• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus 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! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

WTC 7 tell me what you think of this video

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

2 minutes into this video and i am laughing my ass off. "melted steel" caused by jet fuel... no one needs to go any further than that. a person would have to be legally retarded to believe anything in this video.
 
i hope my camp stove doesnt melt and collapse suddenly next time i use it. :eek:.... i am letting this video go on and i am having a hard time accepting that this is supposed to be a legitimate video. are you sure this isnt a spoof?
 
this video is pretty funny, thanks for posting. never laughed so hard at the content and that there are people dumb enough to accept what they are saying. steel columns collapsing within themselves... steel melted by unknown forces, sheet rock not strong enough to support the building... it goes on and on with stupid shit... sorry vesve but this has got to be the stupidest video ever on the subject. are you sure it isnt from The Onion?
 
they say they found melted steel and evidence of 2000 degree heat.. steel melts at 2750.. jet fuel burns at 1400, office fires at about 700 degrees...hmm.

44 minutes in they start get a clue... "looks very much like a controlled demolition" they say the "core columns collapsed". how does a core column collapse within itself starting at the basement level in order for the radio tower to fall first? my gosh... the stupidity of this video and the people gullible enough to believe it is amazing. here is a cross section of a core column... you tell me how a fire at the top of the trade center can melt or even soften 48 cores and cause them all to collapse in on themselves at the same time... not to mention all the other perimeter columns... riiiiight.
corebase1.jpg
 
One thing is for sure. That day there were some men that died who were not in the building when the plane hit.
Can you imagine being a fireman carrying heavy equipment up countless floors, with everyone else hurrying down and all you have to look forward to is more uphill struggle towards where a raging fire from a crashed plane is literally weakening this bloody tower you are in going up?

If those guys were not just the finest example of a human being, I'll eat my words.

(I am still most dubious about the lack of Pentagon footage and the width of the hole. WT7 also was 'convenient' monetarily but in terms of the towers collapsing, I haven't seen convincing evidence of explosions being used to bring them down and really it's hardly outside the realm of possibility that a large aircraft with jet fuel striking a building leads to it's collapse.)
 
goggsmackay said:
(I am still most dubious about the lack of Pentagon footage and the width of the hole. WT7 also was 'convenient' monetarily but in terms of the towers collapsing, I haven't seen convincing evidence of explosions being used to bring them down and really it's hardly outside the realm of possibility that a large aircraft with jet fuel striking a building leads to it's collapse.)
Click to expand...
Really? When have you ever in your lifetime seen a building fall like that that was not a controlled demolition? If you watch the impact you will see most of the fuel burn up in a fire ball. They were "rivers of molten metal" (unless you want to call firemen liars) and large chunks of solidified melted steel found. Jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees, steel melts at 2750. Do the math.
 
I don't know enough about it. I wonder what the point would be to hit the towers and to use explosives to bring them down? It does make sense that a controlled demolition would be down low to use the weight of the towers to do the work. It looks like whatever happened, happened where the planes hit?

Regarding the temperatures, I am constantly hearing conflicting evidence and I doubt we'll ever know for sure cos all the rubble is long gone. Perhaps there is a way to tell from a video what kind of temps we are talking about?
 
because the towers were designed to take a hit from a airplane and that alone would never bring down a building like that... dont forget, 2 planes knocked down 3 buildings. do the math.

melted steel is a clue to temps. like i said, steel melts at 2750, jet fuel burns at 1400... so... you tell me how you melt steel with such low temps... the other clue as to temps is the black smoke which is indicative of a "cold" oxygen starved fire. the only white "smoke" you really see is the massive amounts of pulverized concrete flowing thru the streets like a pyroclastic cloud.
 
still waiting from our expert to tell us how those columns collapsed in on themselves which requires that the column occupies the same space from which it resides... hmmm. magic i guess... the pancake theory would have floors piled up and the central columns still standing much like records that slide down a spindle on a record player.
 
the destruction of building 7 alone netted a handsome profit of 500 millions dollars. the twin towers netted over 5 billion for the owner and all debris was cleared away at tax payer expense. the tampering with a crime scene law was not enforced. hmmm..
 
I am not an expert on this. I have been searching for vids that show explosions. Also I been seaching for records of power downs and witness accounts of unusual work being done. So far the only one I found was a 2 day power down at wtc2 for 2 days affecting 50 floors. Pixel I am giving this my all in checking out claims for and agenst.my wife is also checking. I will tell you I want the truth where ever the truth leads me.
 
For sure WT7 is very suspect, as is the Pentagon. Getting rid of parts of a crime scene doesn't fit either.
Trouble with this is because I am no expert in any relevant field, I find quite strong arguments either way and I've no way to decide which is more persuasive!
 
Pixel, do you have a pet theory? I am constantly getting more data on this whole event and it's really hard to picture what must have been a large conspiracy going un-noticed.

Problem is also that things like 'holographic aircraft' gets lumped in with more down to earth theories and if you don't swallow the official version you get labelled as a crackpot!
 
Whichever way 9/11 really happened, the following, or something close to it, will have happened.

You are sitting at your desk on 100th floor of WTC 1 or 2. Typing an email or something and you notice a new sound, familiar but not familiar 100 stories up here? At the last second you recognise the deafening whine of jet engines, which seem to be too close. Why would a plane going to JFK or La Guardia fly so close to Manhattan? Is there some air demonstration happening or something.

BAAAAAAAAAAANG. A noise like you are inside a crack of thunder. But the noise keeps going, like a stretched-out-time thunder peal. The whole office shakes like you see when CCTV footage from earthquakes is watched. Did a bomb go off below us? I dont hear the plane anymore. Did a plane crash?

Everyone is in a daze, realising we are ok from whatever just happened but it quickly dawns on people it would be sensible to get out of this building immediately if possible. People check eachother off and drag those in a panic toward the fire stairs. Things are intact up here for now, hope we can get past wherever the smoke is coming from.

Some point later you all find out that the way down is blocked. You are ridiculously high off the ground and therefore absolutely no way to jump or climb down, or be rescued by rope or ladder etc. You are aware of fire below because of thick, acrid smoke blocking your view. It's coming from below and it chokes like petrol and burning plastic. There is no doubt it's getting hotter and the fire must be spreading.

It might have then been the case that someone on that floor even felt the floor beneath them start to fall, for an instant aware that the upper portion of this huge tower seems to be falling down.........


Shit, if you really picture it and those tortured souls who chose to jump, knowing the alternative was worse. Picture yourself or someone you love having to make that decision. It's utterly unbearable as a reality but it happened.

Never mind proving a conspiracy or not, the bottom line is the victims deserve that the truth be known.
 
The discussion on 9/11 here or anywhere else goes like this:

"I think 9/11 was an inside job because of (controlled demos, Pentagon, etc.)"

My proof is at:

conspiracysite.com

"I think 19 hijackers did it and you are wrong."

My proof is at:

conspiracysitedebunked.com

Meanwhile, not a single person who looks at this subject like that are able to think and consider different possibilities as to actually what MAY of happened. Bringing up ABLE DANGER usually goes ignored. Bringing up the head of the Pakistani ISI being the guy who fronted $100K to KSM was in Washington that day talking to people like Porter Goss and Bob Graham and why the fuck that guy was allowed to leave the country and why the fuck we never went to war with Pakistan instead is largely ignored.
 
Something undeniably strange is how much very solid matter seemed to instantly vapourise! When the radio mast started to fall, why does it look like nothing is below it to arrest it's fall somewhat? It's like all these columns just turned to dust at the same time?
 
lancemoody said:
I usually don't reply to these arguments since the opponents are such idiots.

My hope is that non-idiots might enlightened to the completely morally and intellectually bankrupt practices of deceitful 9/11 truthers. I will demonstrate just this one point but have found that the same tactics are used over and over by Truthers.

Above note where a typical 9/11 Truther says:



He is referring to the video posted above by Vesvehighfolk of the NOVA special on the tower collapse.

Please watch the video.

Melted steel is not part of the official explanation for the collapse.

Truthers know this but (because they are deceitful pricks?) they pretend that they don't.

Melted steel is not the conclusion made in this video either.

The official explanation is that the steel weakened (not melted) and sagged . And this precipitated the the collapse. It is all explained in the video and is the entire point of the show. You will also find this consistent explanation in all non-Truther discussions of the tragedy.

In other words, Truthers, for some reason, create a false position for their opponents and then proceed to discuss how the false position can't be true. Do you see the idiocy of this?

I am hoping that someone who is somehow on the fence about these matters might wonder why it would be necessary for Truthers to be deceitful in arguing their case.

Here you can hopefully see why Truthers don't deserve consideration in the marketplace of ideas.

Best,

Lance
Click to expand...
lancemoody said:
I usually don't reply to these arguments since the opponents are such idiots.

My hope is that non-idiots might enlightened to the completely morally and intellectually bankrupt practices of deceitful 9/11 truthers. I will demonstrate just this one point but have found that the same tactics are used over and over by Truthers.

Above note where a typical 9/11 Truther says:



He is referring to the video posted above by Vesvehighfolk of the NOVA special on the tower collapse.

Please watch the video.

Melted steel is not part of the official explanation for the collapse.

Truthers know this but (because they are deceitful pricks?) they pretend that they don't.

Melted steel is not the conclusion made in this video either.

The official explanation is that the steel weakened (not melted) and sagged . And this precipitated the the collapse. It is all explained in the video and is the entire point of the show. You will also find this consistent explanation in all non-Truther discussions of the tragedy.

In other words, Truthers, for some reason, create a false position for their opponents and then proceed to discuss how the false position can't be true. Do you see the idiocy of this?

I am hoping that someone who is somehow on the fence about these matters might wonder why it would be necessary for Truthers to be deceitful in arguing their case.

Here you can hopefully see why Truthers don't deserve consideration in the marketplace of ideas.

Best,

Lance
Click to expand...
Lance the Liar should re watch the documentary.... (Mods.. we established this in the past..if i am a Truther he is the opposite... a Liar)

Please watch the video. Melted steel IS part of the official explanation for the collapse.

Liars know this but (because they are deceitful pricks?) they pretend that they don't.

At 56 and 114 seconds we see a fused glob of concrete and steel.
At 2:20 the guy says "as the steel began to soften and MELT, the core columns began to give and you have the sequential failure that took place where it all pancakes..."

I suggest Lance the Liar admit he is wrong.

For some reason Liars like Lance create a false position for their opponents and then proceed to discuss how the false position can't be true. Do you see the idiocy of this?
 
goggsmackay said:
Something undeniably strange is how much very solid matter seemed to instantly vapourise! When the radio mast started to fall, why does it look like nothing is below it to arrest it's fall somewhat? It's like all these columns just turned to dust at the same time?
Click to expand...
Ask Lance... it has something to do with magic. Those box columns somehow collapse in on themselves all at the same time, all the way to the ground level and disappear in order to allow zero resistance to the radio mast. Lance can explain it to you in detail.
 
Back
Top