks it has.

So since you won't name any mainstream televised media that isn't yellow, you think they all are--with the exception of Jon Stewart? Yeah, you're REAL centered.

Barry Jennings: Eyewitness from inside WTC 7.


"There was an explosion and the landing gave way."(6th floor WTC 7)
"Both buildings were still standing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE