My theory on WTC7

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Conspiracy thoerists are idiots?

Getting rid of big scyscapers is no easy feat, so what do the experts have to say?


From How stuff works.com

You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

source



The key phrase is collapse down into its footprint, something which WTC 1,2 and 7 did remarkably well.

Some would say that fire and falling debris caused WTC 7's collapse but I beg to differ. If this was the case, why is there virtually no smoke or flames coming from the building (feel free to post a shot of the towering inferno that was WTC 7) and if falling debris was the culprit, why weren't buildings 6 and 4 also demolished, especially 6 as it is right next to the North Tower?



Take a look at these buildings which were bought down by explosives,



and now take a look at WTC 7 collapse.



For those of you who need a comparison here is a clip of a building collapse using no explosives clip 387kb

Buildings simply do not just fall down into their own footprints. They do it because it was planned that way.




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Great post Psychosis!!



You have voted Psychoses for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


SMR

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
EXCELENT POST!
I would vote you as well,but used them all up


I think now people should be able to 'see' how a building falls by way of explosives and no explosives.
They didnt look very similar did they



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
To Anok and SMR, thank's for the thumbs up.


The only problem with making posts like that is it tends to kill the thread, because the GOP Propagander Agents that post on this board are just lost for words.


For Goose, the answer you are seeking can be found by studying the 9/11 timeline. Take a good look and think about it and I'm sure you'll figure it out. If it gets too frustrating PM me and I'll come back to this thread and post it in detail. Cheers!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Just watched for the first time and im amazed!!! I didnt believe the theory till I saw the video. Just mind blowing. I completley believe that the building was imploded.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Watching Alex Jones' latest video film called Martial Law 9-11 and he mentions that buildings much closer to WTC 1 & 2 such as the Millennium Hilton didn't collapse but did catch fire after getting hit by debris. He concludes the only reason for buildings to collapse on that morning was if they were owned by Larry Silverstein.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Just something to say, Larry silverstein has already confessed to bringing the WTC7 tower down so get over it already.

Watch 911 in plain site, and F-911 and you will hear him say in person that he gave the order to the firecrew to bring down WTC7, One glitch though WHY???

There was no fire what so ever near or on top of the building. This building just happened to be the CIA HQ, c'mon people there were documents that had to be destroyed otherwise why would they wanna bring it down or "Pull it" in the way silverstein says.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Very good footage of the collapse there. I don't think it proves that WTC7 was deliberately demolished though, the fact that the building collapsed in such a way could also support the idea that the WTC buildings were designed to collapse in such a way rather than topple over, in the event of their untimely destruction. Shortly after 911, a guy I know said he recalled seeing a TV documentary (y'know 'superstructures' type shows) years ago about the WTC, and, while the TV news showed the towers collapsing, he pointed out that they were in fact designed to collapse like that if disaster struck.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Paul]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
C'mon Paul. Your not serious are you? Designing buildings to collapse?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I'm not drawing conclusions, just offering an alternative to think about.
Surely though, in a society where lawsuits and liability are the norm, each and every form of insurance and damage limitation is valid. From a financial insurance policy, to disaster contingency planning.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I still don't understand your point. Silverstein was paid out for the collapse of the buildings.

If you built buildings that were designed to collapse you would never get insurance coverage, or tenants to occupy them because no-one would be stupid enough to go inside them.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul
Very good footage of the collapse there. I don't think it proves that WTC7 was deliberately demolished though, the fact that the building collapsed in such a way could also support the idea that the WTC buildings were designed to collapse in such a way rather than topple over, in the event of their untimely destruction. Shortly after 911, a guy I know said he recalled seeing a TV documentary (y'know 'superstructures' type shows) years ago about the WTC, and, while the TV news showed the towers collapsing, he pointed out that they were in fact designed to collapse like that if disaster struck.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Paul]


Your a fool! Decieved by your own government for god sake do RESEARCH before even attempting to post silly thoughts!!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses

If you built buildings that were designed to collapse you would never get insurance coverage, or tenants to occupy them because no-one would be stupid enough to go inside them.


Ok, let me clarify my point. I wouldn't suggest that 'buildings are designed to collapse' as you say. What I would suggest, is that it makes sense to design such a tall building so that should it collapse, it collapses vertically rather than toppling over, minimising damage to surrounding areas and property.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Your a fool! Decieved by your own government for god sake do RESEARCH before even attempting to post silly thoughts!!


For the record, I don't buy the 'official version of events', and am not fooled by any government deception. Nor am i propogating or defending the idea that WTC was not 'pulled'.

In the spirit of 'denying ignorance' though, I think it is important to look at situations from every angle to gain an objective view of things, rather than just picking a belief and defending it. If a hypothesis can be raised and then logically eliminated, then its discussion is valid.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I do not just pick a something and stick to it.

I have looked at 911 in many diferent ways and come to the same conclusion, "Either the attack was made by the american government or Hijackers really did take control of these planes and destroy two of the most monumental buildings in history but one thing is for sure, you do know that the american government inc. GW knew about this attack a long time before it had taken place and also why was FEMA sent in the day before the attack.

Another thing why was america playing war games on the morning of 911 when they knew fully an attack was close and if thats not enough why does rumsfeld face go bright red and anxious EVERY time a senator or other authority fugures asks a "controversal" question about 911???? And yet another anomoly is ALOT of powerful men got messages before 911 saying "Be very careful traveling around US on the 11th".


Now c'mon you've got ask yourself what is this going on?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Well I think we can safely say that none of the WTC structures were designed to collapse vertically, in fact, they were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707.


by Frank A DeMartini, Manager, WTC Constuction and Management

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

source



These buildings were definately not designed to collapse into their own footprints. Period.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul
Ok, let me clarify my point. I wouldn't suggest that 'buildings are designed to collapse' as you say. What I would suggest, is that it makes sense to design such a tall building so that should it collapse, it collapses vertically rather than toppling over, minimising damage to surrounding areas and property.


OK so just how would they do that?

(WTC building 7 is the first building of it's size anywhere to have ever been bought down by fire alone)

With overwhelming evidence people still can't accept the truth.
Rather than face up to what really happened we create excuses for it.
We'd rather believe half ass attempts at covering the truth (popular mechanics) and lame theories, than have to face what is really going on.
Because facing the real truth means you might have to re-think your whole belief system.
Because facing the truth might make you have to actually do something about it.
It makes it very hard to get up in the morning and go work for the system, when you know that system is built on lies.
America is in classic denial mode, the truth is staring us in the face but we choose to ignore and deny. You can go down with the ship or wake up and try to make sure the ship don't sink. You don't realize that your support of the government is not a support for America, but a support for corporations. Corporations don't have an elegance to any country, they go where they can make the most profit. They don't care about you or me, only what we can do for them. Corporations are the NWO, the one world government. They'll let America burn and die if they feel it's necessary for their survival.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
I do not just pick a something and stick to it.

I have looked at 911 in many diferent ways and come to the same conclusion, "Either the attack was made by the american government or Hijackers really did take control of these planes and destroy two of the most monumental buildings in history but one thing is for sure, you do know that the american government inc. GW knew about this attack a long time before it had taken place and also why was FEMA sent in the day before the attack.

Another thing why was america playing war games on the morning of 911 when they knew fully an attack was close and if thats not enough why does rumsfeld face go bright red and anxious EVERY time a senator or other authority fugures asks a "controversal" question about 911???? And yet another anomoly is ALOT of powerful men got messages before 911 saying "Be very careful traveling around US on the 11th".


Now c'mon you've got ask yourself what is this going on?


Like I said HV, I don't buy the 'official version' of 911 events. There are a lot of unanswered questions and suspicious circumstances, such as the good examples you mention.
I wasn't questioning the nature or pretext of the attacks, I was merely raising a small issue of an engineering/structural nature. This was because if you can take a hypothesis (the towers were pulled), analyse an antithesis (that maybe they weren't pulled), then whatever the outcome, you are nearer to proving what happened.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Paul
Ok, let me clarify my point. I wouldn't suggest that 'buildings are designed to collapse' as you say. What I would suggest, is that it makes sense to design such a tall building so that should it collapse, it collapses vertically rather than toppling over, minimising damage to surrounding areas and property.


OK so just how would they do that?

(WTC building 7 is the first building of it's size anywhere to have ever been bought down by fire alone)

With overwhelming evidence people still can't accept the truth.
Rather than face up to what really happened we create excuses for it.
We'd rather believe half ass attempts at covering the truth (popular mechanics) and lame theories, than have to face what is really going on.
Because facing the real truth means you might have to re-think your whole belief system.
Because facing the truth might make you have to actually do something about it.
It makes it very hard to get up in the morning and go work for the system, when you know that system is built on lies.
America is in classic denial mode, the truth is staring us in the face but we choose to ignore and deny. You can go down with the ship or wake up and try to make sure the ship don't sink. You don't realize that your support of the government is not a support for America, but a support for corporations. Corporations don't have an elegance to any country, they go where they can make the most profit. They don't care about you or me, only what we can do for them. Corporations are the NWO, the one world government. They'll let America burn and die if they feel it's necessary for their survival.


I couldn't put it any more perfect! Good job.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   


Like I said HV, I don't buy the 'official version' of 911 events. There are a lot of unanswered questions and suspicious circumstances, such as the good examples you mention.
I wasn't questioning the nature or pretext of the attacks, I was merely raising a small issue of an engineering/structural nature. This was because if you can take a hypothesis (the towers were pulled), analyse an antithesis (that maybe they weren't pulled), then whatever the outcome, you are nearer to proving what happened.


This is true, I have looked at all different pieces of footage and pictures and still I can't see how the towers came down without being "pulled" and given a special piece of evidence from the source above where the towers were "Specifically designed" to have a plane fly into them???? hmmmm.....





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join