That argument both supportive and unsupportive of your claim, as hard is it is to do, how did the towers fall like that without explosives?

But if its also that hard to do, how did they do it without being able to drill holes and do every other predemolition procedure, for it to work as well as it did.

Just think how difficult and amazing it would be for a tall building (like the WTC) could catch fire, burn for a few minutes UNEVENLY then spontaeneously collapse perfectly straight down into its own 'footprint'.

That would be a 1 in a 1,000,000 thing to see!! I wonder if til the end of eternity we will ever see something happen like that.

shaimaison they did plan and do everything as per usual, even better than usual. They had many opportunities to rig the buildings for the whole year of 2001. When you have a Bush in charge of security then anything can happen.

If you don't count the Penthouse on the top of WTC 7 which took a couple seconds to collapse (nearly). WTC 7 fell as fast as an object falling a vaccuum. Your damn right Demolition crews didn't learn anything!

But why?

Why do they continue to do demolitions old style when they could just set buildings on fire? Why didn't they realize that buildings could be demolished from mere fires BEFORE they began working on demo techniques back in the day?

Why, why, why?

Oh you know, if they just burnt them and let them buckle and fall into their footprints, they could never justify the huge sums of money they take for planning, months of preperation, and finally execution of the take down.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by The Links]

Could you please link to the part in the NIST's report where they say the 767s werent a "significant factor " in the collapse of the Towers

As for the WTC7 are you blind could not see the damage in the picture I linked. Or are you still going to pretend that the fire was the only factor in the WTC7? Because thats what your doing.

Your own quote

if they had followed the WTC 7 model. In one day, they could have just started some fires and been done within hours.

Just some fires?

I just showed you undeniable proof fires were not the only factor

Hey ShadowXIX do believe that 9-11 happened exactly as the official story goes, are you just arguing with truthseeka because you don't like his tone or do you think there that some lies about 9-11 have been told in the official story, but you just don't accept that demolitions were invoved in the triple collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7?

No offence intended, just curious as to your stance on this issue

You see some people like to spend a little internet time to talk about conspiracys, we think it is important and could make a differance at some stage in the future.
Obvious to see some people have nothing better to do than spend some internet time to come to a place like ats and tell us we are dumb to talk about such things.
Which then makes the conspiracy side think,"if i did not believe something happened, do you think i would waste my time trying to make a bunch of fruit cakes understand their fears are not true"
You must understand tho, we probably would not be here if the other side was not so ignorant.

Originally posted by alienanderson
Hey ShadowXIX do believe that 9-11 happened exactly as the official story goes, are you just arguing with truthseeka because you don't like his tone or do you think there that some lies about 9-11 have been told in the official story, but you just don't accept that demolitions were invoved in the triple collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7?

No offence intended, just curious as to your stance on this issue

This thread isnt really about that and theres more then enough threads about that subject on ATS, I have voiced my opinions in many of them. This thread is about if demolition experts are stupid after learning the lessons of 9-11 I thought.

Im sorry but when some trys to say WTC7 was just a fire or the Planes werent a "significant factor" in the towers thats ignorance of the greatest order. We are trying to deny ignorance not imbrace it.

But no I dont believe 9-11 went down exactly as the official story goes.

ShadowXIX - I am very glad you agree the official story is not how it went down

I think this thread is a sarcastic take on how ridiculous the official story is not about actual demolition experts daily routine and job analysis. I am sure most ATS users agree upon that.

WC7 should not have collapsed on 9-11. It did. Therefore, something is wrong in the official story.



[edit on 31/3/2006 by alienanderson]

Originally posted by alienanderson
ShadowXIX - I am very glad you agree the official story is not how it went down

I think this thread is a sarcastic take on how ridiculous the official story is not about actual demolition experts daily routine and job analysis. I am sure most ATS users agree upon that.

WC7 should not have collapsed on 9-11. It did. Therefore, something is wrong in the official story.

[edit on 31/3/2006 by alienanderson]

Quite perceptive, Mr. anderson.


Good point, The Links. I honestly don't understand why some posters make a big deal out of coming to a "CONSPIRACY" site and debunking the conspiracies. Honestly, if they don't believe it, why the hell should they care? I don't believe the moon landing hoax thing, but you don't see me posting post after post debunking the conspiracy. Like Fat Joe said, get the hell on with that.

OK, ShadowXIX, since it's ignorance of the HIGHEST order, will you concede that you are ignorant when I post NIST's statement? Probably not, but you really should take your own advice.

From wtc.nist.gov

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …

And, as for the damage to WTC 7, please. Even by the pic YOU posted, you would expect the building, if it were to collapse at all, to collapse in the direction of the damage! Even if it wouldn't collapse completely in that direction, it would have collapsed at an angle, NOT straight down. Again, you must think I'm a fool if you expect be to believe that a building damaged on one corner would fall straight down...

See truthseeka you didnt say that you said the NISTs report said

Your own words

NIST's own report said that the planes were not a significant factor in the collapse of the twins

Where does it say the planes were not a significant factor??? Oh wait it doesn't say that. What the heck do you think "dislodged insulation and started those multifloor fires. …" the PLANES which makes them a significant factor along with the structural damage they caused.

Will you just concede you made that up the NIST report said the planes were not a "significant factor"?

ShadowXIX just out of interest, what is your body weight?

Due to your thin, lightweight remarks, I can only imagine that your body volume is the opposite and I would think as in regard to your body mass rather slack and rotund

No offence

[edit on 31/3/2006 by alienanderson]

No offence ??

What a clever remark alienanderson Did you think that all up by yourself? Really added to the thread.

Originally posted by alienanderson
...................................
WC7 should not have collapsed on 9-11. It did. Therefore, something is wrong in the official story.

Why is that?.... Part of the building was destroyed from the debris of one of the towers falling on it, add to that the shock recieved to the structure of WTC7 from the explosions as the planes crashed into the towers, plus the burning debris and fuel burning for hours, it does add up...

We are here to deny ignorance, not embrace it.