• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
Jet fuel can burn at approximately 1000 degrees C. Steel retains TEN PERCENT of its strength after being heated to approximately 750 degrees C. Skyscrapers [i]are[/i] designed to collapse on themselves and vertically, it's smart city planning. The government didn't plan 9/11. You [i]are[/i] an idiot if you think this.
it got blown up just like the wtc itself the american government did it.
asplosions happenid
[QUOTE=Kade;24858501]There's no way the Bush administration would have been anywhere near smart enough to come up with what the conspiracy theorists claim, let alone the skills to pull it off. I mean come on, its the friggin Bush administration.[/QUOTE] They couldn't plant/make up sufficient evidence that they found/had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which would have made everyone say "ohhh, alright cool. I'm fine with the Iraq war now, he [i]did[/i] actually have nukes..." which would have been way easier than orchestrating 9/11...yet somehow his organization pulls off the most evil plan the US has seen? Seriously? That train of thought makes sense to some people?
[QUOTE=MFnRhino;24860413]Jet fuel can burn at approximately 1000 degrees C. Steel retains TEN PERCENT of its strength after being heated to approximately 750 degrees C. Skyscrapers [i]are[/i] designed to collapse on themselves and vertically, it's smart city planning. The government didn't plan 9/11. You [i]are[/i] an idiot if you think this.[/QUOTE] It wasn't jet fuel that started the fire in WTC 7, it was smoke that self ignited the building. Steel does retain alot of its strength after being heated enough, add the fact that the building didn't have any concrete core. Yes, scysrapers are designed to implode. I don't care if someones dad is an demolition expert at blowing up any building that are non-skyscrapers. You can't rule out that the government planned 9/11, though it is higly unlikely that they did. (Like 99% unlikely) They didn't really have a reason to start it, they already had reasons and the advantages of starting a war with Afghanistan/Iraq. (Barely passable arguements with Afghanistan, but they'd pass due to the fact that they still are the United 'motherfucking' States of 'fucking' America. Personal Objection below, no need to read if you don't want to read my thoughts. My guess would be that some powerful chap wanted some important files and documents destroyed, though since it all got destroyed I supose that he got what he wanted in that case. So the whole concept of some dude like the Rockefellers did it should just be ruled out, since there is no evidence to prove that it was any of his doings. (Rockefeller is just an example) it could be anyone, the whole 'World Trade Center' facilities contained alot of important stuff from all around the (guess what!) globe.
[quote=OP][IMG]http://www.freewebs.com/911reopen/wtc7wtc6.JPG[/IMG][/quote] You see, the big problem with this "proof" is that, if you look at buildings 6 and 5, notice how much shorter and wider they are compared to what building 7 looked like. A building that is shorter and wider will have a stronger base and less weight to hold up. A taller and skinnier building like building 7 would have been supporting much more weight than the other two, and would be much more likely to collapse. Also, consider that 6 and 5 were crushed from the top down, while the pictures from 7 showed that it suffered a gash on the side. A top down impact wouldn't have compromised the structure because the supports that were destroyed were destroyed along with the floors above them, so all of the floors that were not destroyed still had intact supports. The gash on 7 would have taken out the supports, but the floors above them would still be there, making the building unable to hold up its own weight, and imploding. This is common sense people, how hard is that?
Reality glitched.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=24858490#post24858490[/url] we can rule out FreeThinker as either extremely closed-minded or a troll imasillypiggy, I gotta say out of everybody on this forum I hate you the most your typing makes me want to cut my eyes out and your arguments have evidence 0% of the time it's not any of your beliefs specifically, it's just how you act like an eleven-year-old and refuse to leave your little thought-shelter and accept anyone else's opinion you've contributed nothing to this thread debate-wise and nothing anyone does will change the way your eleven-year-old mind thinks make an account without a retarded name and come back in five years, ok?
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;24865152]They couldn't plant/make up sufficient evidence that they found/had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which would have made everyone say "ohhh, alright cool. I'm fine with the Iraq war now, he [i]did[/i] actually have nukes..." which would have been way easier than orchestrating 9/11...yet somehow his organization pulls off the most evil plan the US has seen? Seriously? That train of thought makes sense to some people?[/QUOTE] I'm going to point out that nothing happens unless Congress is behind it and Congress doesn't pass anything unless the PEOPLE want it. We wanted to go to war with Iraq at the time for harboring our enemies, supporting and training them and allegedly having nuclear weapons (This last point is taken out of context quite often, they didn't have nuclear weapons, they had SCUD launchers and missiles capable of using a warhead and Iraq had been attempting to develop nuclear weapons for ten years by this time, which was our probable cause to invade, that the people supported) I'm not going to talk Politics anymore, it's mostly opinion anyway. I'm a bit better with this WTC stuff since it's all based in the realm of physics and facts.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;24870357]I'm going to point out that nothing happens unless Congress is behind it and Congress doesn't pass anything unless the PEOPLE want it. We wanted to go to war with Iraq at the time for harboring our enemies, supporting and training them and allegedly having nuclear weapons (This last point is taken out of context quite often, they didn't have nuclear weapons, they had SCUD launchers and missiles capable of using a warhead and Iraq had been attempting to develop nuclear weapons for ten years by this time, which was our probable cause to invade, that the people supported) I'm not going to talk Politics anymore, it's mostly opinion anyway. I'm a bit better with this WTC stuff since it's all based in the realm of physics and facts.[/QUOTE] Talking politics on facepunch is like repeatedly being punched in the face [sp]not a pun[/sp]. There's always someone with the complete opposite mindset that's very, very vocal about it. I stay the hell away from In The News now.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;24809519]"im 30 minutes into avatar and man james cameron is a cinematic genius!" :effort:[/QUOTE] No... no. Please. Just shut the fuck up. [editline]07:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=The Vman;24867944]You see, the big problem with this "proof" is that, if you look at buildings 6 and 5, notice how much shorter and wider they are compared to what building 7 looked like. A building that is shorter and wider will have a stronger base and less weight to hold up. A taller and skinnier building like building 7 would have been supporting much more weight than the other two, and would be much more likely to collapse. Also, consider that 6 and 5 were crushed from the top down, while the pictures from 7 showed that it suffered a gash on the side. A top down impact wouldn't have compromised the structure because the supports that were destroyed were destroyed along with the floors above them, so all of the floors that were not destroyed still had intact supports. The gash on 7 would have taken out the supports, but the floors above them would still be there, making the building unable to hold up its own weight, and imploding. This is common sense people, how hard is that?[/QUOTE] Finally someone who understands how buildings work.
lol im pstn frm phone i m crsh plene into u r hous lol
[QUOTE]On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debris"]debris[/URL] when the nearby North Tower of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center"]WTC collapsed[/URL]. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 p.m.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-fema-ch5-0"][1][/URL] The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 p.m.[/QUOTE] /thread
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;24808478]WTC 5 and 6 are covered in debris and heavily damaged, and yet still standing. Why did WTC 7 collapse despite being even further away?[/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that it was an Inside job? Because that seems very peculier to me. There maybe a great deal of significance to the reasoning behind the WTC 7 building collapse. You should do some investigating, Pull records of employees that worked there. Check for criminals or people of significant value or disvalue to the USA. I'm assuming your a local? I live in UK so Investigating my be difficult but maybe interesting also. [B]p.s[/B] If you find a VERY important fact, Go Public Immediatly or else "Certain Powers" may try and stop you. [B]p.p.s[/B] If you look at the towers collapsing you can see a sequence of explosions going off at an almost timed sequence. It seems somebody over looked this?
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24871046]:downswords:[/QUOTE] please read the thread
The true story about what happened to WTC7: WTC7 came home to find all of his brothers dead so he committed suicide. The end.
[IMG]http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/7274/wtc7wtc6.jpg[/IMG] [B]I just highlighted something looking suspisous, why were the 2 buildings labeled "WTC" flattened when there were buildings that are closer and were unscaved?[/B]
[QUOTE=OvB;24855810]Like the trillions of dollars we've lost from the war.[/QUOTE] the businesses still make money, why do you think oil is making so much money now [editline]06:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;24857661]How would that give anyone money, it's not like the WTC buildings crashing down instantly lined the pockets of rich people.[/QUOTE] it caused a war and war= money for the rich guys
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24871347]it caused a war and war= money for the rich guys...........[/QUOTE] .....Taking it from the poor guys It effected the whole western world! The United Kingdom and United States Military Forces were deployed almost instantly to Afghanistan to chase Osama Bin-faggot. From the neutral point of view, I think the terrorists won this. They bomb some of the most important financial buildings in the western world, they cause our Populations to be shocked by terror demorilising the public. It lead to our young Men and Women being sent out to fight a nearly unwinnable war. ever weak we see another soldier being send home in a bodybag, the media globalises it, spreading more "terror" through-out the population. The only way we can win this war is if one of our leaders has enough nads to press the BIG RED BUTTON! and turn there shithole caves to glass hallways!
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24871347]the businesses still make money, why do you think oil is making so much money now [editline]06:00PM[/editline] [B]it caused a war and war= money for the rich guys[/B][/QUOTE] huh Yeah it gives money to contractors and shit but it's not like killing the economy with a shitty war really helps wealthy people in the long run.
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;24871466]huh Yeah it gives money to contractors and shit but it's not like killing the economy with a shitty war really helps wealthy people in the long run.[/QUOTE] No it turns people into Tyrants, The rich get richer and more brutal, the poor get poorer and weaker. Leading envitably to the collapse of social stability. Which is the aim of a terrorist!
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24871398].....Taking it from the poor guys It effected the whole western world! The United Kingdom and United States Military Forces were deployed almost instantly to Afghanistan to chase Osama Bin-faggot. From the neutral point of view, I think the terrorists won this. They bomb some of the most important financial buildings in the western world, they cause our Populations to be shocked by terror demorilising the public. It lead to our young Men and Women being sent out to fight a nearly unwinnable war. ever weak we see another soldier being send home in a bodybag, the media globalises it, spreading more "terror" through-out the population. The only way we can win this war is if one of our leaders has enough nads to press the BIG RED BUTTON! and turn there shithole caves to glass hallways![/QUOTE] i donbt see what this has to do with this war making spme people alot of money
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24871318] [B]I just highlighted something looking suspisous, why were the 2 buildings labeled "WTC" flattened when there were buildings that are closer and were unscaved?[/B][/QUOTE] Dude... thats the U.S Post Office and the Verizon, they were not merely the same height as WTC7. And look at their constructions, they aren't skyscrapers. Please leave this thread.
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;24871466]huh Yeah it gives money to contractors and shit but it's not like killing the economy with a shitty war really helps wealthy people in the long run.[/QUOTE] well bankers make alot of money when people get poor
[QUOTE=Swemon;24871964]thats the U.S Post Office and the Verizon, they were not merely the same height as WTC7.[/QUOTE] [B]Neither were building's 5 and 6 but they still collapsed.[/B] [QUOTE=Swemon;24871964]Please leave this thread.[/QUOTE] After you, you Know all f##k all.
you two are about as stupid as the guy that sanded his own face because people called him ugly would you like to cite, from a reliable source, any single group or individual that made money directly because of 9/11? oh, you can't? shocking
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24872199][B]Neither were tower's 5 and 6 but they still collapsed.[/B] After you, you Know all f##k all.[/QUOTE] *cough* Firstly. Buildings 5 and 6 weren't towers. Secondly. WTC 5&6 were critical victims of falling debris from WTC 1&2. Thirdly. The terrorist attack was aimed for the WTC complex and not the buildings around it, AM I RITE?
swemon, we're arguing with the kind of people that believe in the slender man because they saw the marble hornets videos, hate to say it but it's not going anywhere
[QUOTE=cccritical;24872551]swemon, we're arguing with the kind of people that believe in the slender man because they saw the marble hornets videos, hate to say it but it's not going anywhere[/QUOTE] I noticed that like... the first time I ever contributed to a forum. This is the reason why I even post nowadays :v:
[QUOTE=cccritical;24872551]swemon, we're arguing with the kind of people that believe in the slender man because they saw the marble hornets videos, hate to say it but it's not going anywhere[/QUOTE] Wow, Wow, Wow! Hold your Horses, Slender man is my room-mate. [editline]03:16AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Swemon;24872480]*cough* Firstly. Buildings 5 and 6 weren't towers. Secondly. WTC 5&6 were critical victims of falling debris from WTC 1&2. Thirdly. The terrorist attack was aimed for the WTC complex and not the buildings around it, AM I RITE?[/QUOTE] Sorry for That Error, I didn't realise I called them Towers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.