BF2S Forums WTC #7 What the...?

rammunition wrote:

Pull means to demolish/detonate

Not if your the Battalion chief in charge of the building.

That guy is speaking from the viewpoint of the building. The words spoken are from the view point of an Officer protecting his firefighters.

I find it funny how much we lose time with this...all people believing that the USA self attacked themself will still think that...all the Americans that believe that this was indeed a terrorist attack will still be believing that.

So why not stop those debate once for all and i dunno...eat some Caek?

Just a small example of fire destablizing a steel structure:
My Father's engineering company had a fire in one of the labs where they made curcuit boards.  The fire fed off the chemicals in the boards and managed to weaken the steal support for the roof.  The main beam partially liquified in about an hour and the entire roof caved in.  This was a single story building with no excesive weight on the roof structure.  Now I point this out because there were probably countless computers in all of these building that contributed a ton of chemicals that need to be accounted for.  Factor in that most of these come from China and you probably have very little idea what was acctually burning in those fires.

Anyway, food for thought.

The whole thing is just that bit too unlikely, the aledged conspiracy (in it's many forms) and indeed the attack it's self.  The military drill that day, and all the other apparantly weird things that went on, am sure your all well versed in it.

It was just too neat, the way that building came down *fill in blank*

Martyn

marine.  it was an inside job.

brainwashed.

home of the free, eh?

GG America

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-16 15:43:58)

People don't need to keep secrets - if they're not in on it. (Side note: Noam Chomsky is not that bright for offering that nonsense up). Why would I think thousands of people are in on it? I don't. All I know is there is more to the story - and no-one will ever know the perfect and exact truth. There are no 9-11 in-the-know experts (they all died on 9-11). Even though NIST's engineering report is a bogus pile of garbage doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way - this nonsensical global collapse mechanism that is based upon in actuality nothing; not science and certainly not engineering; but hey it could have happened like it's officially stated.

And, the conspiracy is an unknown thing: it could easily just be covering up complacency on; knowledge of; information that existed at the time. Crap, if I shorted stock based upon general information - that certain Airline's might be affected negatively by the current Administration sitting on intelligence reports - I wouldn't tell a soul. And, what the fuck would I be decrying anyway? General information that might leed nowhere - except to me getting in some big trouble.

The fact is the 9-11 truth movement has failed to deliver a "deep throat." Until someone steps forward (or many come forward) it's pointless bickering.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-16 16:08:26)

stryyker wrote:

Didn't take an engineer to figure out that 7 was coming down. City planners and the IC of the WTC incident deemed the building lost, marked it as so, and moved on. BBC probably got the report from a firefighter saying that it was lost, and that it was an eminent collapse. Which it was.

How could WTC 7 be deemed lost when the fire was relatively small

Take a look at this

Scroll down to "If a fire can collapse a skyscraper, then why didn't these skyscrapers collapse from their massive fires that were all much larger and most burned for much longer than the fire at the WTC 7?"

Many of those burned much more severely and for much longer than any of the world trade centers, yet none of them fell.

The manner in which these buildings fell just does not make sense.  If structural integrity truly was to blame due to the impact of the plane/weakening of the steel, then we would have seen the upper portions of the World Trade Centers slowly starting to 'lean' into the side hit by the planes.  The whole building would not have collapsed with the top falling downwards at a rate of ~9.8m/s (the acceleration due to gravity), the non-damaged section below the damaged floors had been bearing that weight for years, and just because the top may have been compromised doesn't mean that the entire building would crumble to pieces and not put up any resistance.  Building 7 makes even less sense when you look at the link provided above.

FEOS wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Flight 93, the Pentagon (especially) and WTC 7 have always remained sketchy to me, and they always will.

You tell me when - in all of the videos of the Pentagon attack - that you see a plane.

How about I tell you that one of the guys I work with picked up pieces of a Boeing 757...and its passengers during the clean up.

How about the photos of the passengers still strapped into their seats in some of the wreckage (shown at Moussaui's trial).

How about those pictures? I've never seen them.  Most of the live reports from the pentagon say that there was really no airplane material to pick up and that it didn't even look like an airplane had hit the building.  I've never heard anything about bodies strapped into seats either -- I thought that they were all ordered to the back of the planes?  But then they did find one of the terrorist's passports that floated down from one of the WTCs... so I guess you never know

And the aluminum in aircraft doesn't just dissipate on impact, all major plane crashes leave piece of metal behind, you'll find that the plane that crashed into Pennsylvania left a big hole in the ground and not much else (~2:35 in the video below).



And then there's the 'live video' streamed over multiple news stations that, when observed, doesn't really look all that 'live.'





Google it, there are plenty of videos

Also an interesting read

But your government has never lied to you before in order to start/get into a war.

Lusitania, WWI
Pearl Harbor, WWII
Pearl Harbor, WWII 2
Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam
JFK, Vietnam (While I am Kind of just throwing this one in here, it was believed that he was for the deescalation of the Vietnam conflict and after his death, Johnson re-escalated the conflict...)

It's really not that much of a stretch, especially with the facts at hand, to assume that there was something even more sinister than 'terrorism' behind 9/11

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-07-16 16:33:15)

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

facts....lol.  lol.   lol.

You... thinking. lol lol lol.

tin foil.  lol.  lol.  go hide from the boogieman.

Locoloki wrote:

I love how in the video he says "pull it" then the video cues to the building collapsing.... Like it actually collapsed as he said the words "Pull it"

That was handled in the 9/11 Conspiracies special on the History Channel, in which they oonsulted all sorts of demolition experts, none of whom substantiated the claim that those words are used in the demo business. [s]People[/sub] Conspiracy wackos with fanciful imaginations must be thinking of something like this

commiechipmunk wrote:

Lusitania, WWI
Pearl Harbor, WWII
Pearl Harbor, WWII 2
Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam
JFK, Vietnam (While I am Kind of just throwing this one in here, it was believed that he was for the deescalation of the Vietnam conflict and after his death, Johnson re-escalated the conflict...)

Would I be going too far to say that 'big secrets' have been kept before?

CommieChipmunk wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

facts....lol.  lol.   lol.

Some of us like to question the things that our government tells us.

...others like to bend over, lube up pal.

I also like how you just completely deemed everything in my post false simply on the basis that you believe that the government has always, and will always tell its people the truth.

That's not what's boring about him.

It's his tired one-line liners. It's pointless to try and even figure out his motives or mind. For example you make a general comment and he says something specific: like above. Did anyone suggest he used the word "everyone." No. Then you end up chasing some other red herring or an insult about how everyone else is stupid. And of course it's not him being the stupid one.

Pretty sure they admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin was a farce.

Due to the Freedom of Information Act, papers have been released proving that the US not only knew that the Attacks on Pearl Harbor were going to happen, but they also provoked the Japanese into an attack

usmarine2 wrote:

I didnt say everyone had to be involved did I?  but use your heads.

Your asertion was that it be impossible to keep loads of people quiet (and I agree).  My point was if there is indeed any validity to these claims, then most of the people involved wouldnt have a clue what was going on.  To that end keeping a few high up individuals quiet isnt as difficult as an entire agency, or whatever they use.

Could anyone answer that btw?  Just for arguments sake.  How many people of a certain status would need to be aware of the ''plan''.

Martyn