Skip to content or view screen version

9/11: New Footage of the Implosion of WTC7

Chris | 04.11.2008 14:53 | Analysis | History | Terror War | Sheffield | World

A new video has been released (attached), from sources unknown, of the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on September 11th 2001. Previous videos of the collapse ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 ) were from angles that didn't show the lower section of the building as clearly as this new one does.

Video Previously unseen WTC7 corner view - video/x-ms-wmv 11M





For more background on WTC7 see the WTC7 section of this 2006 feature article which contains:

The key piece of evidence cited to support the conclusion of a controlled demolition consists of an analysis of the physics of the collapse -- the building dropped with an acceleration very close to that of gravity. Measurements and calculation have been presented on 11syyskuu and by Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident researcher and by Kenneth L. Kuttler in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The only way to achieve a collapse of this nature -- one which involves the whole building coming down at close to free fall speed, is for all the structural columns to fail simultaneously. This is not something that could be expected to be caused by fires, especially ones which hadn't even spread across a whole floor, the most plausible explaination does appear to be that it was a controlled demolition.

Since that was written Architects Engineers for 9/11 Truth has formed and they have a page on WTC7 and Richard Gage, the AE911 founder is speaking in London on Thursday.

Another bit of evidence that surfaced since 2006 was the footage of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 20 mins before it imploded.

The best starting place for information on Building 7 is still Jim Hoffman's site, WTC7.net.

Chris

Comments

Hide 10 hidden comments or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Excellent article

04.11.2008 16:03

Chris,

Do please keep posting this wonderful articles about 911 to the newswire. I for one can't get enough of them. In addition may I ask you to use your position as an IMC admin to firstly promote your and other 911 posts and secondly to remove comments about them when they point out the absurdity and technical mistakes within them.

I know I speak for hundreds of IMC regulars when I say,

"The newswire needs more of this, let's all overlook the technical evidence of the WTC7 building collapse and try and build a story around mistakes, engineering incompatence, half truths and speculation."

The fact that some individuals can be encouraged to pay money to hear this nonsense regurgitated and presented as a valid argument is of course iceing on the cake for those able to make money out of this tragedy.

Touching myself while thinking of the 911 money making schemes

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Not true

04.11.2008 16:29

"the most plausible explaination does appear to be that it was a controlled demolition"

Err no it's not.

The most plausible explanation is that the building fell down having been badly damaged by the debris of the other buildings. A view shared by nearly everybody who knows what he or she is talking about here. Most architects don't because they are not experienced in this type of construction.

WTC 7 is I know the last chance for the 911 truth movement to try and hang on to something after all its other ideas and theories were shot down in flames but like the rest WTC 7's fall was the result of the knock on effects of two airliners crashing into the twin towers. End of story.

I know this won't stop you but I refuse you to let you keep posting this rubbish without saying something.

Large building civil engineer with 10 years experience

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Not true

04.11.2008 16:29

"the most plausible explaination does appear to be that it was a controlled demolition"

Err no it's not.

The most plausible explanation is that the building fell down having been badly damaged by the debris of the other buildings. A view shared by nearly everybody who knows what he or she is talking about here. Most architects don't because they are not experienced in this type of construction.

WTC 7 is I know the last chance for the 911 truth movement to try and hang on to something after all its other ideas and theories were shot down in flames but like the rest WTC 7's fall was the result of the knock on effects of two airliners crashing into the twin towers. End of story.

I know this won't stop you but I refuse you to let you keep posting this rubbish without saying something.

Large building civil engineer with 10 years experience

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Not true

04.11.2008 16:34

"the most plausible explaination does appear to be that it was a controlled demolition"

Err no it's not.

The most plausible explanation is that the building fell down having been badly damaged by the debris of the other buildings. A view shared by nearly everybody who knows what he or she is talking about here. Most architects don't because they are not experienced in this type of construction.

WTC 7 is I know the last chance for the 911 truth movement to try and hang on to something after all its other ideas and theories were shot down in flames but like the rest WTC 7's fall was the result of the knock on effects of two airliners crashing into the twin towers. End of story.

I know this won't stop you but I refuse you to let you keep posting this rubbish without saying something.

Large building civil engineer with 10 years experience

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Previously unseen ?

04.11.2008 16:55

No this video is not " previously unseen " at least not by many but I suppose it might be by you.

A video doesn't change the basic engineering however. This building suffered a structural failure it was not blown up (or down).

Of course by pointing out this failure in your argument I suppose I must be part of the great conspriracy.

So very tired of 911 bullshit on INDY uk

So now the BBC are in on it too?

04.11.2008 17:03

29,000 people employed by it in Britain alone. Thousands more across the world and not one whistle blower? Even more amazing when you consider how many BBC employees are members of Media Workers Against the War and they all seem to be keeping their mouths shut too?

Oh yes. 3,000 people murdered in the USA and not one whistle blower or guilty conscience there either?

Erm...

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Big picture

04.11.2008 17:44

My God are there still people pushing this discredited nonsense.

The circumstances of why this building collapsed are in the public domain and are common knowledge. The BBC admitied to a cock-up over their reporting which considering the events of that day was not surprising. They also admited to others but that never seems to get mentioned by the 911 truth board people.

Any half decent building engineer can explain it and yet the moment one does it's decided he is part of the cover up alongside the fireman, the police, the port authority, the insurance company, the BBC, the New York Times and all the other journos who covered this.

I'm not a supporter of censorship and I would like to see less of it on Indymedia but for this I would make an exception.

The buildings around the WTC fell down because two planes flew into them.

Andy

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Enthusiasm

04.11.2008 19:08

I don't think hiding several comments disagreeing with this not-very-widely-held interpretation of the fate of WTC7 makes for accurate reporting, TBH. It's a fact that most people do not believe the explanation for events put forward by this article. It would be fair for comments to be allowed to reflect this reality.

CH

Well...

04.11.2008 19:53

Where did I say "the BBC are in on it" and why are you making things up?

The article I posted last year with the footage from the BBC contains, "BBC World reported that WTC7 collapsed 23 mins before it happened" and then asks the questions "where did they get the news from that the building had come down, when it was still standing and can clearly be seen behind the reporter?"

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2007/02/363848.html

This question still hasn't been answered adequately -- where did they get this news from?

And of course this isn't really that important -- it's simply an illustration that there was foreknowledge, but it is not clear who had this foreknowledge.

What is more important is the nature of the structural failure -- this mode of failure is not one that could have been caused by the combination of office fires and structural damage from the collapse from the WTC twin towers.

Chris

"not one whistle blower"?

04.11.2008 21:14

Actually, as Jon Gold has pointed out, "several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks", in part 19 of this article:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/411669.html#f19

Furthermore, in part 26, "several whistleblowers were brought forward, but were either censored or ignored by the 9/11 Commission."

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/411669.html#f26

And there was Kevin Ryan, a whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/411669.html#f45

Chris

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

This article

05.11.2008 07:19

is made of fail.
Surely the hiding of posts that disagree with this rubbish is a breach of IM guidelines? Shouldn't this particular admin have their status revoked?

miserablist
- Homepage: http://www.miserablist.info

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

In defence of trolling?

05.11.2008 08:55

CH and miserablist are apparently happy to encourage trolling of the newswire if it suits their agenda. Thus they defend:

1) An attack on the author of the article

"I know I speak for hundreds of IMC regulars when I say,

"The newswire needs more of this, let's all overlook the technical evidence of the WTC7 building collapse and try and build a story around mistakes, engineering incompatence, half truths and speculation.""

Are CH and miserablist sure that this is the view of hundreds of IMC regulars?

2) A claim by a poster to be a civil engineer - is it backed up by the post - I suggest not. Does debris hitting the building explain why it " dropped with an acceleration very close to that of gravity" - you'd think a civil engineer with 10 years experience might have a slightly more sophisticated explanantion. This one doesn't. It can't even manage to post without hitting the publish button twice.

3) An unsubstantiated claim that the footage is not new - note there is no link to where it could previously have been seen.

4) More unsubstantiated claims from Andy - who is probably also the civil engineer -

Andy: "The buildings around the WTC fell down because two planes flew into them."

'civil engineer': "WTC 7's fall was the result of the knock on effects of two airliners crashing into the twin towers. End of story."

Andy: "Any half decent building engineer can explain it"

'Civil engineer': "The most plausible explanation is that the building fell down having been badly damaged by the debris of the other buildings. A view shared by nearly everybody who knows what he or she is talking about here. Most architects don't because they are not experienced in this type of construction."

It wouldn't be surprising if all those comments were from the same source.

CH and miserablist's comments are about moderation. The guidelines seem clear on that.

Personally, I think the comment suggesting that every BBc empoyee would be aware of a cover up is not well thought out - does every member of an organisation know everything that everyone in an organisation does?

I'm sure serious posts would survive.





wotcha

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

One more for the shadow newswire

05.11.2008 10:28

Yeah, clearly comments on moderation fall foul of guidelines. And blockading a business is liable to be against the law as well. The risk you take.

However. I think that systematic censoring of criticism using the most lawyerly of grounds, *that* amounts to misrepresenting facts.

Hidden comments saying "the commonly accepted explanation is good enough" are at least as well-supported as the assertions in the original article. More so, if you consider that, being the commonly accepted explanation, 99% of the world's population has no problem with it.

And the 1st comment was funny, rather than trolling, in the way it pointed up economic realities, uncomfortable for some, about the 911 "truth" industry. It exists because there is a niche in the market that can be profitably filled by DVDs from any chancer with FinalCut and a flair for speculation marketed as hidden truths, (which worked for the Blair Witch Project, too).

But you got me, "Wotcha" I am a government funded interweb troll-lizard. Must go polish my scales.

"?c=all" is your friend

CH

Bush has gone, move on.

05.11.2008 11:45

Look Bush has gone and its the present financial and climate crisis that is of prime importance. It's from these that a whole new epoch is emerging. Neo-conservatism is completely dead. Neo-liberalism in its present form is dead. What comes next might not be better but we have a chance to act on these issues and influence it.

9/11 conspiracy theories are completely attached to neo-conservatism and it is over. You can't impeach Bush any more. What ever you believe happened that day, it is now completely irrelevant.

You must know in your heart of hearts that your "movement" must now lose any purchase it might have had.

Your monomanical attachment to the importance of that day is out of kilter with history.

Time to move on, try to do it with some dignity and try to re-attach to the movements to come with a more open mind. Don't look for more conspiracies but look for how the new movements act and how to help them. If you carry on the habits and politics of the "9/11 truth movement" then you will only act as a drag on future moments, pulling them to right wing patterns of thought and ways of acting. This could be very dangerous in the present crisis when scapegoats such as conspiracies of jews, or bankers could be used to stand in for the complexities of capitalism.

Anyway this is a day when you could say: Time to move on.

Olive branch

Re: the habits and politics of the "9/11 truth movement"

05.11.2008 12:14

I have no time for the right-wing, Christian, nationalist, anti-immigrant, peak oil denial, climate change denial, illuminati, lizards/aliens crap from the likes of Alex Jones or David Ike -- that all this garbage had come to dominate parts of the truth movement is in part due to the left being hopeless on the issue of 9/11.

The civilizational crisis we are facing, peak oil, climate change, economic collapse, mass-extinction etc is of course the most urgent issue but 9/11 is a key to wake some people up and some people can't walk away from it as an issue.

For more on the civilizational crisis check out the presentation made last year by Nafeez Ahmed:

Nafeez Ahmed: The Hidden Holocaust - Our Civilizational Crisis
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388961.html

And another good site for the broad picture is Truth Move:

 http://www.truthmove.org/

For example these pages:

 http://www.truthmove.org/content/environment/
 http://www.truthmove.org/content/mass-extinction/
 http://www.truthmove.org/content/peak-oil/

Also note that the disinformation "movement" hasn't dropped 9/11 as an issue -- if nothing else does this indicates that it's not a dead issue:

 http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

And, though I have less than zero hope that much will change under the Democrats, there are still some Democrats raising the issue of 9/11 -- for example Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402169.html?c=on#c198703

On the issue of the "other movements" I broadly agree with the article Vincent C wrote, and this overlaps with your suggestion, which I agree with to "try to re-attach to the movements to come with a more open mind":

9/11 Truth: Analysis and Critique

Summary

I argue that while the 9/11 Truth Movement has had many successes and innovations, it has also been limited by it's sole purpose being the propagation of a narrative. The goals, strategy, and tactics of our activism should be seriously reconceptualized. The prevailing culture of the Truth Movement has become insular and needs to branch out into other revolutionary traditions which are already well established and have their own unique dialogues. I suggest that our activism should be reconceived as strictly a media movement rather than being the revolution itself so long as our sole goal is to spread information, and that Truth activists should participate in workshops for Non-Violent Direct Action.

 http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4320

Finally the underlying issues predate the neo-cons, listen, for example to:

CONSPIRACY & CLASS POWER

This is one of the most influential speeches by the
noted scholar and author Michael Parenti. It is an
in-depth analysis of the modern state and the exercise
of power behind the scenes. This speech is also an
important historic document. Given in 1993 it issues a
warning of the use of deception to justify going to war.
The speech also explains the expansion of the
deregulated free market that would lead to a financial
crisis as we see it today.

The speech on Conspiracy and Class Power was lost for
several years and only recently discovered in the
collection of a listener in Seattle. Michael Parenti
spoke before an overflow audience in Berkeley, CA

* Part ONE  http://www.tucradio.org/081015_ConspiracyONE.mp3
* Part TWO  http://www.tucradio.org/081022_ConspiracyTWO.mp3

 http://tucradio.org/new.html

Or this excellent series on US Imperialism:

Empire as a Way of Life, Part 9
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374166.html

Chris

To the believers.....

07.11.2008 19:58

In the created reality, Media spun smoke and mirrors....
Look at building 7 it was imploded, brought down by a professional team. Time it! Free fall!.(give or take)

And all the media round the World spin the same meme - Its a new Pearl Harbour the terrrristst done it!
Open yr f'in eyes. Look at History you have to look at History - you can't live in that TV fast cut reality you can't say Bush gone forget it it's un-left and dangerous to think that way. Look at that Building Fall listen to all the media channels singing from the same sheet - Bin Laden Bin Laden and these 19 guys from Arabia - they hate our freedoms - America under attack - and all of it lies .
The creation of reality _ Ton Kin, the Reichstag Fire the Assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and many more INTELOPS. All have the same MO - that of an 'Intelligence operation run by the ruling class - you know who you are. Exploiting some 'ideology' exploiting the under trodden. The 'lone nut' appears regularly.

Those folks will be mighty angry when we go in and steal their oil - Better do something to control that dissent - Intelligence operations aren't only about gathering data they're about making geo-political moves . Use anything any schism any dialectic any opposition, if there's no opposition pay someone to be the opposition. Anything to take your gaze away from the psycho's that perpetrate this shit.

The Ruling Class - You know who you are.

2%Human

Hide 10 hidden comments or hide all comments