....before the plane hit:

http://911digitalarchive.org/sonicmedia/repository/media/child_864.mp3

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

William saved two men from the freight elevators. They wouls have been severely burned if not dead if a huge explosions which devistated the lobby had just occured anywhere in their vicinity. These two men were drowning because of the water from the elevator shafts pouring into the elevator shaft. The shafts were so well sealed that the water had nowhere to go and was eventually going to consume them.

You are right about the falling debris. The mass would not just disappear. Unfortunately as the mass dissentigrated it would lose it's overall integrity greatly compromising its destructive force. This should have allowed the intact structure to resist a complete and total destruction straight to the base. The structure in normal circumstances would resist the collapse and the falling debris would be slowed dramatically causeing the falling debris to move towards the path of least resistance. Causing the debris to fall off to the side leaving much of the structure intact. Leaving many survivors.

If it collapsed straight down by some natural force then it should have taken much longer and there is a very high probability that the core structure would have been intact. Protecting those trying to escape in the stairwells and elevators.

You also believe that somehow these two structures ,which had completely unique structural damage. Absolutely unique impact zones. Completely different fire spread, heat dispersement and fire damage. BOTH managed to collapse in exacly the same way. Falling in exactly the same time. BOTH exhibiting all the characteristics of a explosive driven controlled demolition except that the implosion was not initiated from the bottom to the top.

As far as your stick theory goes. Sure. If yopu removed the structural members one by one then the weight of the above structure would crush the below to some point. BUT in order for that to happen as it did in a symmetrical matter those structural memebers would have to be removed in a symmetrical matter. If one side of the building. Just 1/4 had remained intact then the resistance of those members would cause the above structure or mass to fall off to the side. To tip dramatically. But to fall directly through itself not once but TWICE in exacly the same manner considering the uniqueness of the damage of both buildings???

Come on!

What you are talking about is uncalcuable probability. You are allowing you science the utmost freedom and ignoring it's associated sense. Believe what you want to believe but your logic is flawed, my friend.

Three steel structures collapse for the first time in history at near free fall speeds into their own footprint traveling through the path of most resistance due to fire and gravity driven failure. Never again. Never before. EVER!

Two of which could be argued as the most structurally sound structures to ever be engineered and built.

The third which was not hit by a plane was built to be a bunker and house the emergency services on New York in case of a disaster. Built so entire floors could be removed and not affect its structural integrity.

But I guess that all the stars were aligned on 9/11?
___________________
Together in Truth!

Thanks again, ref, for reading what I sent in. I will be interested in your reply to these more recent questions from me, when you have more time to devote to the task of answering.

In the meantime, I will make a prediction. I predict that NIST will never issue a report on how and why WTC 7 collapsed as it did.

The odd thing there is, some people at the time seemed sure it was going to collapse. Someone had announced that it would. We have multiple eyewitness testimony to that effect.

Two different BBC news stations even announced definitively that WTC 7 had collapsed, some 26 minutes before it actually did. In one case the announcer, Laura Standley by name, I think, says "This just came in. We have news that the Solomon Building has just collapsed." But viewers who know the New York skyline can see that very building right behind her, as she makes the announcement.

WTC 7 looks fine, in that view. No problems are evident from that vantage point, right before its collapse. Not much smoke is evident. You'd expect more smoke if the fire were so bad as to -- somehow -- cause the building to collapse like that. Even though fire has never done that before, we are told. No steel-framed building has ever collapsed like that, due to fire alone, we are told.

In fact, you'd expect to see at least some evidence of flames, even if it is the other side, the far side, that is on fire. The roof also looks fine, in that video clip. Supposedly there was major damage, but none of that is evident in that frontal view, right before the collapse.

We have the video clip here if you'd like a link to it. One of our regular members here, 911veritas, is responsible for discovering that footage and getting it widely distributed.

The BBC's official reaction to the finding was rather confused. Eventually they called it "a simple cock-up," which means a mistake. Then they claimed that they had lost the original footage, and actually asked the public to supply it to them. Strange, to lose footage from such an important day in the world's history. Apparently their archiving method involves a three-fold redundancy. Thus, losing the footage becomes that much more remarkable.

Again, I do not expect you to explain how the BBC could have done this odd thing, or odd series of things. I only wanted to point out the oddity of it. I agree, too, that it was probably just a mistake of some sort. One more mistake among so very many on that day and thereafter.

Since then the BBC, and all other news outlets, have ignored the whole 'BBC WTC 7 foreknowledge' issue, no doubt hoping that people will simply forget about it. And, mostly, they bave.

News outlets in this country never reported on it. Amazing. The near-total blackout on 911 news developments astounds me. It reminds me of Soviet Russia.

A CNN news anchor also made that same definitive announcement about WTC 7's demise, also prior to its collapse, though the fellow amended his statement on noticing that the building was still standing, in plain view, behind him.

Who sent in that news bulletin, to CNN and BBC? Why would they announce in the bulletin, which these news anchors simply read over the air, that the building HAD collapsed, when it had not done so? How weird it all is.

Anyway, there were, evidently, various clear and official announcements that WTC 7 not only would collapse, but, some hours later, that it had actually done so. And both of these announcements, widespread at the time, emerged well before the building did indeed collapse... as though on schedule. Do you find that odd? Many of us here do.

So, however we explain the bizarre foreknowledge of the impending collapse, people knew WTC 7 would collapse on the very day that it did so. But NIST has yet to explain how or why it collapsed, nearly six years later. Again, I find that odd, and I know I am not the only one who finds it odd. Do you also find it odd? If not, why not?

I suppose you will be able to guess why I predict that NIST will never issue the report on why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

By the way, I am not trying to trip you up here. We two are just looking at the facts that we know about, together in this public forum. We are attempting to make sense of this confusing array of facts.

I actually suspect that, through this process, you too may join the ranks of us so-called '911 truthers,' once you ponder all of the available facts. Building 7 provides a good start for that, in my opinion.

But it is only a start. There are many other strange happenings associated with 9-11-01. A surprising number of these cannot be explained by the official version of the events.

Some of the many anomalies -- so many -- point to damning possibilities, even likelihoods. These are what give rise to our suspicions, which you seem to wish to allay.

By the way, when you reply, please consider replying to my earlier set of questions -- including any responses to what I say here too if you like, obviously. By doing it that way, your reply will not be pushed too far off to the right there -->, in the screen display.

This is in reply, again, to ref, our friendly debunker.

I am replying to your recent "Here it is" post, ref, as though replying to an earlier one from you, so that the discussion doesn't get pressed too far against the right side of the display.

Ref, I will look carefully at the webstie that you recommend. In return, I would ask you to look at this website just as carefully.

How shall we define 'carefully'? In my case, I wll read 80% of what is written there, or more. I will do this, even if I have already read some of it, and I have. But I have not yet read the full 80%, and that is what I am proposing -- assuming that you will keep your end of that bargain. Will you?

I have also already read most of what is available at the Journal of Debunking 911 Studies, by the way. I have a bookmark on that site. I am in this for the truth, as you say. Presumably, you are too? If so, please faithfully read at least 80% of the 911research.wtc7.net website.

I also would like to know if you have seen video footage of WTC 7 collapsing. Have you? If not, that in my opinion would not speak well for your ability to even wonder, realistically, how or why it collapsed.

Ref, this is in reply to a post of yours that occurs later. I am putting it here so that it displays better -- I really do not like long posts that get pushed to the right side over there.

Regarding the Pentagon strike. I believe you may hope to stir up some debate here, for or against whether or not a jet airplane hit the Pentagon. I have noticed that this is an (intentionally?) divisive issue.

Very clever. I am amazed at how clever the disinformation techniques are. And intentional disinformation is almost surely what is happening with this Pentagon issue. For more on that, see below.

And by the way, if the Pentagon confusion really stems from intentional disinformation, helped along by the US government, that fact says quite a bit about likely culpability. To me it really does look that way-- that is, like intentionally propagated confusion about what happened at the Pentagon. Now for my response.

You say, "I have criticism towards Jim Hoffman's work. Did you know btw, that he is pretty much only critical to WTC stuff, but believes a plane hit the Pentagon etc.?"

Yes, I am well aware of Jim's position on the Pentagon strike. So far, his work has me convinced. I think he probably has it right. He does meticulous work, and sticks with verifiable facts or, at least, strong data. He does not tolerate careless assertions. I like his carefulness.

But I also do not think it is necessary to form conclusions yet. The government is witholding evidence in its possession which will clearly show what happened at the Pentagon. There were many security cameras in the area, all of which were conviscated, as you know. Some of these will tell the real story. The evidence so far released tells a confusing and contradictory story.

The government released an (intentionally?) confusing 'five frames' from one security camera only. You have no doubt seen those five frames. The government also released the black box data, which when analyzed seem to show the plane flying some 400 feet over the Pentagon. Again, this is (intentionally?) confusing, to say the least. Jim Hoffman does the best job I have seen to date of clearing away some of the confusion.

The five frames show evidence of tampering -- in the color of one of the frames, in the non-standard and inconsistent shutter timing, and other details -- or so I gather. I am not an expert in forensic video analysis, by any means. We need expert analysis. The analysis that we so far have, by some smart and able people, renders this evidence suspect, at the very least.

Even you will agree, won't you, that the 'five frames' evidence is quite strange. How do you account for it? And why doesn't the government simply release the other video data, so as to clear up any suspicions?

You don't suppose the government might sense a need for confusion here, do you? And that they might happily add to it, with strangely altered and contradictory evidence?

The black box data, released years after the tragedy, amounts to an Excel spreadsheet. Even I could tamper with an Excel spreadsheet.

If the government had nothing to hide, it would release all of the available video footage of the Pentagon strike.

My own theory is that they are keeping the evidence from us. Why? Because the jet airplane makes a maneuver that cannot be made by a human pilot. Only a remote-controlled plane can make that maneuver. The CIA has remote control capacities, as you know. The technology is there. It is used in the unmanned Predator aircraft guidance system, for example.

I gather that commercial jets cannot (normally) fly at full throttle so close to the ground. They are 'hard-wired' to stall when at that height. When they land, such as at an airport, they must fly in stall mode, with nose pointing up at maybe 15 degrees or so.

The aircraft which hit the Pentagon was not in a stall mode, as anyone can tell from the impact damage. That was a direct hit, straight on. Also, stall mode cannot occur at the speed that the craft was evidently moving at.

Needless to say, with all these details I am quoting others' expertise. Common sense also comes in handy.

It is possible, I gather, to override the jet's normal inability to fly at full throttle at such low altitude. Remote control can do that, I gather.

By the way, can you imagine the skill it would take to plunge some 3000 feet downwards, or was it 5000 feet, while in a 270 degree turn, so as to then skim over the landscape to make a direct hit on a target? I am told that very few fighter pilots could do that.

Even makling decisions about when to begin the decent, at what pitch, and what sort of turn to make, are beyond normal human reasoning and prediction, I would strongly guess.

During at least half of the maneuver, I am guessing, one would not even be able to see the target. You'd have to guess where it is from brief visual memory, while in that dramatic downward-looping plunge. All with split-millisecond timing, and perfect control over that huge aircraft. Wow.

Plus, drastic maneuvers like that often render a pilot unconscious, unless he or she has had considerable training. You have to greatly improve your lung capacity to take turns like that, I am told. Plus, you need to hyperverntillate prior to the turn, and prior to the plunge. Otherwise you will pass out prior to completing your mission.

Hani Hanjour, of course, could do all that, due to his extensive flight training, right? Surely you know that story -- his failure at Cessna school and so on. I won't repeat it here. Incredible fellow, this Hani Hanjour. Somehow he learned how to do these acrobatic fighter-jet maneuvers, while failing at Cessna school.

Commercial jets can be outfitted with override controls. My uncle, an airline pilot, says that jets do not really even need a human pilot these days, to take off and land. It can all be done by means of the standard autopilot, in contact with a remote controller.

But my theory about the Pentagon is only a guess, nothing more. We need a real investigation, with access to all of the available evidence, to come to firmer conclusions about what happened there. The government's story about it is suspect, I would say. The evidence it has released is not just suspect, but bizarre, for some reason. Why, one might ask?

Will ref retrun to keep the discussion going? Are you reading this, ref?

Besides the proposal that I am making above, I wanted to alert you to another thread on another node here, also about WTC 7, which came out today.

People have noticed that the WTC 7 penthouses collapse first, before the whole building just deflates, like a popped baloon. Look at what our friend 911veritas has to say about that:
_________________________________
The penthouses had to come down first...

Otherwise the building's edge walls would have fallen outwards damaging the buildings either side.

The objective of conventional controlled demolition is to have the building fall in on itself.

The center falling first "pulls" the outer walls inwards.

If you look at the rubble pile the outer walls are on top of the pile...

CD 110%

Best wishes
__________________________________

Back to me, Stiudent, writing. CD means Controlled Demolition, by the way. And 110% means that this fact about the pentahouse collapse makes CD a certainty, by his assessment at least.

What do you think of his point? Isn't it interesting? He also supplies this link to the very similar demolition of a somewhat smaller building, for comparison.

What do you think about this new data?

Today's blog entry on WTC 7, which I reference above, dealt with varying estimates of the collapse time. Here is what Real Truther has to say about that:
____________________________________
the six point six [seconds] is important insofar as the portion that fell in that amount of time was as high as it was off the ground. The middle crumbling in first does not figure in the least into the significance of that figure.

In fact anyone who has bothered to read the NIST report knows that it is the crumbling of the Penthouse first that provides a difficulty for the official story. WHy? Because it leaves less room for arguing hypotheticals about how the collapse may have initiated.

We know based on the crumbling in of the penthouse that the collapse started with a specific set of columns. We also know that starting with those specific (central) columns would have been a method of controlled demolition used to make the building fall inward. We also know that it is extremely unlikely (perhaps impossible) for the existing fires to have been responsible for either the free fall collapse of the center portion OR the free fall collapse of the surrounding building.
____________________________________

Back to Student. What do you think of those comments? Isn't it all quite interesting?

I will now quote a comment by BrianH, which you may also find interesting. Please send any of your thoughts along, after reading these various comments. Here it is:
_______________________________________
This video serves 9-11 Truth by highlighting the penthouse collapse in Building 7 several seconds prior to the general collapse. Thanks 911veritas for the controlled demolition video - very impressive. I posted a clip of the penthouse collapse on David Cameron's website (-- the first video clip posted on 9-11 there) because to me this is most compelling evidence in favor of controlled demolition. See the clip at: http://www.webcameron.org.uk/library/video-1975