As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

>> ^Sagemind:

I know this is historical but someone's gotta say it - Snuff
Starts dry, Goes frantic and then...
Don't listen to this if you don't want his final screams burned into your memory.


Still worth hearing, worth bearing witness to.

i wouldn't say i disagree with you, but technically all footage of the towers collapsing is snuff. This video is sad and scary because its one of the few videos that makes you think if you where one of the unlucky ones.

>> ^Sagemind:

I know this is historical but someone's gotta say it - Snuff
Starts dry, Goes frantic and then...
Don't listen to this if you don't want his final screams burned into your memory.

I wonder if architectural engineers ever saw this footage before and if it would help them more accurately model WTC2's collapse..
---------

I was on R train riding to work, while at the last stop in Brooklyn conductor announced that "due to smoke conditions" at WTC station my train would be skipping that stop. So I got out a stop earlier at 'White Hall' station. I had no idea what was going on. I had my headphones on listening to music. The moment I stepped outside I heard a noise as if a helicopter and then a loud boom. I thought that was just a supersonic boom of a plane. I saw people on the street looking up in the sky and thought to myself why they are looking up in the sky, if that was a supersonic boom that plane was long gone. I still had no idea what was going on. As I got closer to my office, I crossed Wall St and suddenly I felt something like dust/dirt/tiny shards of glass falling on me and large amount of papers flying around. By the time I got to Maiden Ln where my office was I could clearly see what was happening.

If I hadn't gotten off one stop earlier, I think I would have been stuck on that train under WTC....... ;(

>> ^EMPIRE:

Wait... the building that collapsed after a plane crashed into it, and had an inferno raging for almost 2 hours, had some molten metal dripping out?? WHY I NEVER....


Not quite. Most of the fire was smoldering and oxygen deprived with dark smoke, not quite an raging inferno. And WTC2 only stood for 56 minutes after being hit. At 9:03am, it was hit; at 9:59am, you can see hundreds of thousand tons of concrete and steel beams being thrown like confetti several hundred meters to the sides and up in an arch - as the tower is being pulverized.

>> ^Psychologic:

I suppose it's fitting that this is the first video I watched after a Hitchens video bashing people for wrapping anecdotes around a preconceived conclusion.
I wonder what it's supposed to sound like from the inside of a collapsing tower filled with hundreds of sealed rooms.


They didn't say they heard explosions while the tower collapsed. The lobby was blown out before the towers collapsed. If they were inside when the tower collapsed they wouldn't be on camera talking about it, they would be dead.
Even the third guy says the first explosion happen around the same time WTC2 was hit by the second jet. And towards the end of the clip, the second guy says "You people don't understand...there may be more, any one of these fucking buildings could blow up. This ain't done yet." And he was right: WTC7.

I would like to answer your questions, but before I do...

Have actually read the report published by NIST?

If you haven't, then I suggest you do. It always best to absolutely understand the point of view you are arguing against. To date, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that present evidence supporting a collapse due to controlled demolition.

I'd like to begin with the point where you seem to suggest, that the buildings are made entirely of steel.

"(forget the fact that these are, and still remain to be, the only 3 steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire)"

This is not true, and you should clarify your comment. While this may seem a minor point, it is significant because it is the crux of your 5th question.

Onto the evidence:

♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

If this information is true, then I think it is remarkable on many aspects, and contrary to what a lot of people contend. It seems to me that these times are remarkably long, and in light of that I would encourage you to discuss these times with a certified demolitions or structural engineer.

For the most part, the detailed explanation can only truly be answered by detailed simulations, which actually have been done. I encourage you to go to your local library and do a literature search on ISI.

1-5 can be found in the NIST report, and other peer-reviewed articles.

I will address 4, briefly-

4. The answer is not remarkable. WTC7 collapsed because of proximity and momentum transfer (and subsequent events detailed in the NIST report). Rather then go on, you should closely read the scientific report put out by NIST. Before you do, you should also read the Wikipedia post of the subject, it is very well cited and will round out your perspective of the scientific research that has been done to investigate the collapse of the buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

If you are truly interested in understanding the nuances of the science behind the collapse, then you must be willing to subject your hypotheses to the rigor of science and evidence that implies something very different than what you believe happened. If you are not willing to test your ideas in a scientific way, then they are a belief. Unfortunately, I cannot argue beliefs only scientifically based points of view.

That said, if you have any further scientific questions, I would be more than happy to answer them or find someone who can.

Sincerely,

MH

In reply to this comment by LadyBug:

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

*anxiously awaits answer*

valiant effort at sidestepping my questions with your cognitive dissonance, theo ... but i would still like to hear your thoughts on the following:


edit - theo's comment:
“ given that their internal structures weakening is what caused them to fall, of course they're going to fall in on themselves.”
... based on your own post, please tell me how weakening made it possible for 3 steel buildings to symmetrically fall into their own footprint??


what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

as i always like to say .... let's just say for a second that all 3 steel buildings DID collapse due to fire (forget the fact that these are, and still remain to be, the only 3 steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire) ... but for argument's sake, for a moment, let's just say that they did.

still with me? good ... ok, here are the FACTS ... so WTC1 was hit first, therefore having more burn time (18 more minutes to be precise). now WTC2 was hit next, but in contrast to WTC1 a large portion of the jet fuel was propelled out of the building due to the angle of impact. moving along to WTC7, which was NOT hit by any planes, but coincidently was owned by the same man ... this building was not raging with fires, yet collapsed 8½ hrs after WTC1.

what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

*anxiously awaits answer*

religion has nothing to do with this issue ...


i have still yet to read any plausible explanation for the reason that 3 steel skyscrapers fell at almost terminal velocity and disintegrated into rubble in their own footprint when fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001.

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse.

i'm sure most will want to use the 'jet fuel' as the culprit for bringing down WTC1 & WTC2 (even though said jet fuel would have burned up within 20min) ... unfortunately, you can't use that incendiary for WTC7 as it was not hit by a plane.

how do account for the fact that Rudy Giuliani told ABC News and Peter Jennings; "We were operating out of there (his OEM bunker) when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building." !?!?!? how did he know when the firefighters rescuing people in WTC1 & WTC2 didn't even know!?!

would anyone like to take a stab at the 4 gov't offices that we located in WTC7?!? i'll help:
U.S. Secret Service
C.I.A.
Securities & Exchange Commission
IRS Regional Council

at first glance it is easy to see why there have been little to no investigations on all the lovely 'put option' on the market before 9/11 ... hmmmmmm, all the details of such transactions have been destroyed ... bummer!

anyway ... i know it's extremely hard to wrap your head around the fact that our gov't would do something like this ... but they have in the past, did so on 9/11 and will do so again in the future ... period.