9/11 beliefs
#1
9/11 beliefs
who here believes the story as we know it and who thinks there is much more to the story that we don't know?
here's an interesting vid....one of many
HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL? - YouTube
here's an interesting vid....one of many
HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL? - YouTube
#2
I was right across the river from the trade centers, my now wife then girlfriend was on wall street at work. I tried to bicycle to get her but they wouldnt let me. I had to wait at the brooklyn bridge for hours for her. It prompted me to marry her(life is too short)
I dont think it happened on its own. I am a conspiracy theorist. Too many other buildings fell on their own, etc. I had my police scanner going the whole time & there were alot of secondary explosions unaccounted for.
The fire burnt for 8 months and covered my neighborhood with human ash for that long. It stank like burning flesh the whole time.
I dont think it happened on its own. I am a conspiracy theorist. Too many other buildings fell on their own, etc. I had my police scanner going the whole time & there were alot of secondary explosions unaccounted for.
The fire burnt for 8 months and covered my neighborhood with human ash for that long. It stank like burning flesh the whole time.
#3
If that building was brought down via planned demolition you would of seen and heard multiple explosion before it went down. Like this...
1515 flagler building collapses (at around 1:00 ) - YouTube
1515 flagler building collapses (at around 1:00 ) - YouTube
#4
Inside job.
Here's an amusing video of BBC correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC 7 unaware that it is still standing behind her. When it came time for the building to "collapse" her satellite feed mysteriously faded out just in time to keep the BBC from airing an embarrassing moment of having a building "collapse" live on air that was already reported to have collapsed.
Steel framed skyscrapers do not collapse at free fall speed in symmetrical fashion due to fires. Never have. Never will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
Here's an amusing video of BBC correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC 7 unaware that it is still standing behind her. When it came time for the building to "collapse" her satellite feed mysteriously faded out just in time to keep the BBC from airing an embarrassing moment of having a building "collapse" live on air that was already reported to have collapsed.
Steel framed skyscrapers do not collapse at free fall speed in symmetrical fashion due to fires. Never have. Never will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
Last edited by killer5280; 09-14-2011 at 09:32 PM.
#5
If that building was brought down via planned demolition you would of seen and heard multiple explosion before it went down. Like this...
1515 flagler building collapses (at around 1:00 ) - YouTube
1515 flagler building collapses (at around 1:00 ) - YouTube
Without sitting up all night and getting into details my 2 cents is that there are too many things that happened that day (and leading up to that day) that are suspect. And that makes everything that happened that day suspect. Like what? Do some research-the internet is a wonderful place if you can sift throught the bullshit. Since when has any other event in history like this one been as it seemed on the surface? I don't claim to know exactly the what and why, but like anything else I know the version we get skull frigged into our heads over the news is certainly not the full truth. God bless everyone who perished on that day, and anyone who lost friends and family there.
#6
I have serious doubts small fires brought down that building. Is it not possible that the seismic waves generated by two adjacent, 110 story, 500,000 ton buildings could of weakened the WTC 7, causing it to eventually collapse. I was watching something a few days ago that said the collapsing towers were picked up on a Richter scale 20+ miles away. I highly doubt New York has the same building codes as California.
Just sayin'....
Just sayin'....
#7
I have serious doubts small fires brought down that building. Is it not possible that the seismic waves generated by two adjacent, 110 story, 500,000 ton buildings could of weakened the WTC 7, causing it to eventually collapse. I was watching something a few days ago that said the collapsing towers were picked up on a Richter scale 20+ miles away. I highly doubt New York has the same building codes as California.
Just sayin'....
Just sayin'....
#8
It wasn't just the fires. Hit a building with an object that size going that fast (estimated 500MPH) there will be a massive amount of structural damage. Add in thousands of gallons jet fuel (the terroists chose planes going coast to coast so they'd be full of fuel) and those fires become very intense. The third factor which spelled doom was with that damage and the heat of the fires the weight of the building above the fires would eventually bring the buildings down. As proof the second building to get hit fell first but it was hit lower down the side. Damage, heat and more weight.
A few more thoughts. What is truely amazing is they took that impact and didn't fall right away! Good construction and design. Their fall registered on the Richter scale here in New Hampshire over 150 miles away not just 20 miles. The final thought is in the form of a question. Why would our government do it? I need a good answer here that can supercede physics, metallurgy, and structural design elements.
A few more thoughts. What is truely amazing is they took that impact and didn't fall right away! Good construction and design. Their fall registered on the Richter scale here in New Hampshire over 150 miles away not just 20 miles. The final thought is in the form of a question. Why would our government do it? I need a good answer here that can supercede physics, metallurgy, and structural design elements.
Last edited by NH-Raptor; 09-15-2011 at 04:09 AM.
#9
Can we please return to the denial that man actually walked on the moon? There are new photographs of the tracks and equipment that MUST be discredited. Once that is accomplished the work on more earthbound conspiracies can recommence.
#11
Well I don't think any of us are visiting the moon anytime soon anyways.. so who cares about it? I don't. Thanks for the ocean tides!
Moving on, here I agree with NH raptor (not just because we're both from NH) because physics just explains it. Maybe there were additional bombs planted by terrorists in the buildings, who knows. Those may account for the extra explosions. The buildings didn't begin collapsing at their bases (for all I've seen/know).
As for the BBC reporter, well I didn't watch the video due to me being here at work, but I think it could have been staged. Again, I didn't watch the video but if she is legitimately live on scene and saying that then I'm going to take up drinking for a hobby..
Moving on, here I agree with NH raptor (not just because we're both from NH) because physics just explains it. Maybe there were additional bombs planted by terrorists in the buildings, who knows. Those may account for the extra explosions. The buildings didn't begin collapsing at their bases (for all I've seen/know).
As for the BBC reporter, well I didn't watch the video due to me being here at work, but I think it could have been staged. Again, I didn't watch the video but if she is legitimately live on scene and saying that then I'm going to take up drinking for a hobby..
#12
I worked in tower four from 1996 until 9/11. I was in the financial industry then, but have been in construction since 2003. I'm not a structural engineer, but I work with engineers and architects every day and have some knowledge of how buildings work. The whole trade center complex sat on top of an underground mall that connected all seven towers. That mall sat on top of a giant subway complex, so the structure of the whole complex extended way underground. There was back-up power in all those buildings, meaning generators with diesel tanks or huge natural gas supplies, plus all the underground utilities. Tons of perfectly reasonable explanations for lots of secondary explosions, plus very intense fires probably burning deep underground that wouldn't be visible in street level shots of the buildings. I can easily see how that could have led to collapse of the structural elements at the very bottom of the other buildings and caused them to fall, pretty much within their own footprint. All of the above is conjecture on my part, but then again the conspiracy theories are all conjecture on the part of someone else, and this is what I believe.
#14
#19
I can agree with that. But I do think it was one of the many ingredients that brought it down. Along with the fires, (which do look small if you're only considering what you can see burning in the windows... but there is quite a bit of smoke for just those few fires, perhaps the were more in the interior) there was also all the debris from the closest tower (350 feet away) which destroyed the base of the building. All of these things would tell me not to go near that building for fear it would collapse... common sense, right? None of the footage I watched show the "tower side" of WTC7 anyway, instead they show the opposite side which looks undamaged from the collapsing towers.
#20
To date, WTC 7 remains the only steel framed skyscraper in the history of the world to collapse, at freefall speed into its own footprint, no less, from fire alone. That is if one believes the official story of 9/11.
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC Building 7
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: NIST's Explanation of WTC 7's Collapse
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
#21
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse
#22
It really happened. The BBC reported on the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened, and the reporter (and whoever was operating the camera), who obviously did not know what WTC 7 looked like and was just repeating what she had been told by some "official" source, gave the report with the building still standing behind her.
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse
#23
I could believe that the plane that went down in PA was shot down. I could also understand how it would be covered up. Just after watching the Twin towers fall, the country would not be ready to hear that the military had to take down a plan full of citizens. As for the building collapses themselves, airplanes of that size have never been flown into buildings that size. Buildings of that size and mass have never collapsed before or since. There's just nothing to compare it to.
If I believed that the government did it, I'd be typing this message from another country.
If I believed that the government did it, I'd be typing this message from another country.
#24
The empire state building was hit by a b25 Mitchell bomber after ww2 ... Which led to the design of the twin towers allowing for jet airliner impact...jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel... Video shows the fuel combustion occurring mostly on the exterior of the towers...aluminum aircraft would be shredded like a Ginsu knife would a beer can ... Where did the thermite that melted the structural members come from... Architects for truth have posed a lot of questions
I'm a for former fire fighter with an engineering back ground , it does not add up for me or over 80% of North Americans.
I'm a for former fire fighter with an engineering back ground , it does not add up for me or over 80% of North Americans.
#25
This - " it does not add up for me or over 80% of North Americans. "
Discredits this- "I'm a for former fire fighter with an engineering background"
If you think over 80% of North Americans believes the conspiracy then you are very out of touch with your country.
Hardened steel can (and is often) cut with water, which is softer than aluminum when in it's liquid state. A B-25 is not a 757 or anywhere close to the same mass (220,000lb vs 33,510lb MTOW) or speed (though I don't think a 757 can fly anywhere near the estimated 500mph @ sea level, VnE below 10,000ft is 250KIAS). There is no way to design for something like that. The two towers broke and collapsed at the points where the aircraft hit them.
" Video shows the fuel combustion occurring mostly on the exterior of the towers" as opposed to the video cameras inside the impact area showing what?
Discredits this- "I'm a for former fire fighter with an engineering background"
If you think over 80% of North Americans believes the conspiracy then you are very out of touch with your country.
Hardened steel can (and is often) cut with water, which is softer than aluminum when in it's liquid state. A B-25 is not a 757 or anywhere close to the same mass (220,000lb vs 33,510lb MTOW) or speed (though I don't think a 757 can fly anywhere near the estimated 500mph @ sea level, VnE below 10,000ft is 250KIAS). There is no way to design for something like that. The two towers broke and collapsed at the points where the aircraft hit them.
" Video shows the fuel combustion occurring mostly on the exterior of the towers" as opposed to the video cameras inside the impact area showing what?
#26
Old Yeller - no, I am not related to any delivery truck drivers in Queens.
I know there are some folks out there who know metallurgy and I think they can bring something to this conversation. Steel doesn't have to reach melting point to cause structural failure, it loses significant strength at temperatures way below melting point. Why would structural steel members have fireproofing materials applied to them if it were impossible for them to fail due to fire?
I know there are some folks out there who know metallurgy and I think they can bring something to this conversation. Steel doesn't have to reach melting point to cause structural failure, it loses significant strength at temperatures way below melting point. Why would structural steel members have fireproofing materials applied to them if it were impossible for them to fail due to fire?
#28
The facts are that collapse of a steel framed skyscraper due to fire has never happened before or since 9/11, when it happened three times, or so we are told. I understand that the twin towers were hit by planes, but the official explanations for their collapses are essentially fire theories.
There are numerous examples of skyscrapers being involved in much larger, much hotter and much longer fires than were the three buildings which collapsed on 9/11 at (near) free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance and none of them have collapsed. None of them have even come close to collapsing. Not one. The twin towers were the first of their kind and were massively overbuilt.
Isn't it amazing that the steel grates on gas stoves, which are subjected to much hotter temperatures than the structural steel was on 9/11 don't melt, deform or lose their structural integrity?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/****...are/fires.html
Last edited by killer5280; 09-16-2011 at 09:51 AM.
#29
None of them have even come close to collapsing
Jenga shows all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvUoz4OE-zQ&NR=1 broom handle = Airliner - No prechambering required ;-)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour.
Last edited by Wicky; 09-16-2011 at 10:03 AM.
#30
Ask yourself did any of the other steel frame buildings that never collapsed have a fully laden airliner hit it at 600mph 3/4 of the way up, which in the twin towers case caused a collapse initiated by weakening of the floor joists by the fires that resulted from the aircraft impacts. The floors detached from the main structure of the building and fell onto each other, initiating a progressive "pancake" collapse with the unsupported weight of the top quarter of the tower/s bearing straight down.
Jenga shows all Jenga 911 Truth Slow - YouTube broom handle = Airliner - No prechambering required ;-)
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Jenga shows all Jenga 911 Truth Slow - YouTube broom handle = Airliner - No prechambering required ;-)
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Plenty of people smarter than me have already asked that and found the official explanations wanting. The pancake collapse scenario put forth by FEMA in their initial shoestring budget study was discarded long ago, even by NIST, because it ignores the presence of the 47 massive core columns. NIST put forth the sagging floor truss theory, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, either.
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
The Jenga example is cute but laughable.
The thread is about WTC 7 anyway, a building which collapsed straight down at freefall speed into its own footprint through the path of greatest resistance at 5:20pm and was not hit by an airliner.