I caught that also...

It's like they try not to lie, yet also not tell the full truth.

Doublespeak, like when Bush said, '"because they hate our freedoms"... Who's "they"

Bizarre

Best wishes

Inside Job Edition? WTC7 collapse shown 5 (!) times in 2:29 minutes saying it looked like a CD, switching to Meigs who responds "that building fell...because of the attacks of 9/11" mentioning "among the tenants of building 7 were several federal agencies, including the CIA..." closing with Rosie saying "if you wanna know what's happening in the world, go outside of the US media" There was even more, but I think that's a pretty clear picture. ______________ interns < internets Submitted by bruce1337 on Sat, 03/31/2007 - 9:54pm.

I am reposting comments by bruce1337 because I think he made some valid points about the Inside Edition piece.  When you add it all up, maybe more of a plus than a minus.

If it gets people thinking.

Click on that link: "Inside Edition has thrown together ..." They want your response on video, that may be used on the show.

Yes I have to agree with Meigs when he said the building fell as a result of the attacks of 9/11.
What he fails to mention is that those attackes were from our own government and included pre-set explosives to make sure the job...and the evidence...was obliterated.

And I would love to hear Meigs address the fact that WTC7 was unlike any other building on the face of the earth, in that it was designed with extra and independent supports which would allow ENTIRE FLOORS TO BE REMOVED at the whims of its tennants.

This Popular Mechanics "science" is taking on epic comic proportions.

Zonk

"a 10-story gash"
Presumably this is the SW corner hole. However, as you can see when you look at the Zafar photo, there was no hole there. NIST just misinterpreted a patch of smoke in front of the building as a hole.

"from huge columns"
Never believe anybody who describes anything as "huge", "massive", or "enormous". A casual view of the 14-inch perimeter steel columns of the Twin Towers may give one the impression they are "huge". However, at the top they are entirely hollow and the sides are only 0.25 inch thick. This sort of column is supposed to have smashed its way through 10 reinforced concrete floors. I doubt it.

"which fell from the twin towers"
Some debris from the North Tower hit WTC 7. According to the ACSE, the South Tower missed. So the author takes the real figure - 1 tower - and increases it by 100%.

"fires that burned for 10 hours."
10 hours? 10:28 to 5:20 is not 10 hours. It is not even seven hours. If the author thought he had a good argument, he would not have felt compelled to add on an extra 3 hours. He also neglects to mention that the building was fireproofed.

"Meigs said as much as 25% of the building was scooped out by the falling debris."
No, he didn't. He said 25% of a section covering about a third of the south face of the building was scooped out over about a fifth of the building's height. So take the 25% and divided it by 3 (for the portion of the south face) then divide it again by 5 (for the height). That gives you a figure just over 1.5% scooped out. There are no photos of this and it appears to be based on a tendentious slant on cherry-picked eyewitness evidence that would make Thierry Meyssan draw breath sharply.

"There were intense fires that burned inside the building that weakend the steel frame."
Really? Produce some evidence the steel was weakened sufficiently and I might be interested. Analysis of the WTC steel suggested it was not.

So, to sum up, the author refers to a non-existent hole, bigs up the size of columns potentially hitting the building, doubles the number of towers falling on it, adds on three hours of fire, exaggerates the scoop-out, which may not exist at all, and claims the steel was sufficiently weakened without troubling himself to find any evidence for this. And they tell us to be more careful! This piece is so shoddy it could have been written by debunking911.