• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon" while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Building 7

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I still haven't seen comments on the videos that pixelsmith posted. I watched the videos you posted but I also read the youtube comments which tear the videos to pieces. Free fall collapse speed isn't explained by the pancake model for the two towers. To say that one tower fell later because it had fewer stories above the burning area does not address the free fall speed for both the towers collapsing. The freefall speed is also the case for tower 7 -- a point ignored by the video.

So again I'm waiting for some criticism of pixelsmith's videos -- until then this is a slam dunk case for controlled demolition. To just defer to "official" is not an argument -- that's not presenting any evidence. Even worse "official" means it should be held up to even more scrutiny considering the previous falsehoods of the "official" positions that have led to the U.S. attacking other countries -- whether it's via the CIA or proxy forces or secret bombings, etc.

Official -- it reminds me of when I was confronting vice president Al Gore in the basement of the VFW in 2000 -- I said "everyone knows the CIA controls the drug trade." Obviously I wasn't presenting the official story but there's so much evidence that this is the case that my statement was not outlandish.
Yes Drew, let's rely on YouTube comments. A bastion of truth on the internet.
So, let me get this straight - Terrorists crashed planes into the buildings and then someone inside the US government pushed the button to demolish the towers and tower 7, along with a church and a few other buildings. Also, they killed everyone on board a flight that crashed in a field, and they also crashed another plane into the Pentagon, but that wasn't really a plane, it was a missile and all those people on that plane just disappeared?
That's the story you're trying to convince me of, in a nutshell, right?
As Trained Observer has said, arguing this stuff is ridiculous - we need to understand the WHY of it. Why would the American government go through all this and murder thousands of its citizens? Why crash planes AND use explosives, and then not blame the explosives on the terrorists? If the explosives were so easy to see, why not blame it on the terrorists?
Right now, I find that there's a lot of science that shows the buildings could have collapsed without the help of explosives, but I could be wrong because my expertise is in a different field. There's a lot of speculation in the videos posted by Pixelsmith, but they are interesting. Those people aren't just college film students like the Loose Change people. Those are actual scientists, some talking outside of their field, some not - it's interesting, but it doesn't mean it's what happened that day.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
No Angelo, as I've stated in this thread in response to other speculations about motivations and guilty parties, we must understand WHAT happened before any speculation about WHO or WHY should even be entertained. The WHAT is the first question. How is it possible to speculate about motivations of someone when it what they did isn't even properly understood? It can't. This is where various groups and individuals consistently fail in their approach to 911.

If we look at this objectively without preconceived ideas about the events of that day and ignore the irrelevant and irrational speculation about things that are unknown and unknowable (such the motivations of individuals or groups who may or may not have done something the details of which are themselves unknown or misunderstood) and just concentrate on the question of What actually happened to the buildings. WHAT do we see?

These other questions and speculations are distractions and only serve to polarize the discussion in counter-productive ways that only serve to keep everyone distracted with controversy.

Was the investigation of the greatest crime in United States history done in a timely and thorough manner? Does it need to be reexamined? These are the questions being raised. The WHAT remains a question in many people's minds. A cause cannot be extrapolated from an event that isn't understood.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Someone has pointed out to me that Dr. Steven Jones makes a false statement in the video I last posted to this thread concerning the pancake theory. In this video Jones makes the claim that Molten Metal isn't even mentioned in the NIST reports. It is. This makes Jones unreliable and I apologize for putting that into the conversation.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
Is it true that eye witnesses in the form of cops and firemen saw that debris from the closest tower had gouged out a massive portion of the facing facade almost 25% the depth of the building?
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Is it true that eye witnesses in the form of cops and firemen saw that debris from the closest tower had gouged out a massive portion of the facing facade almost 25% the depth of the building?
i had not heard that percentage. lets assume it was 25% or even more... the building should have fallen towards the path of least resistance and toppled over towards the damaged side... nope. it fell straight down defying a few laws of physics in the process.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Is it true that eye witnesses in the form of cops and firemen saw that debris from the closest tower had gouged out a massive portion of the facing facade almost 25% the depth of the building?
There are even photographs of it somewhere. While it's true the building was damaged, does that cause a symmetrical collapse? It seems highly unlikely.

What do our lying eyes tell us when we watch building 7 collapse? That's what I keep coming back to. What do the collapse of all three of those buildings look like? Where have we seen that before? Have we seen this happen, symmetrical or near symmetrical collapse of high rise buildings due to fires and structural damage on one side of the building anywhere else? Isn't that enough to give one pause?

Is the experience a bit like watching that reactor blow its fuel rods into the sky the first week of the Fukushima disaster? You could look at that and see dark material being blown into the sky for hundreds of feet. We were told no, that wasn't what we saw. Not until weeks later was that admitted to as being a scattering of fuel rods.

What does it look like? Never mind the who or the why, what causes buildings to fall down so neatly and completely? Random damage? Really? Maybe I'm just being stupid about it, but I just can't get past that.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
There are even photographs of it somewhere. While it's true the building was damaged, does that cause a symmetrical collapse? It seems highly unlikely.

What do our lying eyes tell us when we watch building 7 collapse? That's what I keep coming back to. What do the collapse of all three of those buildings look like? Where have we seen that before? Have we seen this happen, symmetrical or near symmetrical collapse of high rise buildings due to fires and structural damage on one side of the building anywhere else? Isn't that enough to give one pause?

Is the experience a bit like watching that reactor blow its fuel rods into the sky the first week of the Fukushima disaster? You could look at that and see dark material being blown into the sky for hundreds of feet. We were told no, that wasn't what we saw. Not until weeks later was that admitted to as being a scattering of fuel rods.

What does it look like? Never mind the who or the why, what causes buildings to fall down so neatly and completely? Random damage? Really? Maybe I'm just being stupid about it, but I just can't get past that.
I had a huge brush and tree limb pile to burn last weekend. we had flames 25 feet high.. i kept waiting for the logs to all fall straight down at once but they didnt... rather, they crumbled a little on one side... then fell a little on the other side... and slowly throughout the night crumbled one way then the other until it was all ashes... if an unstructured pile of tree limbs reacts to fire that way... then how does a steel and concrete structure fall instantly and pulverize the concrete to powder on the way down? hmmm...
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
There are even photographs of it somewhere. While it's true the building was damaged, does that cause a symmetrical collapse? It seems highly unlikely.
I have a lifelong friend that is an architect. We spoke on the phone about this for about 45 minutes. (yes I realize that is not long) but he made some interesting points. He says that he would consider at least 4 factors.

1) Seismic impact from two 110 story buildings collapsing within 600 feet of it. He says that there is a difference in designing a building to withstand seismic tremors located miles underground and one happening at your doorstep. The distribution of such a force is different.

2) Debris. His estimates were 20-25% depth to 60% of the facing facade was ripped out. He says it is impossible to calculate what kind of damage that can have on a structure. But added that it wasn't good and that the remaining structural elements would have to absorb the shifting weight of the building, the impact, vibration, and structural weakening. Things like cracked concrete and beams that were pulled, bent, and ripped out of the structure. He says that calculating the impact that wrenching effect had on the remaining structural elements is nearly impossible.

3) Most buildings get their strength from the core of the building where things like the elevator shafts and stair wells are also located. The likelyhood of this core being damaged along even a 40% portion (a rough estimate given his earlier estimate of 60% of the facing facade being damaged) of the facing side is pretty high. Couple this with the fact that the main weight of the building was concentrated in 3 large trusses located in the bottom 20% of the building. Apparently, he says that there was 2 trusses running parallel to the facing facade and one running perpendicular.

4) Catastrophic failure of the truss as a cascading effect. He says it is likely that the closest portion of the perpendicular truss was weakened in the aftermath of the debris impacts, seismic force, ripping and pulling forces, vibrations, and rapid weight redistribution. When this truss failed, he says that the first thing to go would be the core portion of the building on that side. This is why you see a drop in the Penthouse first. Then the core of the building would systematically fail and redistribute weight and force to the other two trusses. He says this would most likely be a very rapid progression.

He also think that the fires were most likely inconsequential and just hindered an accurate assessment of the condition of the building more than actually contributing to its demise. However, he did say that firemen were watching the building and were commenting on how it was leaning towards the gouged section of the building.

I asked about the 8 floor free fall and he says that in reality it probably wasn't an actual free fall. More likely it was a further progression of the collapse pushing from one end of the building (where the perpendicular truss was located) to the other (where the parallel trusses were located) he says that the image might look like a free fall but in reality was a continuous wave like collapse. Combine that with the probable lateral movement (lateral to the gouged facade) and it would probably give the visual effect of a smooth free fall.

As I have already stated before any ire/insults are flung his/my way. It was about a 45 minute conversation. He looked into this several years ago with a couple other architect and engineers and this was their rough finding. Anyway, I thought that it might be pertinent to the conversation so after some deliberation here it is.
 

drew hempel

Skilled Investigator
Another great source of information.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xbY5_qtz83M#!
Thanks pixelsmith -- I'm not afraid of the videos you post. haha. This is the best David Ray Griffin speech I've heard. It makes Popular Mechanics 9/11 article look absurd -- which it is.

Free Fall. Pretty simple. Then if you study the CIA connections and the history of the CIA it fits perfectly with what the CIA does.

Anyway dare to debunk David Ray Griffin's Debunking the Debunking speech?

So far:

No one.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
Angel of Ioren said:
Drew, don't you also think that the world is run by reptiles, or is that just your buddy David Icke. If that's the case, it means you're prone to believing stupid things and your opinions are tainted with that. If not, I apologize.
IMO, Believing 2 planes took down 3 buildings is sorta stupid too. If not, I apologize.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
This topic is NOT about the CIA involvement in Building 7. It is about just Building 7, not any other building. This can be confusing since a Mod merged another thread into this one for some reason.

Angelo is not a good moderator. He now has that "holier than thou" attitude that some Mods develop after awhile. He should step down asap. I think he is an EXCELLENT forum member tho.
 

drew hempel

Skilled Investigator
This topic is NOT about the CIA involvement in Building 7. It is about just Building 7, not any other building. This can be confusing since a Mod merged another thread into this one for some reason.

Angelo is not a good moderator. He now has that "holier than thou" attitude that some Mods develop after awhile. He should step down asap. I think he is an EXCELLENT forum member tho.
Regarding Angelo's Building 7 thread claims that I am buddies with David Icke and that I believe reptilians run the world -- I've provided a blog post in response. Natural Resonance Revolution: Drew Hempel believes reptilians rule the world and Drew Hempel is buddies with David Icke....NOT!! Only Empty Awareness is in control.

Now back to the real discussion

 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
I would suggest ignoring Angelo. He is obviously baiting and trolling because he has no clue what he is talking about in regards to this event.
 

drew hempel

Skilled Investigator
Well Lance has made an appearance on my blog post that I created in response to Angelo -- Lance makes a statement regarding the evidence that has been presenting on this Building 7 thread:

<dl class="avatar-comment-indent" id="comments-block"><dt class="comment-author " id="c2104479691943047593">Lance said...
</dt><dd class="comment-body" id="Blog1_cmt-2104479691943047593"> I assume that when you say you posted 24 hours (!) or evidence that you mean you posted some YouTube links.

Fortunately in the real world, this does not yet constitute "evidence". But keep working on dumbing things down and eventually we will end up in that sad place.

Lance Moody
</dd></dl>
Natural Resonance Revolution: Drew Hempel believes reptilians rule the world and Drew Hempel is buddies with David Icke....NOT!! Only Empty Awareness is in control.

To which I replied:

Lance thanks for posting on my blog.

In the real world the information contained in youtube videos can certainly be considered evidence.

Obviously the information within the youtube videos can vary greatly but to attack youtube as a format of evidence dispersal is certainly an anathema on the internet.

Is theparacast a cult like I've implied? Do the moderators on theparacast really think that any information should not be considered because it's been presented on youtube? Certainly that would censor a lot of evidence on the internet.

I have seen this claim made several times on my qigong thread on theparacast -- that since something is on youtube therefore it should be ignored. To attack the form of information instead of the content is a convenient means of dismissing evidence but it's blatantly absurd if someone is truly interesting in investigating a subject matter on the internet.
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest


Top