My theory on WTC7

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sasha17
They're trying to prtoect you buddy..


Don't be so sure, there is nothing more dangerous than a population that doesn't question it's government.
German's in WWII didn't believe the rumours of the death camps either, untill it was too late for anybody to do anything.
Situations created to fullfill an agenda is nothing new, it's been done many times by the U.S. and other governments.
A government doesn't need to use force on it's poulation to get what it wants if that population just believes everything it tells them without question.
Even if the conspiracy turns out to be untrue, there are enough unanswered questions to justify them being asked.
It is our right and duty to constantly keep tabs on our government.




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
.
How can you have the biggest strike on the American mainland and not do any forensic analysis of it?

That added to 4 novice pilots doing some very remarkable flying just doesn't add up.
.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I remember reading somewhere on this website where someone posted a link that said there were reports the WTC's were full of asbestos and it would cost more than they were worth to clean them of it. That may be why they were chosen besides the fact that in 93 they had already been a target, so therefore it becomes more believable. If anyone has ever read Operation Northwood a plan drawn up by our government to attack US citizens and blame it on another group so that we could go to war against Cuba its not all that unblievable. I mean people keep saying it is crazy to think the people in control of our government would attack and kill their own people and make it look like another country or terrorists attacked us but we the conspiracy theorists did not come up with this plan it is in the government archives from the 1960's. Operation Northwood is an actual plan, it is real.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Also Goose just 2 months before the attacks, Silverstein took out a new insurance policy on the WTC complex. My opinion is he new the attacks were going to happen, and was allowed to prepare for it.

This is an interesting read;

www.geocities.com...

[edit on 27/2/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
Thanks for the link, man I spent a good while on that site and found lots of information but I also found something startling:

Note flights 11, flight 93, flight 175 and 77 I noticed this

(11=11), (9+3=12), (1+7+5=13), (7+7=14)
(
Now whatever that means beats me just figured it was odd!!!!!



[edit on 24-2-2005 by 2ndSEED]


Ok...what i deduce from this, 2nd Seed, is that you have progressed from ticking off the fingers and thumb of one hand with the fingers from your other hand , to actually being able to deduce that adding together all four fingers of each hand plus the thumbs of each hand....well it adds up to 10 doesn't it...and even more amazing...if you add together multiples of these digits, you get...11..12..13..14...and so on....well done!

& who said the education system was flawed


Soz pal, but what a pile of plop lol



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Havent they already admitted that they decided "to bring WTC7 down" with a controlled explosion.


Any link to this that you know of?



Originally posted by Flyer
Everyone knows it takes a long time to rig up the explosives, now they either had them in the building from when they were built or had them put in with knowledge of what was going to happen.


Yep I agree with that...but why does it have to be a conspiracy. Surely there is a multitude of reasons to protect public safety, in addition to high-value real estate in such a built up area as Downtown Manhattan. So if there were explosives rigged, they were detonated with positive reasons in mind and would be a protective measure. Let's face it, with such a dreadful situation in prospect of a building of such magnitude that would have had to be control collapsed days later, with all the absolutely guaranteed further risk to life that this would pose, surely a safety mechanism such as this is the most sensible option. Even if you do find it unpalatable


...and why would the authorities tell us or admit to this..is it a good idea to advertise to terrorists that skyscrapers in Manhattan are rigged...Somebody has their finger on the button...next thing is their families get kidnapped...what then?



Originally posted by toasted
the last I heard according to the owner himself, they had the bldg "pulled"

Any links to owner admitting destruction of his building(s)?


Originally posted by toasted
funny thing is. a controlled demo , takes blueprint reading , to know where all the supports are....planning takes weeks , not hours. the implication is, they had foreknowledge.

Truncated Quote

As above, I agree that this takes weeks, but why "by implication". If you want to find a conspiracy, then sure, anything, by implication that has alternative answers imaginable, must be the "true" truth, if you want it to be so.


I am not a structural engineer. I only know what I saw also and as devastating as it was, there had to be some people (NOT sitting in a Junior High classroom, wondering what his Daddy would do :puz
who were able to take immediate and decisive action. Is it not possible that these tall buildings, constructed in a very congested part of town, were specifically designed to collapse in this manner, if a certain structural failure occurred?...or am I talking out of my butt?

Sorry about the length of this post, but i felt it necessary to get it all out in one go


peace out



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by SMR
Anyone who has seen a demo,many have been shown from old casino's in Vegas,you see this WTC fall the same way.
How many uncontrolled demolitions of skyscrapers by airplane impact have you seen to compare it to? Isn't it possible the two events could appear to be similar?


NOT VERY MANY.

Possibly because NO OTHER SKYSCRAPER ON EARTH has collapsed due to fire.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
To the person who's wondering about Silverstein...I have seen him ON VIDEO admitting that they pulled the building. I don't recall the name of the video, but I think that it was a PBS documentary or something like that.
And yes, he did pull out insurance policies before the "attack." Did you miss the recent court case when he awarded DOUBLE the money because they considered 9/11 2 separate attacks??

And to the person who says all "conspiracy theorists" are idiots, my English is quite cold. Wait, you might not have caught that one...my English is cool
(did you like how I used word play there?)

And even if they brought the building down for our own good, please explain how they managed this in a few hours...while the building was on fire.


This was really news to me. I didn't know that US buildings have planted explosives laying around in case someone decides to fly planes into them.
Now who sounds like a nut job???


What I do know is that Operation Northwoods is real, PNAC is real, they had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor AND 9/11, etc.

People who attack skeptics assume that we believe that the govt is bad. NO, the govt is not bad. It's just criminal elements within the govt that are bad. And, depending on the time period, there are different numbers of criminal elements in our govt.

The Bushes are a dirty crime family. I swear, they make the Corleones look like baby Crips!


Anyway, back to WTC 7...

How does it fall JUST like the big towers when no plane hit it?? Why does "pull it" mean pull the firefighters out of the building? (someone here said that there was a discussion here where they established this as the intended meaning) I thought the fires were almost gone in the building?

This whole thing was an inside job. The scary thing is that, despite all the smoking guns, most people still believe the official story. Propaganda ain't no joke, yo.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
To the person who's wondering about Silverstein...I have seen him ON VIDEO admitting that they pulled the building.

How does it fall JUST like the big towers when no plane hit it?? Why does "pull it" mean pull the firefighters out of the building? (someone here said that there was a discussion here where they established this as the intended meaning) I thought the fires were almost gone in the building?


If "pull the building" has been agreed upon as remove all firefighters, then where's the problem? How many NYC firefighters lost their lives needlesslessly but with a commitment to protecting the public in the two WTC's? It's no surprise that the WTC7 was pulled. What would be the point of having even more lose their lives, fighting a lost cause?


I don't recall the name of the video, but I think that it was a PBS documentary or something like that.


If its on video and you saw it, and your gonna make a decisive statement about it, surely you should be bothered to do your research before you post to give full details...:bnghd:


And yes, he did pull out insurance policies before the "attack." Did you miss the recent court case when he awarded DOUBLE the money because they considered 9/11 2 separate attacks??


Soz pal, i live in the UK and we don't get news reports like that generally broadcast on National News. So he was awarded double money
...have you ever read an insurance document? I cannot begin 2 imagine how many volumes this policy would have filled
...but suffice to say that since the Illuminati are in control, the teams of lawyers, engineers, health & safety executives, NYC Fire & Police Departments and all the other, possibly hundreds of specialists who wrote this policy and the various Underwriters in the US and Europe who approved this policy, plus all the lawyers, forensics specialists in their fields, other investigating officers and judges involved in this, must all be involved in a HUGE conspiracy...to defraud and lie to....you.


Oh, and no one's talking...because the hundreds involved are all Masons...What a laugh!


I didn't know that US buildings have planted explosives laying around in case someone decides to fly planes into them.
Now who sounds like a nut job???


If, as has been discussed here and offered as a reason for the building falling in a particular pattern, explosives are planted in the foundations of certain buildings, it would not be just for the reason of terrorist attacks via planes. There are a multitude of reasons how and why a tall building could be subjected to sufficient stresses to make it unsafe. Most would involve a deliberate act, but obviously accidents do happen, even really big ones, as do natural disasters.


What I do know is that Operation Northwoods is real, PNAC is real, they had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor AND 9/11, etc.


No, that is what you believe. And you are entitled to believe whatever you want by interpreting information, however sketchy, in any way you want.

I don't just wanna attack your beliefs for the sake of it truthseeka, but what i would like is some proper information thru quotes and links, not just conjecture.

BTW, back in the mid '80 a group of us who enjoyed the odd doobie now and then, surmised on the potential outcome of a hijack that went wrong by the IRA and a plane crashing into London's Square Mile....it was very scary when 15 years later a similar event happened....i'm sure we weren't the only ones tho...

peace out



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hardbodyactiv
If its on video and you saw it, and your gonna make a decisive statement about it, surely you should be bothered to do your research before you post to give full details...:bnghd:


The video documentary by PBS was called "America Rebuilds" and this link will take you to the clip in question

Now, how long do you think it takes a professional team to rig a 50 storey building (that's 1 Canary Wharf size to you and mean) with explosives in order to bring it down perfectley like we all saw? I'd say more than a few hours in a "burning and dangerous" building! I'd also like to meet the brave men/women who volunteer to do such dangerous deeds.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Thanks, uknumpty. But of course, any proof we offer will do no good.

So, I'm just making this up for attention, eh, hardbody? Not only is the stuff I have said here true, but it OBVIOUSLY makes more sense that your reply. My bad in advance, but you sound like a straight up idiot!!
(btw, I said SOUND like, not equal to)

WTF are you talking about???
They ROUTINELY rig buildings with explosives in case $hit happens? Wouldn't they'd be more worried about the explosives themselves accidentally going off? Wouldn't THAT kill a whole lot of people.


And Operation Northwoods and PNAC don't exist?? Why don't you type them into google and see for yourself? Hell, in the recent movie about Pearl Harbor they imply that there was foreknowledge. But of course, that won't satisfy you, will it?

I bet the fact that the WTC complex needed about $200 mil in repairs, more than it brought in per year, has NO relevance to this event. Nor does the fact that Silverstein took out policies before 9/11.

I think you should ask yourself this, hardbody. Why the fock would they decide to bring down WTC 7, with the flames almost done, when they KNEW it would fall in precisely the same way that the big towers fell? Shouldn't they have told the public that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Oh, but of course not, because THEN people would wonder, "Hey, if building 7 was demolished, what about the twin towers..."

You prove once again that the people who are really lacking in brain power are those who buy the official story.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
for those that just don't want to believe that Operation northwood is real here is a link that has part of it on the webpage plus a link to the government archives.


www.ratical.org...
Excerpts from declassified 1962 U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Memo
Operation Northwoods
Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Thanks, uknumpty. But of course, any proof we offer will do no good.


Of course it does good...it helps to educate through the sharing of information....that you could not be bothered to research and document

I'm not going to bother to reply to the rest of your rude, unnecessary and puerile tirade against me. Why make it personal. Is that the way you sort it out in your hood, playa? You just show your paranoid immaturity and belittle yourself and all others on ATS with this worthless rant. If you feel that posting on ATS is a way of inflating your ego, then you got the wrong board.


There's plenty of conspiracy out there, but it's not ALL a conspiracy just coz u believe it is



You prove once again that the people who are really lacking in brain power are those who buy the official story.


So if you had bothered to read thru this thread properly instead of wasting whatever mental resources you possess attacking me, you would have noticed that it concerns the rigging of WTC7, and the general consensus appears to be that this would have had to have been in place prior to attacks.

Again, if you read more closely pal, I don't think uknumpty was actually supporting you, since I agreed in my post in response to a post by Flyer that explosives would have had to be in place prior to the attacks, and I suggested, as a safety measure.


Now, how long do you think it takes a professional team to rig a 50 storey building (that's 1 Canary Wharf size to you and me) with explosives in order to bring it down perfectly like we all saw? I'd say more than a few hours in a "burning and dangerous" building! I'd also like to meet the brave men/women who volunteer to do such dangerous deeds.


If you truly want to deny ignorance then try denying the fact that the above statement, along with most of this thread may actually have a shred of truth in it. In which case, how am I the one without the brain power, since it would mean that you, not me, are buying into the official story.

LMAO...@ you truthseeka.

Oh, and please don't bother to respond with any further pathetic insults...keep to the thread as this subject is too important to waste valuable space on, unless that is how they teach you at your Community College...

Peace Out.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Lol, you wonder why I insulted you.

I don't attend a community college, I go to a university. And do you insult people and get mad when they insult you in your suburban neighborhood? Then again, you probably do.

The reason I called you slow is that the idea that rigged explosives just sit around in buildings routinely is actually stupid. Get mad if you want, it is stupid.

How come you didn't respond to the rest of what I said? Oh well, I guess it doesn't fit in your little fantasy world.

And yes, having buildings pre-rigged with explosives is stupid. Especially when its part of a govt organized act of terror.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Hardbody I don't think it would make sense to rig buildings with explosives ahead of times as in years just in case they have to bring the buildings down. All things deteriorate with time and explosives would become more and more a danger and unstable with time, I would think. Plus if they did this why do they have to hire people to do this when it is time to being the big buildings down? I think the acchilles heel in this whole operation is going to be WTC 7. Plus lets not forget that steel has to reach a certain temperature to melt and the fuel on those planes would not bring the steel to that higher temperature plus there was no plane or dumping or fuel from a plane on WTC 7 and no steel building before or since has collapsed from fire. I understand you want to believe the story that we are being told by our government, so did I but it just does not make sense. Another thought has anyone managed to figure out why the passenger list and the numbers on each plane does not match? I have looked for websites to see if anyone has figured this one out and can't find an answer as to whether the fact, the numbers don't add up has been answered yet.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Hey Goose. Great topic man. It's certainly got me thinking


Originally posted by goose
Hardbody I don't think it would make sense to rig buildings with explosives ahead of times as in years just in case they have to bring the buildings down.


Ok, I know you have your own agenda on this conspiracy, i.e. that WTC7 and perhaps others were rigged only two months before


Originally posted by goose
I also believe the towers were rigged with hidden explosives. an employee who worked there said that at times certain areas would be off limits to everyone due to maintenance but this had never happened before to his knowledge and this went on for the last two months before the attacks.


But you have to admit the possibility that this employee was either relatively new, had recently been promoted, was not previously responsible for the physical areas mentioned, or as he said, to his knowledge, therefore could just be that he was not aware, or any other number of reasons. After all how many people would work in a building of that size and who would be on constant vigilance to watch for odd "maintenance" officials turning up, but only one has been cited as mentioning it?

So what I am saying is that the possibility could be that just as much as these "maintenance" officials were only noticed 2 months previous and, as you stated, explosives can deteriorate and become unstable, who's to say that this crew were not actually replacing the existing munitions. I know there was the issue of the insurance document also, which I mentioned in a previous post, but possible coincidence does not a conspiracy make


BTW I'm certainly not buying into the complete story told by the US Government, otherwise I wouldn't be agreeing with you and others here that the building was rigged, which completely contradicts the "official" story. Unlike certain other "truthseekas" out there I am willing to accept that elements of this story do not make sense, but using links and facts as evidence, not hysterical emotional outbursts. My mind is not closed to the idea that the building was rigged. All I have done is suggest that there may be an alternative reason.


Peace Out



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I think Silverstein only had leases out on WTC 1,2 & 7.

WTC 7 also had amongst its tenants the following:

* U.S. Secret Service
* Securities & Exchange Commission
* Mayor's Office of Emergency Management

WTC7 tenants



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I don't understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that the twin towers were brought down by demolitions simply because the collapse looked kind of like those demolitions you see on TV. I have read countless conspiracy theory websites on the Pentagon and WTC attacks, and honestly there is not enough evidence to convince me of anything. I've also read engineering reports that explain exactly how the towers collapsed, and it sounds quite reasonable. Evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions: 0. Nothing but guessing and speculation. Is it that hard to belive that a jet loaded with fuel, crashing into a building would bring it down? Why have no other steel skyscrapers collapsed due to fire? Well maybe it wasn't just a fire, but also a plane crash and jet fuel, which burns much hotter then most ordinary fires. Also modern skyscrapers have sophisticated fire control measures, or at least sprinklers. It all likelihood these were wiped out in the crash. I guess the only way that you can prove that the WTC was brought down by the plane crashes would be to build an exact replica of the buildings and crash a plane into them.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
All those people....my god...when buldings as huge as just one of the WTC collapses alot is going to give. It is a miracle and a testament to the solid construction of all the surrounding buildings for a mile maybe more that the sheer force of millions of tons of concrete, steel and debris falling from over a thousand feet didnt pancake the surrounding dozen blocks completely just through the earthquake force alone. Millions of tons of debris. It was bad enough watching the swirling black smoke rise in the distance across the river on my way to work that morning in Alexandria Va.

Text

If there really is a god may there be a heaven for them all.
SoS



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Ahh yes I love reading these threads. The truth is there, idiots ignore it and soon they will all pay the price. Great days these are






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join