WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

Okay, just to put this out there, it is entirely possible that if the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives, it is entirely possible that they could have been detonated in such a fashion as to make them fall unevenly. As in, it could have been set off in such a fashion as to make one side of the top of a tower fall unevenly. Therefore, I have to state that it isn't impossible that explosives could have caused the VISUAL results seen in the many, many videos of the collapse.
As to the rest, that is up to you experts to decide. Not a lowly individual such as myself.

originally posted by: pfishy
Okay, just to put this out there, it is entirely possible that if the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives, it is entirely possible that they could have been detonated in such a fashion as to make them fall unevenly. As in, it could have been set off in such a fashion as to make one side of the top of a tower fall unevenly. Therefore, I have to state that it isn't impossible that explosives could have caused the VISUAL results seen in the many, many videos of the collapse.
As to the rest, that is up to you experts to decide. Not a lowly individual such as myself.

The idea was to damage the WTC complex and leave the surrounding area relatively unaffected.

originally posted by: matadoor
Some of the best footage of 9/11 I've seen. Always remember.

www.military.com...

Always remember and NEVER analyze, never question.

originally posted by: pfishy
Okay, just to put this out there, it is entirely possible that if the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives, it is entirely possible that they could have been detonated in such a fashion as to make them fall unevenly. As in, it could have been set off in such a fashion as to make one side of the top of a tower fall unevenly. Therefore, I have to state that it isn't impossible that explosives could have caused the VISUAL results seen in the many, many videos of the collapse.
As to the rest, that is up to you experts to decide. Not a lowly individual such as myself.

When? Why? By Whom? Why didn't they blow them in '93? And then, who triggered the explosions to time it EXACTLY with 2 jumbo jets that slammed into the towers? They obviously had someone calling the shots. "Okay, fire them NOW!!!"

And then, what other buildings are rigged with explosives?

Why were these building picked from the thousands of buildings that were built around the planet?

Questions that Truthers hate.

a reply to: matadoor


Which truthers say explosions went off when the towers were hit? Although I don't believe that is difficult that's not what happened. There are explosives that are not triggered by temperature but pressure as you might know as someone who blasted in the past. Let me put some truther glasses on:

They went of when the towers fell. To make the fire and 10% top steel-frame verinage demolition theory plausible the only thing to determine is the height at which the planes hit. More mass on top first collapse. If you have enough explosives then the ones disabled by the planes will no longer work but the other ones will.

Why the twin towers were picked? The question is why the terrorists choose them. I believe in real planes and real terrorists just like you.

originally posted by: drommelsboef
a reply to: matadoor


Which truthers say explosions went off when the towers were hit? Although I don't believe that is difficult that's not what happened. There are explosives that are not triggered by temperature but pressure as you might know as someone who blasted in the past. Let me put some truther glasses on:

They went off when the towers fell. To make the fire and 10% top steel-frame verinage demolition theory plausible the only thing to determine is the height at which the planes hit. More mass on top first collapse. If you have enough explosives then the ones disabled by the planes will no longer work but the other ones will.

Why the twin towers were picked? The question is why the terrorists choose them. I believe in real planes and real terrorists just like you.

a reply to: drommelsboef

Yep, there are explosives that are triggered by pressure, but no one likes to use them, these are mostly used by the mining companies for deep mine excavating. You drill these far into the ground, then trigger a smaller explosion above them. It causes what we call a cascade effect.

Reason why they are hated?

As these explosives age (we typically rotate them yearly when and if ever used), the pressure sensitivity changes, sometimes it gets more sensitive, sometimes less, that depends on the environmental conditions that the explosives are exposed to.

One good solid freeze with the heat off, and that pretty much ruins the day for this theory, and I can't imagine in decades that the heat never went off on certain floors at least ONCE.

If the AC went off during the summer, that would have the opposite effect, and just a truck driving by could cause a close one to go off. Once one cooks off, that would have started a chain reaction, ruining the day for the building and the people waiting for the planes to hit some day in the future.



M

originally posted by: drommelsboef
a reply to: matadoor


Which truthers say explosions went off when the towers were hit?

Sorry, most of the ones here trying to use the old PT Barnum way of gaining followers. There's a sucker born every minute.

a reply to: matadoor

I was actually referring to the collapse sequence, not the plane impacts. And I'm not saying explosives were used. I'm just saying that if they were, they could have been detonated in such a fashion as to cause a slightly uneven initial collapse event, to make it look more uncontrolled.
And it's pretty obvious why they struck the WTC towers. New York is the financial heart of the US, and the towers were the tallest buildings in the world at one point. There's a pretty obvious phallic symbology to be seen by members of a male-dominated culture destroying them. Also, being by far the tallest buildings on Manhattan Island, they were the easiest targets, and also two of the most heavily populated at that time on a weekday.

a reply to: pfishy

To cite an ATSlien (geez, I love that term):

Always remember and NEVER analyze, never question.

Are we understood now?



Bullsh!t! I can't hear you.
Who said Marvin P. Bush?!? Who said that?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Not sure where you're going with that, but ok.

a reply to: pfishy

I'm Not Sure either and this is Idiocracy. You were just stating facts, were you not?
How in hell did you deserve that bunch of "questions Truthers hate" instead of a clear "Yes, Sir!".

Was just having fun with this strange sort of situational comedy, don't bother if you didn't.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Also, are you trying to pin me down as a 'Truther' or an 'OS'er'? Because you're not going to have much luck either way. I have never once stated support for either side of the issue, except that the micronukes theory is totally unfeasible. Well, the Hologram theory, too.

a reply to: pfishy

Not really, I'm with you on that page as well. Everybody gets pinned down as a Truther for stating obvious facts from time to time, just saying. Truth is, we should rather care about facts than lables. And you were quite spot on doing so, carry on please!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thanks. Much appreciated.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Also, are you trying to pin me down as a 'Truther' or an 'OS'er'? Because you're not going to have much luck either way. I have never once stated support for either side of the issue, except that the micronukes theory is totally unfeasible. Well, the Hologram theory, too.

I think the definition is clear, even though many have attempted to muddy the waters as I mentioned earlier.

On the subject of the attacks that occurred on 9/11 a: -

Truther:- is someone who perhaps through intelligence or by following threads to their logical conclusion understand that the Official story is woefully incomplete and unacceptable as an explanation, and thus wants to get to the truth through further investigation, whatever that truth is.

OS'er:- Believes that the Official story is an adequate explanation and no further investigation is needed.

But I believe there is a third category that we need to consider

The Churner: - These are people who position themselves on either side of the issue and work extremely hard to create ever increasing degrees of complexity to the arguments, in the hopes of either deflecting honest investigation, or to create completely outlandish theories that will create an environment of anti-socialism and stigma associated with the subject.

-----------------------------

One of the things that I find fascinating about 9/11 is often people do not know where they sit and will become a Churner because they either do not have the ability to hold a scientific or academic conversation about the subject or they are simply a fantasist.

However.... The Churner is also the place where all the people who are purposefully working against one side or the other, or both, by design....

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Oh, so I'm a Churner? Or did I read something into your post that wasn't intended?

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Oh, so I'm a Churner? Or did I read something into your post that wasn't intended?

Please point to where I said this?

Sometimes it's prudent to read the lines... not just in between them.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I did read your post. Twice. This is why I asked if that's what you meant, or if I had misunderstood you. I had just asked PublicOpinion if their previous post was trying to paint me on one side or the other, and you started your post with quoting that question and said "I think the definition is clear". Pretty simple to see how I could have misunderstood that, I would think.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

So, that being said, what exactly did you mean, then? You probably wouldn't have quoted my post if you didn't think I fit one of the definitions you provided.