I'll start with your last point first, the Itie video, taking it point by point as the film runs.
"[N]o steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire."
And WTC 7 didn't collapse just due to fire. It sustained heavy damage in several floors at or near the bottom from debris from the collapse of one of the towers. What's more, this answers your basic question, why did it collapse. It was not in pristine condition before it collapsed. Moreover, its problems ran deeper than just a few fires throughout the building. It sustained heavy structural damage when the towers collapsed.
"The 9/11 Commission report, in fact, avoids mentioning the building altogether, as if it had never existed."
So what? What are they trying to suggest in this video, that the Commission thought everyone would forget about it if they didn't mention it? This kind of pointless, snarky comment does nothing but undermine the credibility of the video.
Next they present some guy I've never heard of who claims to be a demolitions expert who gives his opinion in no uncertain terms that it came down by controlled demolition. Big deal, argument by appeal to authority. Ho hum, seen it a million times, means nothing. He doesn't explain how he knows it is. As far as we can tell from watching the video, he came to his conclusion based on watching the collapse on film. Certainly nobody has explained why I should take the word of some guy who's only seen it on film over the conclusion of those who actually investigated the site. Follow that up with a string of videos showing WTC 7 falling in split screen with other controlled demolition collapses. Now, one thing I will give them is that it looks, to my untrained eye, a lot more like the tower collapses, which quite obviously were not controlled demolitions. However, the mere fact that it looks like it to me isn't enough to convince me that 100s or 1,000s of people are covering it up.
Next they tell us that the BBC reported the collapse of the building 20 minutes before it happened. Okay, they've convinced me that the BBC made a mistake during perhaps the most stressful and confusing day on the job that anyone in NYC has ever had. So what?
Uncharacteristically for this kind of journalism by innuendo, this piece actually explains why the BBC made the mistake. They were relying on a CNN report from an hour earlier that the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing." What conclusions can we draw from this sequence? Well, the first thing we notice is that apparently about 1.5 hours before WTC 7 fell, it showed signs of significant enough damage that the media was told that the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."
Please explain to me how someone observing that kind of damage to the building an hour and a half before the building collapses is consistent with demolition.
However, instead of exploring this obvious conclusion, the video asks the rhetorical question, "How could anyone know the building would collapse more than an hour before it did, when no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire, and the fires in WTC 7 had been anything but devastating?" Of course, the people who made this thing aren't interested in answering questions, just asking them as if they were unanswerable.
Next we have someone who is represented to be a first responder calling into a radio program who claims the fire department told her at about 1:00 that she would have to move the triage area away because they were going to bring the building down. So what we have here is hearsay presented by someone who is virtually unidentified. In order for me to give any credence to what this person is saying, I would have to believe all of the following: she is who she is purported to be by the video and the radio program; she accurately remembers exactly what the person from the fire department told her; the person from the fire department accurately expressed to her what the intention of the fire department was; and that we can correctly glean from that stated intention that the fire department was going to bring the building down. Now, if we in fact can believe all of these things, then we also have to believe that in the confusion, horror, death and destruction of all that was happening that day, the fire department was going to go ahead and rig the building for demolition.
You may think that all of those are perfectly reasonable conclusions to come to. I don't.
Next we have montage of various firefighters on the scene warning people back, saying things like, "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down," "The whole thing is about to blow up, move it back," "The building is about to blow up." Then a scene of a firefighter on the phone, with two very loud explosions in the background. Then one of them says, "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding." Of course, to maximize the manipulation, the play the bit with the explosions repeatedly.
So, several firefighters on the scene, in all the confusion, thought the building was exploding. Of course, none of them are saying it now, after many, many investigations.
I'm pretty sure I covered everything that was in the Itie video. If I missed anything, feel free to tell me about it. But there's nothing of substance in it. It's full of conjecture, innuendo, emotional manipulation, confusion, and conclusions, but with no real supporting evidence.
Some of your other points:
I said, "The firefighters who were in the buildings cannot see the obvious evidence of this, or they are complicit in the cover-up of the deaths of 3,000 some people, including some of their fellow firefighters." You said, "They could have known, we don't know." Of course, you are correct, they could have. But I find it completely unbelievable that everyone on the entire NYC fire department would take part in that kind of cover-up. If that sounds credible to you, there's very little point in our discussing this any further, our perceptions of reality are completely different.
I said, "The media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world." You replied, "Correction, The united states mainstream media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world." That doesn't really take much oomph out of my point.
Why in the world would the United States mainstream media ignore the biggest story in the history of the world?
If you meant to suggest that other media sources are exploring the story, and that Itie thing was an example, well, I've already discussed how underwhelming it is.
You next suggest that the planes could have been empty. If that's the case, you need to explain the passenger manifests that were released showing the names of the dead, one of who was a rather prominent reporter, if I recall correctly.
I said, "None of the dozens, 100s or even 1,000s of people who must have been involved in the planning and execution of the demolition has spilled the beans." Your response either carelessly or deliberately reinterpreted my point into something different and you gave me a list of a bunch of people with some connection to the government, either past or present, who express disagreement with some aspect of the official report. As far as I can tell, your link didn't give one single account of anyone who was actually involved, which is what I was talking about.
It's getting rather late. I'm not going to look at 911revisited.com right now. Maybe I'll get to it later and give you my reaction. A good part of that depends on how you receive and respond to what I'm saying here. Before I put too much more time into this, I'm curious to see what you think about what I've said here. Mostly in response to my last post, you had a lot of "we don't know"s. That's not a very compelling argument in the face of what I saw happen on television that day and common sense conclusions.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2