We are going in circles here because you ignore or forget any facts that might jeopardize your conspiracy theory. It would require a lot of explosives and a lot of time to load up a building like that. You even said that "they didn't do this on 9/11, they had all the time in the world before." Someone beforehand would have wondered what the bombs attached to the steel columns were for. Are you suggesting they loaded up the building with explosives while it was already burning and damaged? Even if they lived through that they would not have enough time. But that isn't the reason why I don't think there were any bombs involved. I think that because there is no reliable evidence that there were! You don't see my point? Here we go again. You said - "firefighters do not stay away from steel framed buildings under suspicion that they will collapse ask anyone." Yet we have a fire here which partially collapse a steel building (your example). This is a building that did not have the rubble from any skyscrapers landing on it. Steel buildings can collapse due to fire. It is very understandable why the firefighters backed off. Well firstly they were right the building did collapse. But also they had already lost so many lives that day. The whole WTC complex was in ruins. It was not worth risking lives trying to put out the fires with little or no water pressure. You can't get an indication of the 10 story gash from a picture of the roof! You can't even tell if that gash starts at the roof. Look at this video. Tell me that is just a "5 foot deep scratch" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GEEzHn4tqo Nice straw man. You know I am not saying that. No that gash alone isn't the reason the building fell. It is just an indication that WTC7 was seriously damaged by falling debris. Remember you said "there is no visible damage to anything". You are wrong. An isolated incident? It is the incident we are discussing. What are you talking about?
i noticed that nobody has addressed this quote of mine. first we have hurricane angel stating that the steel conducted heat away too fast. i mention the pillars were made of steel reinforced concrete. now i mention this (above quote) aspect of the collapse and he hasn't even addressed it.
I can only talk to so many people at a time i must have missed it, i don't deliberately avoid posts..
We should probably take this one step at a time anyways... so I would say we should discuss the first thing that could have possibly occured in wtc 7; the morning before people showed up for work and the fires began. or whatever somebody else brings up, but i think we can cover things alot more in depth with one thing on the table.
~Salute~ BlueMoose & Hurricane Angel Wish I would have seen this thread a few weeks back....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Their are way to many incriminating facts in this cover up to write it off as just a "loose change" weak conspiracy theory I been hoping to see this argument being made in the thread I started in the religious form http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68978 I have added some interesting links in that thread aswell from my search for answers here is a good one for the debunkies ...please watch Richard Gage AIA Architect http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025 some very important questions in this video aswell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf1q41G6kIg recently this from C-Span2 70's TV star "Ed Azner" gives a great spew in this very interesting clip http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=200498-1&tID=5 WTC 7 is clearly a problem for the government to explain I been waiting for six years for them to just say ... " Ya we had to bring it down " but they can't .....so they say nothing ..... and thats good enough for the american sheeple six years later what a friggin joke .......... it is amazing to me that so many people do not even know about tower 7 let alone make a connection to something being terribly a miss has anyone brought up the fact that weeks before the attack the trade center was under going major re-wireing and the buldings were closed and powered down for 12 hours at a time all headed up by a "BUSH" relative working as head of security on the project no one was allowed in or out and when people returned to work the following days the offices were covered in concrete dust ......... I recently seen the History channel special on 911 conspiracy they didnt even touch on any of the serious questions at all a friggen two hour special ...by popular mechnics no less ... that never asked about the core beam angled cuts in the captured pictures the molten lava in the basements 6 weeks later the explosions in the basements before a plane ever touched the building let alone ......no answer for why tower 7 mysteriuosly fell ..... but they had no problem spending the last 45 minutes trying to make anyone who doubted them feel guilty.... and a whole bunch of sheeple fell right in I can't remember the last time the history channel had a two hour special A few years back a friend gave me a copy of that issue of popular mechanics 10 -911 conspiracy theories debunked..... I had not even heard of 9 of those goofy theories at that point but still had my own reasons to think it was an inside job I read or heard somewhere that a "Bush" relative was one of the head editors for popular mechanics magizine......ya ya ya ..not able to comfirm that I thought it was probably BS too .... but low and behold we have this mechanics magizine making a two hour special for history channel that really is about as informative as Fox News when it comes to seriously investigating 911 they only touched on all the weakest arguments ....anybody else catch that or is it just me ?
Excellent point, in my highly-esteemed opinion. Only difference being that the Murrah building had it's entire side shaved off, thus reducing the burden on the lower supports which would have been under undue pressure if there had remained more structure at the top. OKC was a very interesting and suspicious case. That's my personal conclusion from all my research into it. An explosives expert said that the columns on the front of the building appeared to have been cut with locally planted charges, and that the extent of the damage could not have been due to a fertilizer bomb alone. Another interesting tidbit: the ATF agents were told in advance that coming to work that day (offices on one of the upper cloors) was optional. Basically, they were warned of the bomb threat. Also consider the John Doe #2 fiasco, where they dropped the search for the mysterious middle-eastern looking man very early (and prematurely) in the investigation. Lots of things to look at in this case.
dan rather said about building 7 when it collapsed: "it looks almost like one of those controlled demolitions" so, why would most people not know about building 7? so, are you going to address my post of building 7 being constructed over a sub station that it wasn't designed to carry? as a matter of fact building 7 was almost twice as large as the designed limit of the ground it was constructed on. it's really amazing how people conveniently dismiss such things, then jump all over a conspiracy when it comes along.
Well even if this were true (I don’t think it is - http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html) what are you suggesting here? That the building was full of explosives weeks before the attack and not one person noticed? Do you realise how much explosives are needed to bring a building down? Anyway supposedly the power was down on one of the towers. So one tower was full of explosives but the other fell due to the planes? These theories are so full of holes. Then they flew planes into the building that was already loaded up with invisible explosives and the building started collapsing at the point where the planes hit. Yeah ok. I know of one photo of a beam that has an angle to it. Were you aware that beams were cut as part of the clean up? Molten lava Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Perhaps you mean molten metal or steel. I’m not sure that this is true either (there is no reliable evidence) but even if it were it doesn’t imply that a short, quick explosive was used to cause a collapse. An incendiary like thermite would not cause molten metal weeks later. It is just another example of a supposedly suspicious “fact”. There is no reliable evidence for any explosions in the basement. I have read a lot of conspiracy theorists trying to distort witness testimony to prove that there was though. Usually any testinomy mentioning a 'bang' in the basement is all that is needed to prove there were bombs. Never mind that a very large plane loaded with jet fuel just flew into the building. If there were bombs in the basement why did the building collapse from the top down? Anyone with an open mind who does 20 minutes of research will see that it isn’t such a big mystery why WTC7 fell. So the points you mentioned are the stronger arguments?
I can consider this as a plausible explanation if that is the case why aren't they saying this is the reason six years later aside from the Wikipedia one of these videos I recently seen shows a nice shot from above after the collapse their didn't appear to be any cave in if that is what your suggesting ....was their a hole there after they cleared the debris ? Did you watch this clip leopold99 http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025 do you think all these architects missed the sub basement issue ? are they just hell bent on wasting everyones time ? When I said I have to say almost all the people I have a face to face conversation with about this ....do not know anything or very little about tower 7 :shrug:
no, i have not watched it all. i watched up until the words "controlled demolition" rolled out of the guys mouth then stopped. this thread is about building 7, not WTC 1 and 2. frankly, yes. why? well you watched the clip and you never mentioned it. i do not mean to make you mad but i simply do not believe you. the collapse of building 7 was shown over, and over, and over, and over, on the evening news. so, for you to say that people do not know about building 7 is either an outright lie or an outright omission.
The interesting thing is that there were no casualties from Building 7 WTC, here is a list of the casualties and were they were located, Building 7 was evacuated before the collapse, and there were no casualties there. 9-11 Research: Building 7 Building 7 (also known as WTC 7) was a 47-story skyscraper that stood on the ... The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. ... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html Number of 9/11 Deaths At least 2,985 people died in the September 11th attacks, including: 19 terrorists 2,966 victims All but 13 people died on that day. Thirteen died of their wounds. There were 266 people on the four planes: American Airlines Flight 11 (crashed into the WTC): 92 (including five terrorists) United Airlines Flight 175 (crashed into the WTC): 65 (including five terrorists) American Airlines Flight 77 (crashed into the Pentagon: 64 (including five terrorists) United Flight 93 (downed in Shanksville, PA): 45 (including four terrorists) There were 2,595 people in the World Trade Center and near it, including: 343 NYFD firefighters and paramedics 23 NYPD police officers 37 Port Authority police officers 1,402 people in Tower 1 614 people in Tower 2 658 people at one company, Cantor Fitzgerald 1,762 New York residents 674 New Jersey residents There were 125 civilians and military personnel at the Pentagon. 1,609 people lost a spouse or partner on 9/11. More than 3,051 children lost parents. Answer While there were mostly Americans killed in this horrific attack one must mention (how ever small the group) that non servivors were from other countries: 327 foreign nationals also perished. Argentina: 4 [1] Australia: 11 Bangladesh: 6 Belarus: 1 [2] Belgium: 1 Bermuda: 1 Brazil: 3 Canada: 27 [3][4] Chile: 2 China: 4 C�te d'Ivoire: 1 Colombia: 17 Democratic Republic of the Congo: 2 Dominican Republic: 1 El Salvador: 1 Ecuador: 3 France: 1 Germany: 11 Ghana: 2 Guyana: 3 Haiti: 2 Honduras:1 India: 1 Indonesia: 1 Ireland: 6 [5] Israel: 5 Italy: 4 Jamaica: 16 Japan: 26 Jordan: 2 [6][7][8] Lebanon: 3 Lithuania: 1 Malaysia: 7 Mexico: 16 Moldova: 1 Netherlands: 1 New Zealand: 2 Nigeria: 1 Panama: 2 [9] Peru: 5 Philippines: 16 Portugal: 3 [10] Poland: 1 Russia: 1 South Africa: 2 South Korea: 28 Spain: 1 Sweden: 1 Taiwan: 1 Ukraine: 1 Uzbekistan: 1 [11] United Kingdom: 67 [12] Venezuela: 1
I agree it sounds silly when you look at it from another perspective and of course you could tell " Willy Rodriguez " He imagined it all the guy who witnessed the whole event first hand seems very concerned that things aren't right ...try to watch it http://www.c-spanarchives.org/libra...product_video_info&products_id=200498-1&tID=5 that is the first thing I thought when I seen the pictures aswell the Cleanup ...... But yet the two hour history channel special never even mentioned it or anyone else aside from you that I remember shouldn't they want to clear the air of such a myth What would cause Molten Metal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ? their were photos of if and firemen mentioned it also a satillite picture of the hot spots I am open minded to the idea I'm being mislead I have done more then 20 minutes of research seems odd that most of the obvious plausible explinations are like well kept secrets I guess I'm behind the curve here ... I honestly had not heard mention of the Sub basement before reading this thread or the wiki I honestly have not heard anyone suggest that the cleanup crews cut the beams before this thread either ....although that was my first assumption thanks for the 911review link I'm still reading Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He does talk quite a bit about building 7 but I guess you already know everything Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I had honestly never heard it mentioned before your post My mistake OK lets split hairs Of course I did not mean that most people had no Idea of the existance or collapse of tower 7 ....:bugeye: I meant that they did not know about the detailed suspicious accusations surrounding biulding 7 ...... Thanks for pouncing on the trivial
I’ve read a little about Rodriguez before. Apparently he was a hero on 9/11 and seems to genuinely believe that something wasn’t right that morning. However was he really in a position to know? He heard a bang while in the basement but how could he know that the bang wasn’t caused by the plane hitting the building? He certainly couldn’t know what was going on outside from the basement. Sound travels much quicker through solids than it does through the air so he may certainly have heard more than one bang.One would be from the noise traveling down the columns and another from travelling though the air. He also mentioned hearing explosions which isn't really surprising either. His own testimony taken directly after the event doesn’t to anything to support his suspicions. Sceptical discussion on William Rodriguez: http://911stories.googlepages.com/home Well there are a lot of claims to address. Perhaps they just addressed the most common. Don’t know. There are a couple of photos here of people cutting the steel as part of clean up. I can find more. http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html I have seen photos of glowing metal but not molten metal. Ok it probably takes a bit more than 20 minutes of research before you can make a judgment on WTC7. There are a lot more conspiracy sites than debunking sites so it takes a bit of looking to get good information. From what I have seen the debunking sites easily address every point the conspiracy sites bring up.
But you're not really posting many resources. The problem I see is that we are posting many links and such, whereas you said "I don't know.. maybe" or "Yeah, I don't think that could happen". And Buffalo roam keeps posting government sources... which don't offer much insight, since it is clearly not a neutral source.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have put links in every post in this thread. I can give you a list of debunking sites I have used if you want.
The information is provable by science and engineering, on site forensics, so because it comes from as source that you claim is Government does that make it less valid, the sources that you post didn't have access to the site, and to the recovered materials, the people from most of the sites you post never were on ground zero, and they have no actual real world contact with the site. You can make a model do any think you want by changing the variables or not having the all the information, and guessing, and making a WAG, WILD ASS GUESS, and that is what all of your conspiracy theories are WAG. This is interesting, I have a Uncle who served on the boats in WWII, and he tells stories of surface attacks on Japanese convoys, and the fact that when the torpedo hit you would hear 2 bangs, one transmitted through the water to the hull of the boat, the second when the sound waves traveling through the air finally arrived at the boat, he claimed that there was up to a 5 second difference between the two.
