Again I ask, what proof can someone offer to someone such as me who hasn't been to New York in 14 years that that was WTC #7 in the video and not one of countless other skyscrapers?
Yeah that came from a local source. The fire department condemned the building saying it was impossible to put out the fires and it would collapse. That then made it to larger media outlets who misinterpreted it as an actual collapse. Allot of confusion that day.Braddock wrote:
The timing of the news report is slightly strange though. Maybe they 'tempted fate' by saying it collapsed!JahManRed wrote:
WTC7 was hit down one side with rubble from the twin towers. I think the conspiracies started because the common news picture is of the side of wtc7 which wasn't hit. Which look untouched. The other side was a mess. The building was built over a subway and electricity substation so it was cantilevered at ground level. That coupled with fires are the official reason for the collapse. The building looked like a controlled explosion. But I recon that if part of the building was cantilevered then basically, say 6 heavy columns actually support 36 columns over the substation and subway. So it only takes the 6 to come down for a large proportion of the columns to come down together.
There is no way a demolition team could have spent the weeks drilling and setting charges without anyone knowing. The only was it could have been controlled would be if the charges were built into the building, which is impossible as explosives have a short shelf life.
That's what I had thought when I was first watching it, it would make sense.JahManRed wrote:
Yeah that came from a local source. The fire department condemned the building saying it was impossible to put out the fires and it would collapse. That then made it to larger media outlets who misinterpreted it as an actual collapse. Allot of confusion that day.Braddock wrote:
The timing of the news report is slightly strange though. Maybe they 'tempted fate' by saying it collapsed!JahManRed wrote:
WTC7 was hit down one side with rubble from the twin towers. I think the conspiracies started because the common news picture is of the side of wtc7 which wasn't hit. Which look untouched. The other side was a mess. The building was built over a subway and electricity substation so it was cantilevered at ground level. That coupled with fires are the official reason for the collapse. The building looked like a controlled explosion. But I recon that if part of the building was cantilevered then basically, say 6 heavy columns actually support 36 columns over the substation and subway. So it only takes the 6 to come down for a large proportion of the columns to come down together.
There is no way a demolition team could have spent the weeks drilling and setting charges without anyone knowing. The only was it could have been controlled would be if the charges were built into the building, which is impossible as explosives have a short shelf life.
Its the official line that it did not collapse until after that particular news video was shot. The conspiracies is that information was fed to the press by people who knew it was going to collapse. Which is the truth. Misinformation. See my previous post.Vilham wrote:
Again I ask, what proof can someone offer to someone such as me who hasn't been to New York in 14 years that that was WTC #7 in the video and not one of countless other skyscrapers?
What, exactly, is that meant to prove?M.O.A.B wrote:
if this is what happens on a reinforced concrete wall, I'm guessing something similar will happen on a much larger concrete structure
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-16 06:22:47)
But how do I know that the building the guy claimed was WTC #7 is indeed WTC #7? To me it doesn't look anything like it. Not tall enough and far too wide.JahManRed wrote:
Its the official line that it did not collapse until after that particular news video was shot. The conspiracies is that information was fed to the press by people who knew it was going to collapse. Which is the truth. Misinformation. See my previous post.Vilham wrote:
Again I ask, what proof can someone offer to someone such as me who hasn't been to New York in 14 years that that was WTC #7 in the video and not one of countless other skyscrapers?
That an aircraft flying full speed into a large and solid stationary object can 'disappear'Scorpion0x17 wrote:
What, exactly, is that meant to prove?M.O.A.B wrote:
if this is what happens on a reinforced concrete wall, I'm guessing something similar will happen on a much larger concrete structure
I suggest you get. "the conspiracies files. wtc7" think the BBC done it. Compares photos to the footage. Great documentary and impartial. You can draw your own conclusions from it. Might be on BBC I player.Vilham wrote:
But how do I know that the building the guy claimed was WTC #7 is indeed WTC #7? To me it doesn't look anything like it. Not tall enough and far too wide.JahManRed wrote:
Its the official line that it did not collapse until after that particular news video was shot. The conspiracies is that information was fed to the press by people who knew it was going to collapse. Which is the truth. Misinformation. See my previous post.Vilham wrote:
Again I ask, what proof can someone offer to someone such as me who hasn't been to New York in 14 years that that was WTC #7 in the video and not one of countless other skyscrapers?
Your joking right?
Osama Bin Laden was in on it too?
US Soldiers are still dying in Afghanastan and this is the shit you pull up
Seriously if you look for a conspiracy your going to "find" it cause its all in your head anyways
Osama Bin Laden was in on it too?
US Soldiers are still dying in Afghanastan and this is the shit you pull up
Seriously if you look for a conspiracy your going to "find" it cause its all in your head anyways
That's what I was thinking. You're telling me all these AQ/Taliban/Crazy Muslim higher ups and shit are in on this Illuminati thing?Locoloki wrote:
Your joking right?
Osama Bin Laden was in on it too?
WE HAVE A SECURITY BREACH>>>>>Mek-Stizzle wrote:
That's what I was thinking. You're telling me all these AQ/Taliban/Crazy Muslim higher ups and shit are in on this Illuminati thing?Locoloki wrote:
Your joking right?
Osama Bin Laden was in on it too?
THIS IS NOT A DRILL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Considering "these AQ/Taliban/Crazy Muslim higher ups and shit" where onetime on the CIA books they probably had there numbers and all.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
That's what I was thinking. You're telling me all these AQ/Taliban/Crazy Muslim higher ups and shit are in on this Illuminati thing?Locoloki wrote:
Your joking right?
Osama Bin Laden was in on it too?
Im tired of the BBC spreading the American agenda. tired.
The Popular Mechanics article coupled with the History Channel show pretty much shoot down all of the conspiracies I've seen. Those people are some of the biggest nerds in the world, so obviously they are going to know their physics and whatnot. Conspiracy theories FTL
true, but there is a book/article called "debunking the debunkers"DesertFox- wrote:
The Popular Mechanics article coupled with the History Channel show pretty much shoot down all of the conspiracies I've seen. Those people are some of the biggest nerds in the world, so obviously they are going to know their physics and whatnot. Conspiracy theories FTL
http://www.911inplanesite.com/debunking … unkers.htm
its interesting what happened to building 7, i am a Engineering student btw and i did ask one of my lecturers at college is it possible for fire to demolish a building, his reply was no and he does have a few doubts aswell.
I think the main thing that shoots down most conspiracy theories is the level of coordination and secrecy that would actually be required. Think how hard it is to bury the smallest of political mischiefs, like a blowjob for example, imagine how impossible it would be to keep all of the people involved in a huge conspiracy quiet.DesertFox- wrote:
The Popular Mechanics article coupled with the History Channel show pretty much shoot down all of the conspiracies I've seen. Those people are some of the biggest nerds in the world, so obviously they are going to know their physics and whatnot. Conspiracy theories FTL
So... let me get this straight. A bunch of people concocted this huge plan to level a few buildings in the middle of Manhattan. In order to get away with it and for it to work, they must keep it super-ultra-mega-double-plus secret. So... they tell the media about it?JahManRed wrote:
The conspiracies is that information was fed to the press by people who knew it was going to collapse. Which is the truth. Misinformation. See my previous post.
I'm pretty sure fire can demolish a building, for exmaple, extreme heat melting the steel support beams holding up the floors therefore leading to a collapse.rammunition wrote:
true, but there is a book/article called "debunking the debunkers"DesertFox- wrote:
The Popular Mechanics article coupled with the History Channel show pretty much shoot down all of the conspiracies I've seen. Those people are some of the biggest nerds in the world, so obviously they are going to know their physics and whatnot. Conspiracy theories FTL
http://www.911inplanesite.com/debunking … unkers.htm
its interesting what happened to building 7, i am a Engineering student btw and i did ask one of my lecturers at college is it possible for fire to demolish a building, his reply was no and he does have a few doubts aswell.
What is this, community college engineering? Pack up your slide rule and your copy of Deformable Body Mechanics for Dummies and run, don't walk, run out of that classroom. Preferably flailing your arms and screaming like a little girl who "thaw a thpider on my ithe cream!"rammunition wrote:
its interesting what happened to building 7, i am a Engineering student btw and i did ask one of my lecturers at college is it possible for fire to demolish a building, his reply was no and he does have a few doubts aswell.
Either your instructor's degree isn't worth the Cracker Jack-stained paper it's printed on (in crayon, no doubt), or he's so blinded by his hatred for someone (be it Bush, the "Illuminati," the Bilderbergers, Colonel Sanders, whoever...) that he simply cannot look at the scenario objectively.
Fire, sufficiently hot enough, can soften structural steel to the point it can no longer be effective at being structural steel. The fires in the WTC were that toasty, and were left to burn an awful long time.
That is a fact.
Plenty of sources out there.. but most of them i admit are from conspiracy websites.Braddock wrote:
Is that true? It makes for a convincing argument if it is. Any sources?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Ultimate proof that it was an inside job.
The shorting of american airlines and Unites airlines stocks just before 911.
Millions of dollars of profits.
And the SEC and FBI are unable to retrace the people who shorted the stocks
But i found this article published days after 911 talking about the unusual spike in "put options" activity for the airlines:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/ … 1834.shtml
The mainstream media didnt talk about this,.. the story goes forgotten.. the 9/11 commission said each trade had "an innocuous explanation."
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11 … -gains.txt
"The commission said an unidentified U.S. institutional investor "with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda" bought 95 percent of UAL put options on Sept. 6, when volume soared, as part of a trading strategy that also saw it buy shares of AMR. The panel attributed a sharp climb in AMR put options volume on Sept. 10 to a recommendation in an options-trading newsletter"
"We did not develop any evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information," the SEC said in a statement"
lol great investigation.. they were looking for a taliban trading airlines shares and since he was no arab terrorist, they declare that everything is ok.
every material has its melting point, if the medla/steel in the building lets say reached 1000C then its possible for it to WEAKEN, thus bending etc, melting depends on the materialM.O.A.B wrote:
I'm pretty sure fire can demolish a building, for exmaple, extreme heat melting the steel support beams holding up the floors therefore leading to a collapse.rammunition wrote:
true, but there is a book/article called "debunking the debunkers"DesertFox- wrote:
The Popular Mechanics article coupled with the History Channel show pretty much shoot down all of the conspiracies I've seen. Those people are some of the biggest nerds in the world, so obviously they are going to know their physics and whatnot. Conspiracy theories FTL
http://www.911inplanesite.com/debunking … unkers.htm
its interesting what happened to building 7, i am a Engineering student btw and i did ask one of my lecturers at college is it possible for fire to demolish a building, his reply was no and he does have a few doubts aswell.
lol, steel weakens LONG before 1000C.rammunition wrote:
every material has its melting point, if the medla/steel in the building lets say reached 1000C then its possible for it to WEAKEN, thus bending etc, melting depends on the materialM.O.A.B wrote:
I'm pretty sure fire can demolish a building, for exmaple, extreme heat melting the steel support beams holding up the floors therefore leading to a collapse.rammunition wrote:
true, but there is a book/article called "debunking the debunkers"
http://www.911inplanesite.com/debunking … unkers.htm
its interesting what happened to building 7, i am a Engineering student btw and i did ask one of my lecturers at college is it possible for fire to demolish a building, his reply was no and he does have a few doubts aswell.
jet fuel would be sufficient to provide the heat to structurally weaken a building.
jet fuel on building 7?????Parker wrote:
lol, steel weakens LONG before 1000C.rammunition wrote:
every material has its melting point, if the medla/steel in the building lets say reached 1000C then its possible for it to WEAKEN, thus bending etc, melting depends on the materialM.O.A.B wrote:
I'm pretty sure fire can demolish a building, for exmaple, extreme heat melting the steel support beams holding up the floors therefore leading to a collapse.
jet fuel would be sufficient to provide the heat to structurally weaken a building.
lol, my bad....i got ahead of myself.rammunition wrote:
jet fuel on building 7?????Parker wrote:
lol, steel weakens LONG before 1000C.rammunition wrote:
every material has its melting point, if the medla/steel in the building lets say reached 1000C then its possible for it to WEAKEN, thus bending etc, melting depends on the material
jet fuel would be sufficient to provide the heat to structurally weaken a building.
but yes, metal will weaken enough to fail, long before 1000C. that would literally melt it....like nothing left melt it.
Towards the end there is a good explanation about the need some people have for "a great conspiracy".
Xbone Stormsurgezz