This wtc7 collapse looks like to me, that a huge magnet pulled down the building so perfectly from the inside of the earth. Definately it has nothing to do with explosives, but it actually was a controlled demolition, and not an accident. How did it fall then? I have never seen such collapse.

Istvan, I have a question for you. Let's just say that the gov was behind 9/11. Why after flying planes into towers 1 and 2 would they bring them down along with #7? For what purpose? If they were behind it, wouldn't flying planes into the WTC serve the same purpose? (whatever the purpose may be). I am trying to find a motive. If the gov just wanted to start a war on terrorism, I think by just flying the planes into the buildings would have been enough. Just curious to your thoughts on this, or anyone else for that matter who thinks the gov was behind 9/11.

Edit: Istvan, i agree with you that it looks like a magnet pulled it dowmn. But wouldn't the floors falling on top of one another like a domino effect produce the same results?

[edit on 7-16-2004 by nyarlathotep]

Well, the same magnet pulled down every floor below the impact point of on and two World Trade Centers too, I guess. Because from the impact point down they fell symmetrically.

Damned NWO.

[edit on 7-16-2004 by Valhall]

Ok, so here is one for you believers to investigate and skeptics to chew on.
WTC7 was no ordinary building. For lack of a better word it was an engineering wonder.
You see, WTC7 was build OVER an electrical substation.
There was no way that it could have fallen on its footprint (except for controlled demolitions) due to the fact that a giant steal I-beam spanned nearly the entire length of the building.
Dont believe it? Look into it.

Antimyth, most people provide their proof with a link or something. Look into it doesn't really work around here. So, do you have any proof of this I-beam?

No, you won't divert my point. I clearly stated that the WTC 1 and 2 fell symmetrically BELOW THE POINT OF IMPACT. Not particularly interested in what happened above the impact floors.

They both fell symmetrically below the impact point just as WTC 7 fell symmetrically for a different reason. It had been burning for about 7 hours or so when it gave up the ghost.

Gravity doesn't pull sideways. There's not even a logical reason for it to fall anyway but straight down.

By all means debate, thats what I'm here for.. I'm a skeptic..

Though the wtc7 collapse is fishy, I seriously doubt any connection to the towers 1 & 2 falling. The notion is almost laughable (to me atleast)

9/11 has to be one of the most coincidence filled incidents that i have EVER read about. i guess the question is, when do 'coincidences' become set up occurences?? to blindly think that the govt is telling the truth.........i'm not even gunna finish that statement.

hmmmmmmm i wonder when the next set up..err....attack will occur.....when do the kids head back to school????

Originally posted by clearmind
9/11 has to be one of the most coincidence filled incidents that i have EVER read about. i guess the question is, when do 'coincidences' become set up occurences??

Exactly. Not even five minutes ago I was discussing this with a friend. One or two coincidences may raise a couple of eyebrows. Multiple coincidences scream of foul play. I don't buy the official story for a second.

"You're telling me you're going to fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money out of Congress?"

"Well, unfortunately, I have no idea how to fake killing 4,000 people, so we're just gonna have to do it for real. We'll blame it on the Muslims, naturally. Then, I'll get my funding."

The above quotes taken from the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight, 1996.

"You're telling me you're going to fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money out of Congress?"

"Well, unfortunately, I have no idea how to fake killing 4,000 people, so we're just gonna have to do it for real. We'll blame it on the Muslims, naturally. Then, I'll get my funding."

The above quotes taken from the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight, 1996.

Love the quote! Is this a movie I should see?

All one needs to do is read OPERATION NORTHWOODS to get an idea of why.
"Justification for US MILITARY Intervention in _________" (fill in the blank).

And then on page 10 they tell you almost exactly how 911 was commited.

Thats your tax dollar hard at work.

Originally posted by rwsdakota


Look at the picture in the abovepost .. the building didnt fall straight down. The top fell sideways meaning that the supports on that side of the building gave out first.

NO! Do some studying PLEASE! You do not take the reactions of a single floor and extrapolate it to an entire building. Note my statements PREVIOUSLY made in this thread. The first floor to fail would NOT fail symmetrically.

This entire thread proves how people will obsess and convulse on a theory they absolutely commit to holding...that's called dogma...that's called fanaticism. And any physical/engineering laws thrown at you will be ignore for the sake of holding on to your warped conviction.

You guys are scarey!

[edit on 7-16-2004 by Valhall]

Originally posted by rwsdakota


Since the facts dont add up, then all we have is speculation.. alot of the 'facts' point to fowl play. But the lack of explosion charges going off (as one would clearly see in demolishing videos).. I'd have to say that there is no fowl play..

So you only think that what you see in the video is the only thing out there. Let me tell you if it can be done, someone else can do it better. Why couldnt they just have put a bunch of little but strong explosives arounf the main beam, the one that melted. That would make the floors give and you would never see it comming. You could even time the explosives to go off just be for the next floor gets there.

You say there is all this shady stuff, but just because you didnt see it demostrated in the video it cant be. deny ignorance!

I have a link for this I have to find it.

I think it was 8 months before 9/11 building 7 had 15 million put in on the 22,23,24 floors, (I think those are the floor. dont qoute me on that. I will find the link.) Bullet proof glass, the who place was reinforced steel. The link seemed to point it to being a command center for 9/11. Then they dropped it. Ok, maybe just maybe the towers fell because of the planes. (I have worked with metal, heck everyone has experinced this, If your cooking on an iron skillet, sometimes the handle gets to hot to touch, heat tranfers through metal. The towers where all metal, the heat would travel down the shaft then through the floor then to the outer walls and down.) Building 7 fell for know reason. I mean why was it even on fire? People where evacuated before people of the towers???????? There where buildings closer, on the other side of towers that didnt fall.
It didnt have "jet fuel" on it, What in it could have burned so hot to make it fall? Notice no explosions see from building 7. Hmmm...................

If I recall, the building was put down purposly. They knew a little bit after 1 and 2 collapsed that this one was going to, so they evacuated people and demolished it theirself the day of the attacks.

Originally posted by pyxsul
If I recall, the building was put down purposly. They knew a little bit after 1 and 2 collapsed that this one was going to, so they evacuated people and demolished it theirself the day of the attacks.

That directly contradicts the offical explanation. Buildings don't just implode willy nilly. Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, NOR it was of the same design as Tower one and two. What would make them think the biulding was just gonna fall? How did they wire it up in just a few hours while it was on fire (a fire that FEMA woud have us believe CAUSED the collapse).

[edit on 17-7-2004 by roxdog]