WTC 'collapsed on purpose' theory, page 1

WTC 'collapsed on purpose' theory, page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 23-5-2012 @ 08:45 AM by Insolubrious

Ok here's a question I have for you folks who feel they have studied 911 I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

Let's cast away some of the finer details for a moment and look at the slightly broader picture of the 9/11 conspiracies. One of the main issues with a great majority of conspiracy 'hows' boils down to whether the collapse of the wtc buildings was an accident, or whether it happened on purpose. You either fall into one category or the other. I am currently a believer of 'the collapse on purpose' theory, i.e it was a planned event - the towers collapse was planned, expected and induced, for one reason or another which i will elaborate on later if anyone's interested.

The question I put to you is do you believe the towers collapse was purely an accident, or was it planned and brought about on purpose?
Can it be any other way?
If you think it was an accident, do you believe the official story too?
Also, if it's an accident do you believe there is any connection to the 1993 plot?

If you believe it was on purpose, perhaps try to explain why you think it couldn't be an accident but without referring to the actual use of explosives or other demolition methods. I'll help you out later in the thread if you need some hints or if that doesn't make sense.

Also, is there anyone that believes it was on purpose but also believes the official story..?

edit on 23-5-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 09:10 AM by phishyblankwaters

reply to post by Insolubrious

If you believe it was on purpose, perhaps try to explain why you think it couldn't be an accident but without referring to the actual use of explosives or other demolition methods.

The laws of physics say that the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 was not possible by accident. This has been gone over so many times, it's pointless to rehash it.

anyways, hooper will be in shortly to tell you how silly you are for questioning anything at all about 911, be prepared.

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 09:30 AM by AzureSky

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Insolubrious

If you believe it was on purpose, perhaps try to explain why you think it couldn't be an accident but without referring to the actual use of explosives or other demolition methods.

The laws of physics say that the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 was not possible by accident. This has been gone over so many times, it's pointless to rehash it.

anyways, hooper will be in shortly to tell you how silly you are for questioning anything at all about 911, be prepared.

Agreed. The laws of physics state that it was no accident. Its impossible for it to be said accident. Too many factors that don't make sense or make perfect scientific sense.

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 09:39 AM by smurfy

The 1993 WTC basement bomb, cratered upward and blew away several of those very vunerable floors, and hence the extreme vunerabilty of the whole building to explosion. From then on the towers were no longer fit for purpose, that is as plain as the nose on your face. In the aftermath there is bound to be people who would have known this.

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 10:09 AM by psikeyhackr

The Physics Profession should have resolved this in 2002.

Since they have not resolved it in TEN YEARS and gravity works the same way all over the planet this is now a bigger issue than 9/11. This is a global educational problem. Look at the Milad Tower in Iran. It is taller than the WTC was. So why haven't the Iranians been explaining to the world that the nation that put men on the Moon is lying about grade school physics?

This is now more of a psychological problem than a physics problem. Way too many people would have to admit that they have been really STOOPID for a decade!

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

People are supposed to go to engineering schools and pay tens of thousands of dollars for an Engineering Education when the schools will not even mention the data that is necessary to solve a grade school physics problem.

www.youtube.com...

Where is Dr. Whatshisface with his model that can completely collapse?

psik

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 10:09 AM by 4hero

Originally posted by smurfy
The 1993 WTC basement bomb, cratered upward and blew away several of those very vunerable floors, and hence the extreme vunerabilty of the whole building to explosion. From then on the towers were no longer fit for purpose, that is as plain as the nose on your face. In the aftermath there is bound to be people who would have known this.

That's ridiculous, the building was strenghtened after 1993, and if it was not fit for purpose why was it still being used, and why did Larry Silverstein take out a lease on the building prior to 9/11?

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 10:21 AM by St Udio

reply to post by Insolubrious

the collapse of WTC towers 1& 2, was totally unexpected... Intel both foreign & domestic allowed the jets to ram the targets thinking the buildings would still stand just as the Empire State building remained a solid structure after being rammed by a B-something bomber (google it up)

however WTC7 was a hastily done demolition job... for a number of reasons, including the building being a storehouse for information about criminal financial dealings, a vault for gold, and the act of muddying the waters of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2... so that the act of 'terror' could be identified as the cause of the collapses and the insurance payoffs instead of anything like bad engineering concepts as the cause

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 10:56 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by Insolubrious

the collapse of WTC towers 1& 2, was totally unexpected... Intel both foreign & domestic allowed the jets to ram the targets thinking the buildings would still stand just as the Empire State building remained a solid structure after being rammed by a B-something bomber (google it up)

Bringing up that Empire State Building business is totally ridiculous.

Just the fuel that went into the towers was 3 times the weight of a B-25.

psik

edit on 23-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 03:16 PM by Insolubrious

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

Yes I also believe it was on purpose, so I agree there. I don't think it's pointless to rehash though as it gives people another chance to air their views in a slightly different light, and I don't think my questions may of been phrased in exactly the same way before. Also, I see a lot of new skeptics about and would like to hear what they have to say.

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 03:19 PM by Insolubrious

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by Insolubrious

the collapse of WTC towers 1& 2, was totally unexpected... Intel both foreign & domestic allowed the jets to ram the targets thinking the buildings would still stand just as the Empire State building remained a solid structure after being rammed by a B-something bomber (google it up)

however WTC7 was a hastily done demolition job... for a number of reasons, including the building being a storehouse for information about criminal financial dealings, a vault for gold, and the act of muddying the waters of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2... so that the act of 'terror' could be identified as the cause of the collapses and the insurance payoffs instead of anything like bad engineering concepts as the cause

That was an interesting reply. I see there are still people that believe WTC7 was on purpose yet the towers were just an accident. Do you believe there is any connection to the 1993 attacks on the WTC?

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 05:51 PM by smurfy

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by smurfy
The 1993 WTC basement bomb, cratered upward and blew away several of those very vunerable floors, and hence the extreme vunerabilty of the whole building to explosion. From then on the towers were no longer fit for purpose, that is as plain as the nose on your face. In the aftermath there is bound to be people who would have known this.

That's ridiculous, the building was strenghtened after 1993, and if it was not fit for purpose why was it still being used, and why did Larry Silverstein take out a lease on the building prior to 9/11?

Those are questions that need to be addressed probably to the port authority, I don't have a clue. Certainly there were improvements from expert recommendations, whether all the work was carried out I don't know that either, (although part of those recommendations enabled most of the 9/11 survivors who could evacuate, were able to do so, even with the WTC2 delay, the 1993 full evacuation took all day) but it did not entail a strengthening of all the lightweight flooring against bomb damage. Ultimately the FEMA investigation into 9/11 was compromised when its building performance team was not allowed access to ground zero, (perhaps it was a health and safety issue??) of course that did not apply to all the workers and firemen who had been down there day after day in a toxic wasteland, some without as much as a basic Martindale mask on.

reply posted on 23-5-2012 @ 06:09 PM by smurfy

Originally posted by Insolubrious
That was an interesting reply. I see there are still people that believe WTC7 was on purpose yet the towers were just an accident. Do you believe there is any connection to the 1993 attacks on the WTC?

There certainly are connections, the quote "weapons of mass destruction", Mohammad A. SaZameh and his mate who wanted to topple WTC1, Al Qaeda 'awareness' generated from 1993 bomb, intelligence awareness, (FBI/CIA 1993) (CIA 2001)..... The subterranean gold/money/riches...die hard with a vengeance (1995) references; gangsters pretending to be terrorists, world trade center, port authority, diversionary tactics...

edit on 23-5-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

reply posted on 24-5-2012 @ 12:48 PM by jlm912

I believe it was purposefully executed. When it comes to the towers, there are too many witnesses of explosions in the lobby and basement and elevators blown open, footage of the north tower's lobby windows completely blown out before any collapse, multiple trucks with bombs or traces of explosives found in the area. There's a YT video with a title along the lines of "Inside the wtc7 lobby" taking place after the first collapse but before the second; in it you can see a white van at the southwest corner of 7, and I theorize that it may have been a car bomb that damaged that corner so significantly (there was an explosion reported at 10:45 after both towers collapsed). Also, there's the CBS footage of the journalist walking around the north side of wtc7 while it was on fire, and not only were lobby windows blown out of the building he was in, which was on the opposite side of 7 from the towers, you can see things such as a newspaper dispenser which had to be blown into the middle of the road with a considerable amount of energy. How could vertically collapsing debris knock these things around horizontally with such force?

reply posted on 24-5-2012 @ 01:32 PM by jlm912

YouTube Link

Here's the wtc7 lobby footage I wrote of. You can see the van @0:13 and again right at the end. I can't make out any markings, but there are no lights as would be on an ambulance. Also in the video, the cameraman encounters "Agent Bennette." The first time he's on camera he's talking to a firefighter? that runs in right before the cameraman. The second encounter is when he speaks to the cameraman, and the first thing he says is "Did the side of the building come down?" Now, I find it odd that he says "the building." Not one of the towers, but "the building." I can only wonder if he was talking of WTC7, and maybe knew of the coming explosion and damage. Now he goes on to say "I heard the top of the building came down" referring to the tower, so maybe I'm wrong, but I still can't help but wonder why he said "the side of the building" while motioning towards the southwest corner...

Pages: ^^TOP^^