BF2S Forums WTC #7 What the...?

You'd think someone would have remembered seeing someone dragging large amounts of explosives into the building, carefully wiring them with with miles upon miles of cabling to trigger them, then installing vast amounts of redundancy wiring and triggers etc. that would be needed if the initial attack destroyed the primany system. Obviously the explosives couldn't have been there for a prelonged time as they have a shelf life.

I don't see why the pancake theory fact is so hard to accept. If you watch controlled demolitions, the building is largely retains its shape while falling. As visible here:


You'll notice that although the building as a whole starts to lean slightly to the right, it doesn't exhibit the massive change of angle and deformity of a single part as evidenced in the famous picture:


It really is very basic science to determine that the crap flying out of the windows is not from simultaneous explosions but the floors pushing everything out.

Think about it. The ceiling collapsed to due the combination of a friggin' jet airplane crashing into the building and resulting fires that weakened the previously described unique core that really supported the entire structure. When the ceiling collapses, all the stuff between it and the floor has to go somewhere, but gas molecules can only be compressed so much and solids aren't any better. The only open way is to be pushed out (Think about when you drop a book onto a dusty floor, it's all pushed out from the book (AKA the ceiling)). I also just realized that the MIT guy was not convinced because he was timing how long it took the building to fall for a few seconds (not all the way), but that man should be fired from whatever job he had because it really is a matter of constant freefall acceleration. If you look at the rate of fall for the first second, you're just looking at the velocity and comparing it, saying "no way that will be in 10 seconds" but the speed of the fall of the building is always increasing. It's a basic physics concept taught to high school kids, but I guess that guy just forgot about it.

water does not exactly put out oil, hydro fluid, and fuel when it is on fire you know.

and the water lines were prolly cut eh?

oh fuck it.  whatever.

Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-19 11:08:24)

Bell wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

water does not exactly put out oil, hydro fluid, and fuel when it is on fire you know.

Since when was building 7 hit by a plane?

well I cant follow which building you people are talking about anymore ffs.

I am just trying to build a consistency.  I can conceed that the planes hitting the towers brings in a whole load of variables that it be a dis service to gloss over  Fine.  But, if 7 wasnt hit by a plane, it only caught on fire, then why was that fire so intense that it brought the building down?  Like I said the other buildings where engulfed in flames but stood up to it.  7 got off comparably lighter, yet it came down.  Buildings have burned far longer than 7 with visually worse fires but stood up to it.  From video, and pictures we can only see isolated fires on different levels. 

Martyn

Bell wrote:

I am just trying to build a consistency.  I can conceed that the planes hitting the towers brings in a whole load of variables that it be a dis service to gloss over  Fine.  But, if 7 wasnt hit by a plane, it only caught on fire, then why was that fire so intense that it brought the building down?  Like I said the other buildings where engulfed in flames but stood up to it.  7 got off comparably lighter, yet it came down.  Buildings have burned far longer than 7 with visually worse fires but stood up to it.  From video, and pictures we can only see isolated fires on different levels. 

Martyn

You need to do some research and see the actual damage 7 got. It didn't just burn....This building suffered severe damage and was put into the same situation as the towers. It suffered enough physical damage that all that it took is for one level to fail and it comes down. There are a lot of pics showing the damage it took....it wasn't and never was claimed to be JUST fire.

Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-07-19 11:47:59)

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Take a look at the buildings and the state they were in after the 3 bigger buildings collapsed around them. A fire of any kind wasn't going to do much more than already had been done and don't confuse people with all the numbered buildings. You asked what happened to all the other buildings and then say 7 wasn't hit by the plane....but take a look at the damage it did sustain and use some common sense.

Your telling me I cant be specific about the buildings because you cant follow a simple collection of numbers?  I am being factual about the buildings.  What do you expect me to say.  The little one, the medium one and then the zomg big one (with teh big pole on top)?  The buildings are given numbers so we can easily distinguish what one we are specifically talking about.  Not to confuse people.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Let's put all the stupidity aside for a moment and open up the brain. As Imortal posted awhile back in one of his earlier posts, the tallest building EVER recorded for controlled demolition was a 32 STORY building. So all of the sudden, 3 buildings (WTC7: 47 stories and the two main towers: 110 stories each) will all be taken down in one afternoon. So one of the greatest engineering feats of modern history is going to happen and you guys are going to tell me that our inept American government is capable of this, is capable of keeping every worker or person silent....BULLSHIT!!

I never stated this was a conspriacy.  Not once.  I am asking questions about it.  You and a lot of the other guys on here are too quick to jump on the omg he is crazy bandwagon instead of answering the question.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Use some common sense for God's sake. I would be more open to some kind of conspiracy if the word "controlled" was not part of it. I could understand a major explosion that brought it down, leaving a ton of questions but when you start to talk about a "controlled" demolition then common sense and logic go right out the door. You see, all the truthers claim a "controlled demo" and that is just absolutely impossible. The government could have saved some money and just planted one nice radiation bomb, set off by one person right down town. Simpler, just as damaging and a hell of a lot more cheaper and only a few people would have to be covered up.

Same responce as above.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

So our government is going to bring in tons and tons of demo material, plant thousands of charges, secondary charges, miles of Primachord...etc, etc. and do this all under the nose of everyone in the buildings or around the buildings and NO ONE is going to see or report anything? Our government is going to take down 3 buildings that even the most skilled demo companies have never even attempted?? I guess the terrorist are smarter than the general public around the world. You see it only cost them some plane tickets, some spare change for box cutters and a few losers to do what they did.

Your making these claims, not me.  Again, I am merely asking questions.  It is not my fault that you immediatly asociate my curiocity with a conspiracy.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Where has the logic and common sense gone in this world? You will accept all this conspiracy shit, unprecedented engineering, perfect cover up from beginning until even now over a few terrorists willing and able to high jack a few planes to crash them into certain buildings. I scratch my head because it is unbelievable how naive some of you are.

Same can be applied, if you told someone on september 10th that the WTC would be dust this time tommorow, they would tell u to stfu.  Things are only out of the question until they occur.  As such that is a complete bullshit argument, and only reinforces my earlier point, that you are much more content attacking the questioner, rather than the question.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

NO BUILDING OVER 32 STORIES has ever been taken down by controlled demolition. Take a look at what it took to even take down the hotel in Imortal's post #269 and then try to imagine the immense task it would have been to do that to 3 buildings immensely bigger than the all time record.  It is just not logical and total nonsense. A lot of you preach how idiotic our government is, how inept they are, how they screw up everything they touch and you expect believe to believe that it is capable of a perfect execution of a huge master plan beyond any engineering that has ever been done....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth, although, I am not of the opinion the govt is as dumb as people say they are.  Infact, to be fair, I think Bush is smarter than he is given credit for, afterall, he won two elections.  What I do find a bit difficult to believe is that these guys trained to be pilots, and then managed to pull off very specific aero stunts and hit 75% of there targets.  If it wasnt for the passengers rushing the terrorists that would of been a 100% success rate.  This wouldnt be as hard to believe if the attacks happened in quick succesion.  To go with the governments story, you have to accept there was a catastrophic failure of the military that day.  Where are the repercutions of this? 

In the 100 or so events each year when a plane goes off course, and fighters escort it down (am sure you hear about this all the time).  On the day the country is being attacked, they cant spare two jets to atleast follow the bastards?  Infact we dont even need that.  The ATC officers looking on there screens, seeing a plane in the area of the pentagon and the whitehouse would immediatly know something was wrong.  Not because of what they are seeing on television, but because its a no go zone.  You do not fly in that area.  But, no, fuck that, thats just crazy. 

I suppose Norman Mineta's statement about the officer telling the vice president that the plane is 50miles out, then 30 and then ten and his question, do the orders still stand is crazy aswell?  And Cheney  saying yes have you heard anything to the contrary?  If the president gave the order to shoot it down, and the officer was activly telling Cheney that the plane was coming in and the order still stood, then we can only assume that our airforce failed to follow orders.  Disiplined?  Fuck that, Bush promoted Richard Myers because he did such a good job protecting you and me.   Nah, dude, ofcourse am crazy, I mean the worlds most heavily guarded building, with a base literally minutes away has fuck all power to shoot that thing down.  And afterall, I am just insane, I mean my posts are littered with, zomg it was the government!



If it wasnt such a horrible day, and we go with your example of how this aledged demolition would of been an amazing feat of engineering.  By that same logic the accuracy of these terrorists has gone down went down as one of the best examples of pilot skill.  Out of there four targets, they hit three and got a bonous of building 7.  If anyone is taking credit away from the terrorists its the government.

If you are going to have a go at me, atleast argue with my questions, all you did was put words in my mouth and proceed to try and debunk claims I never made.  Am asking questions, it doesnt mean I am commiting treason, nor does it mean I am immediatly pointing the blame away from the terrorists to someone inside government.  For all I know the terrorist plot was much more indepth than we are told.  Is it beyond doubt that there where suicide bombers waiting to blow themselfs up?  My point is am asking questions.  If you cant answer them leave it at that rather than attacking me for having an inquisitive mind.

Martyn

usmarine2 wrote:

you are not just asking questions bell, stop acting innocent.  you are trying to prove the conspiracy, not dis-prove it in every post.

I have askes questions, and have been given answers.  I leave it at that.  I didnt say the answer didnt satisfy me or not.  I merely move on because I have a lot of them.  So because I have a few questions about the whole days events I am trying to prove some sort of master plan?

And btw, I noticed I started talking about the pentagon and the white house while he was talking about the WTC, but, hey what does it matter, am getting tared with the brush of being a nutcase as it is so wtf have I got to loose.

Martyn

Am just asking questions about it thats all.  If you look, av not said to anyone, well dude no your wrong because of *que utoob video*.  I've just asked questions about the day, which, to be fair are probably many of the questions that the conspiracy people ask, but it doesnt mean I buy into it.  I've looked at some of the links posted and it has answered atleast some of my questions, which was the whole point in asking them.  Even if I was pro inside job, I'd acheive sweet fuck all scoring points off people on here :\

Martyn

usmarine2 wrote:

well I am answering one of your questions about flying.

Thank you sweetheart

I just realized that there are a lot of stupid people in the world that don't live in trailer parks.

Bell wrote:

Your missing what I was trying to acheive about the pilots.  If we are going to reduce this to a pissing contest as to who has the most ludacris argument, my point was I could scue it in the reverse just as easily.  The point of doing so was to try and steer it back onto the factual links that you yourself and many others have given, so that people like myself who are not exactly convinced about all the details about 9/11 are being given to us.  As Carlin said shortly before he died, the government doesnt lie anymore, it engages in disinformation.  (< ooooooo, total rebel quote dontcha think?)

All your doing is taking claims of the conspiracy lot and trying to tie me to it.  I didnt say I believed what there saying.  As far as you are concerned I am either all or nothing for what the government said about 9/11?  Since when was the world as simple as that.  I can't question things without being some sort of conspiracy nut case? 

I asked questions, was given answers, and moved on.  Like I said to marine, did you see me trying to prove anyone wrong who gave an answer?  The ''worst'' I did was say something along the lines of, well if A happened, then how did B yada yada yada.  I dont need to defend myself against asertions I didnt make, again, you made the assoation (wrongly btw) with me and that point of view, which prompted my responce.  I dont mind being proven wrong, as its the whole point of asking questions.  If am going to be attacked for asking the questions then thats different.

Martyn

I really don't have a problem with what you say here. You have to understand though, it is fine and dandy to question authority, governments, etc. That is what keeps us free. But please understand that almost all truthers totally and solely blame our government and believe that the government is the only entity to blame.

All I am saying is that there is no doubt that passenger planes hit the towers, not some rocket or mysterious white plane like some truthers (not you directly) believe. I have seen the photos my friends took on site. I saw the plane parts and bodies of people who jumped from the towers in their pictures. The engine was massive and there was no question of what it was to them. So if the airline pilot didn't smash the planes into the towers, there is only one alternative and that is the terrorists.

As far as the towers falling, again, no building over 32 stories has ever been demoed before or since. The massive amount of material, people and explosives could never have been covered up so neatly....just impossible and again this isn't directed at you, just understand that this is the kind of work I do every day, it is what I am involved with for 20 plus years of my life. I am about to turn 39 years old and I my life experience in the architectural world just tells me all I need to know. It was very simple, simply done with some planning and dedicated individuals bent on hurting other people.

I could really go on and on why this conspiracy crap is such nonsense that it defies belief and flies in the face of the real truth and the real people who should be blamed get off the hook. Honestly it has nothing to do what the government tells me. I could care less what they have to say. I have enough proof among my work history, my colleagues in the field and the studies done by so many reputable people outside of the government. Question the government all you want, your wasting your breath on them because they had nothing to do with it.

Again, this is in general and not really directed towards you. I understand your point  and respect it.

wouldnt surprise me if the CIA had some sort of "self destruct" thing in case of an attack or something.  I would not call that a conspiracy, I would call that smart.