Do they say 6.6 seconds? Not that I recall. I haven't seen the video in a while, but as I recall, the 6.6 second figure is when WTC 7 disappears behind the other buildings.
I don't remember. This was settled long ago as far as I care. It was about that timeframe.
This is the most re ed drivel ever written.
Why would they target the Pentagon and not another civilian target?
And the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania -- why would they shoot it down (if it was their own plane)?
This re ed conspiracy theory is about 1000 times LESS BELIEVABLE than the conspiracy against OJ Simpson.
And, if this whole thing was staged to somehow justify the invasion in Iraq, then why go into Afghanistan first?
LIAR
End of thread.
I never said it fell from an office fire. To my knowledge, no building ever has. There was also clear structural damage.
I can only guess, but that doesn't mean you are right.
I demand an answer to you saying the WTC 1 debris couldn't harm WTC 7, but I showed two clear photos.
Just how did that damage happen?
You don't hate Arabs, you just blame them for mass murder.I have no hatred of anyone by religeon, ethnicity, or skin color. How can you possible extrapolate that from any of my postings without adding your own bias of others?
Possible but very unlikely. The only thing that supports that concept is the change in course that coincides with when the plane was trying to be taken back by the heroes on board. Fighting in the pit would easily cause the change in direction and al ude.
Blowing up a building isn't that difficult, and actually, it wouldn't require the care for such a conspiracy as is taken in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are carefully planed as not to have the buildings nearby being destroyed.
Now for the sequence of events to occur like they did, it would be a very controlled demolition and obvious traces of explosives would be found. Have you seen this:
link
Are you blind? Look back at the photo I included. Look again at the roof damage of WTC 6. The path from WTC 1 to WTC 7 has very clear evidence of massive amounts of debris slicing off the top floors, on a direct path to WTC 7.
Please, explain these two photos:
There is no undisputable evidence of that. There were no explosive traces found. If there were any thermite traces, other factors easily account for that. I explained that before.
Fire + steel = rust.
rust + aluminum + heat = thermitic reaction. The heat itself wasn't hot enough until you include impact of the building as it collapses. This is easily reproduced in experiments. The other components of commercial thermite were mot present in any where near the proper ratios.
There still is no evidence it was a demolition.
Where are the explosive traces?
Thermite would not be use. Shaped charges are used for cutting in a demolition, not thermite. Thermite is too slow to control.
Why couldn't pieces of WTC 1 have cut the core columns?
Look back at a past thread on this issue. I included a photo of the damage from WTC-1 before WTC 7 fell. Pieces of WTC 1 are clearly visible.
There is no evidence of this.
Really? Ever see molten steel? It glows. Photo evidence please.
It could have been molten aluminum as so many things in the building were made of aluminum, and it melts at a low enough temperature, and doesn't glow until well past melting. Steel doesn't melt until it is well past glowing!
It could have even been mercury from all the fluorescent tubes breaking.
Again, photo please. I never saw that one.
Now if it's this you are talking about, it is no more than here-say:
WTC Molten Steel
I think you must be talking about something else since this is from a single eye-witness, and to my knowledge, was unconfirmed second-hand information.
Does Peter Tully maintain that story?
There could easily be smoke coming from the base of WTC 7 well before the collapse. It started from the lower floors. The fire was there, and how many power transformers were in the building? Ever see one on fire, and what the built-in cooling oil does?
If you are talking about WTC 1 and 2, I say bull .
The Twin towers were blown from the top down, not a standard controlled demolition. The debris blow outward damaged the nearby buildings. The demolition was controlled to make it look like it started from where the fire was.
WTC 7 was a standard bottom up demolition, and nearby buildings suffered little damage.
The 9/11 Commission quietly admitted that the passengers never got into the pit of FL93. The pit struggle is fiction just like the Pat Tillman story and Jessica Lynch.
The photo you post where you boast about the material flying towards WTC 7, shows an upward trajectory of the debris. That's because the towers were blown up. It wasn't gravity.
As far as finding explosiver residue, first of all, expert investigators never got to the crime scene until a month after 9/11. They first got there just as we started bombing Afghanistan and the top layer of material was already shipped to Asia.
There is plenty of evidence of molton metal, many witnesses talked about it on site. There also the NASA thermal images showing hot spots from the explosives. The fires in the WTC did not go out until mid December, three months later.
I never brought up thermite, you did.
NIST will confirm that this was a controlled demolition some day, after Obama becomes president. Then they will shift the story and say the demolition of WTC 7 was engineered for safety reasons. Trail balloons have already been floated on this.
The only do ented damage of any substance to WTC 7 was the SW corner. This had nothing to do with the collapse.
The possible damage to the middle of the south face is not do ented, nor does it have anything to do with the collapse either. The collapse originated near the NE corner of the core, away from any debris damage.
The east Penthouse on the roof also fell 8 seconds before the rest of the building. This location has nothing to do with any fires or structural damage or fires at all.
The simplest scientific explanation, and the only explanation, is controlled demolition.
The building was blown up. Its that simple.
Do you deny that explosives explain the collapse of WTC 7?
Show me where I said there weren't hijackers, dumbass.
Rumsfeld: You know what Cheney?
Cheney: What?
Rumsfeld: Blowing up two 110 story buildings just isn't terrifying enough?
Cheney: What should we do?
Rumsfeld: Well, it would be 10 times more terrifying if we also blew up that 49 story building next to it.
Cheney: Oh, WTC 7?
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Cheney: Ok. I'll change the plans. And I'll throw in a Pentagon attack and we'll shoot down one of our own planes.
Rumsfeld: Sounds like a plan.
Have you read the thread. I've never claimed that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
They shot the plane down in PA because it got delayed in the runway for 40 minutes and did not have time to complete its mission. They were already pushing it at the Pentagon, trying to get peopel to believe our military couldn't intercept the planes.
The invasion of Afghanistan was already planned before 9/11. They wanted to establish a strong military presence in the region and set up oil piplines. teh Taliban would not ccoperate with the US. In April of 2001, we sent the taliban $43 million, voted on by congress. But they didn't do what Bush wanted.
What other civilian target is better than the Pentagon, smarty pants?
So there were real hijackers but the alqueda ones weren't the ones being hijacked. So the US, hijacked a plane crash it into their own buildings killing their own people so that they could show osama bin laden they got to it first right, and that they beat the alqueda terrorist to it?
FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, dumb . They ed up. They had to blow up WTC 7 because it was loaded with explosives.
There is no such organization as "Al Quada".
.... oh my gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahhahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How the would have that worked?
You are dumb numero uno!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
existentialist forum.
so if there were explosives in building seven to bring down the other two, why did the other two collapse before builidng seven.
According to your logic then the collapse of the original wtc buildings were legit. Building seven was supposed to have enough explosives to bring down the twin towers but it couldn't bring down Luigis pizzeria next door.
Oh wow, your insane.
Why? Why did they "have" to blow up WTC 7? Surely, if they could plant the explosives under the noses of thousands of employees they could remove them while everyone was distracted with the two piles of rubble a half block away.
So, where's your proof that 93 was headed to New York instead of Washington, as has been asserted?
You're quite a piece of work there Gal.
Not true.
Agreed. That's because it was not the only damage.
Do you deny it is impossible for debris to go through the third floor facing WTC-1, considering it sliced off parts of WTC-7 starting at the 18th floor?
Only two photo's to my knowledge exist showing this damage. I did link one in the past.
Just because you don't have any clear shots of that area doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I have seen a photo from before WTC 7 went down. There was clear WTC 1 debris in the photo, and a large hole in that face of WTC 7. I think I posted it in the thread about this long ago.
Search is disabled...
So you say. Others say with more logic that the internal supports were already collapsing.
Simple to the simple minded. Not the only explanation. To make such a statement is pure stupidity.
Where is the forensic evidence?
Explosives could be used to simulate such a collapse. However, if they were to do that, why not blame the Arabs for that too, saying they planted the explosions at some past timeframe?
Simple... There is no evidence that matches explosive charges. It is only the nuts who claim such a thing.
Not much hit WTC 7, yet it did clear damage to that corner from the 18th floor on down.
WTC 6 was not a tall building. In fact, you can find photo's with a WTC-7 search that shows WTC 1's reflection off the lower floors of WTC 1 from ground level at WTC 6.
Isn't it at least plausable that the lower floors of WTC 7 were hit by debris, with an extra 15 floors of distance to gain momentum?
Go ahead. Say it couldn't have happened. That will only prove you to be a fool.
all three towers had bombs in them. After the planes flew into them and started a fire hoping people would think the fire and damage caused the collapse. That worked for the twin towers. But WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and had only small fires.
why do you keep talking about the damage to the SW corner?
It has nothing to do with the collapse.
Do you have a problem? Keep repeating your nonsense.
So how did they plan to have the debris from WTC 1 appear to cause the damage.
That is real skillful explosives work. I suppose those who planted the explosives were killed so they wouldn't brag about their good work too. Where are the leaks? We always hear about government leaks. How can this large of a job remain so secret?
They wouldn't set it off after flight 93 didn't hit it if that was the plan, would they?
All this damage means nothing. the NIST report i already posted shows that structural damage has been ruled out and does not explain the collapse. the NIST scientists are trying to devise a fire theory. but there were only 4 small fires in WTC 7 after 3PM, and they do not expalin the collapse either.
The highest floor of any fire after 3PM was floor 13, yet the east penthouse on the roof collapsed. far away from any fire of debris damage.
Yopur bull doesn't cut it.
what's so significant about blowing up wtc 7?
Simple. You claim 355 ft. was too far away. That damage shows otherwise. Where the damage is known to be that did the destruction, you claim didn't happen, You say it couldn't, it was too far away, yet the corner was damaged.
Explain please.
dude, there were loads of explosives going off long before any tower collapsed. the plane crashes no doubt did cause some to go off early.
What's your point?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
