Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I have recently discussed this with friends who have very little knowledge of the events of 9/11 except for the planes going into the towers resulting in their collapse. Some had heard that a third building had collapsed due to the debris from the Twin Towers falling onto it and forcing its collapse, whilst others were not aware a third building had even collapsed.

When I showed them videos and analysis of WTC7 collapse, none of them could comprehend how a building, not directly hit by a plane and not directly effected by the collapse of the Twin Towers, could collapse in the fashion that it did. Sure some thought that the fires could have de-stabilised the building, but no one could re-call seeing a building collapse into its own footprint due to a fire. Remember this is the official explanation, not mine.

This has led to many of my friends to start looking at all the evidence of the O.S and to start questioning it.

People are waking up and beginning to see that all is not what it seems.




posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Building 7 collapsed due to fires caused by burning Enron documents.

Pay no attention to the explosions, it was burning paper...



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by avatar01
 


and the BBC reported its collapse before even a brick had fallen - they are clever those BBC guys ...



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein said that WTC7 was “pulled”. He said he told the firemen "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” It’s pretty clear it was demolished in a controlled manner, but who would set the explosives in a building apparently raging with fire? It would probably take more than a few hours to set up in any case, unless they were placed before. But the explosives would have been hard to conceal on a steel frame building because they require a bigger bang than concrete structures. However, if the building did collapse into its on footprint purely due to the firemen letting the fires continue unabated, it’d have to be the first and last time a steel frame building has fallen due to fire, no?

I don’t know the truth, not many people do. I’m betting it’s not what the government says it is - far too many inconsistencies and the like. The investigation was a farce. However, I’m not sure whether I believe it was the sole work of the government like some say. I’m inclined to think the truth lay somewhere in the middle. I’ve no idea how a passport of a terrorist survived a fire that apparently melted steel? There’s certainly something not right about the whole thing... Too many people in the know gained a lot at the expense of millions of people.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Thermite Thermite Thermite and again Thermite.

How I see it from down here.

1.Prime towers with Thermite (Painting contractors some time, if not years before) including WTC7
2. Slam some aircraft into the towers for major public effect.
3.Third jet gets taken down, either by passengers or missile
4. Building still stands, including the problem within (it has not been hit by a jet)
5. "Pull it"
6. Shovel up evidence and place on a island surrounded by armed guards.
7.Melt all evidence (Steal with Thermite cuts)

Easy.........

That's your 911 folks





edit on 17-3-2013 by CaptainBeno because: vids



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


It was a freak chance of harmonics, a cheap chinese razor and plus the vibrations of the plane crashes caused critical vibration in the building via harmony... lucky it never exploded.

On a serious note though a lot of research has been done on this and tbh I can't see why it fell so violently and quickly without something internal giving a hand.

A truly horrifying day in history



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 




Thermite Thermite Thermite and again Thermite.


The thermite thing was debunked over a year ago when the reports came back showing the dust did not contain thermite.
Be that as it may let me ask you something.

How do you compare painting a thin coating of thermite laced paint on an entire steel beam.
to
The videos you posted where the person places a large volume of thermite on one small section of the beam?

Doesn't logic tell you that a thin coating would flash quickly without having enough time to burn through?
Or
Does you belief rely on 'unknown mysterious people' placing large quantities on the beams and wireing them for detonation?

Why do these conspiracies rely on 'unknown mysterious people' who never come forward decades later?
Even the secret seal teams came forward a couple of years later.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
By now anyone that is interested has seen Lose Change and Fahrenheit 9/11. building 7 should not have fallen IMO. I have seen enough on the History channel in the past 12 years that argue both for and against conspiracy. It can get very confusing. I for one have looked at both sides and say our government knew it was going to happen, and as far as #7 they took it down as commented above, the BBC said it went down before it did.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Their plan did not go as planned that's why.
The plane that they say hit pentagon was supposed to hit building7
building 7 was prepared with the same kind of explosions as twin towers
They had to go along with the destruction of building 7 because it was rigged with explosions to hide their tracks



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 




the BBC said it went down before it did.

Can you name the buildings in brittons parlament?
Why would you expect them to know the ones in WTC? I didn't know there were that many.
All reporters were repeating things they heard that day. For all they knew it could have been a much smaller building below their field of view.
Somehow this error became a cornerstone of a conspiracy.

Remember Dick Cheney saying he was in charge? Many things were taken out of context that day.
If you are a man you know what you say is not always what your woman hears. Deal with it.

The firemen reported that the building was leaning long before it came down. But the conspiracy believers never seem to remember it.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BlindBastards
 


thermite and gravity



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I don't think people are using the BBC report as the cornerstone of a conspiracy, merely just another anamoly on a day full of them.

A bit like Satam Al Suqami's paper passport surviving the fiery inferno and collapse of the Twin Towers.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
I have recently discussed this with friends who have very little knowledge of the events of 9/11 except for the planes going into the towers resulting in their collapse. Some had heard that a third building had collapsed due to the debris from the Twin Towers falling onto it and forcing its collapse, whilst others were not aware a third building had even collapsed.

When I showed them videos and analysis of WTC7 collapse, none of them could comprehend how a building, not directly hit by a plane and not directly effected by the collapse of the Twin Towers, could collapse in the fashion that it did. Sure some thought that the fires could have de-stabilised the building, but no one could re-call seeing a building collapse into its own footprint due to a fire. Remember this is the official explanation, not mine.

This has led to many of my friends to start looking at all the evidence of the O.S and to start questioning it.

People are waking up and beginning to see that all is not what it seems.



Sorry to put it bluntly, but if your friends are only "beginning to question the OS" just now, over ten years after the fact, then they're quite a few years late to the conspiracy party. NIST already reported YEARS ago the probable reasons why WTC 7 fell- when the north tower fell it not only severely damaged WTC 7 it kicked off critical fires that couldn't be put out becuase the collapse of the north tower ALSO took out the water supply for the fire suppression system. Firefighters on hand testified they saw the runaway fires were specifically causing structural damage to the building.

It was also reported YEARS ago right here on ATS that the whole "fell in its own footprint" was entirely invented by Richard Gage- he routinely cuts off the penthouse collapse from the WTC 7 collapse video to artifically make it look like the whole building fell on one piece, rather than the south side collapsing six seconds before the north side. It was also already reported YEARS ago right here on ATS the whole "pull it" bit was entirely invented by Alex Jones- it was never any slang for controlled demolitions and he was falsely quoting a video using "pull it" to reference pulling down wreckage with heavy cables. Once you take those accusations out of the conspiracy recipe, all you have left is "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping.

I gotta ask- just how is it they are "trying to discover the truth" only now, after ten years of these 9/11 conspiracy stories sitting out in the rain, rusting over and with weeds growing inside like an abandoned junk car on the side of the road?
edit on 18-3-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


GoodOlDave, thanks for your input, it is appreciated.

Because an event happened 10+ years ago, should this mean that people do not have the right to start researching and questioning the official story?

I have had numerous discussions with many people down the years and I never try to persuade them one way or the other. I feel everybody should be making their own mind up about things, do some research and make an informed decision.

There really are so many anamolies surronding this particular event and let's be honest, it was used as a springboard to invade another country. Another country that didn't even have any connection with this event, but that's for another thread.

There are many reasons why people are beginning to question what we are fed by the MSM, I guess the way things are going there will be more and more people joining them.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by avatar01
 


and the BBC reported its collapse before even a brick had fallen - they are clever those BBC guys ...


They saw the damage to the building and knew it was going to collapse within the hour.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I saw a garden hose stuck through a telephone pole after a tornado. Now although that's impossible it doesn't mean that a tornado never happened.





posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Are you sure they weren't simply using old footage in front of a green screen because they didn't have any up to date video of it?

Has anyone checked that out?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 




Thermite Thermite Thermite and again Thermite.


The thermite thing was debunked over a year ago when the reports came back showing the dust did not contain thermite.


can you post theses reports please?





new topics
top topics
 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join